Keir Starmer - Trans Rights Can't Override Women's Rights

[chevvyroo]

In The Times

Seems like he's done a strategic U turn. I bet at least he's glad he can stop dodging the "what is a woman?" question.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/6841074a-d0a9-11ed-85a8-caaa67d15364?shareToken=2360ce9b239c4fae805bc8364adaea73

So that's how he's trying to woo Stevenage Woman? By weaselling saying 0.1% of women have a penis?

I'm not entirely sure it's a winning strategy.

Can someone who’s happy about this say more on why

If 0.01% are still women then they get to be in women’s spaces.

I’m not sure he’s budged at all

Yeah, anyone saying that they believe in safe spaces for women, it's kind of ambiguous these days if that includes people with a penis, or even a full beard.

I'm a lifelong left-wing voter. I want the Tories out and Labour in. That's good enough for me 😀 there's other things to consider when choosing the leadership for the next 5 years.

So you're telling me that 0.1% of women have penises, Keir. Don't be such a silly chump.

34,000 lady penises in the UK, Keir?

That's a lot of girldick.

In which spin doctor's alternative reality is "99.9% of women do not have a penis" different from "not all women have a cervix"?

So many want the Tories out because they tell lies and can’t be trusted. Yet Labour support an absolute untruth and still can’t be trusted on their position re either supporting female rights or trans womens rights. This is basic stuff.

Why does Kier Starmer think it's okay to patronise women like this? Because that's what he's doing. A blatant piece of mansplaining! 'Poor little women don't understand '. It's unbelievable. Never look down on people you want to vote for you. And don't pat them on the head either, not even metaphorically. It's not a good look.
Yet another previous Labour voter.

48,000 according to the ONS

🍆 🍆🍆🍆🍆🍆🍆🍆🍆🍆🍆🍆🍆🍆🍆🍆🍆🍆🍆🍆🍆🍆🍆🍆🍆🍆🍆🍆🍆🍆🍆🍆🍆🍆🍆🍆🍆🍆🍆🍆🍆🍆🍆🍆🍆🍆🍆🍆
x1000

That's a lot of 🍆

This has just been discussed in the press preview on Sky News. Jake Wallis Simons speaking for the many, not the few. The language is shifting back to terms like "sex you were born". Fingers crossed that common sense is returning.

It's a massive no from me. He's trying to get out of a political hole. I don't trust him and I don't believe him.

I took that to mean “of course the 99.9% of biological women don’t have penises!”
and leaving the main point “but the 0.01 of non biological women do!” unsaid.

He was not saying “ALL women do not have penises”. So no change from what he said before.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/apr/01/stevenage-woman-vital-to-labour-success-at-next-election-analysts-say

Of course there’s no connection between this analysis and the change in language…. Hmm.

What’s to stop them from saying what’s needed to woo the Stevenage women and then changing their mind again once they win the election?

As if Tories give a fuck about women's rights 😂.

They are just much cleverer at reading the landscape and don't have so many woolly liberals (of which I have been) in their midst. It's complex as a liberal as usually we back the underdog, the excluded and the minorities. Obviously this issue is more complex as there are two underdog groups at play. The Tories don't give a toss as long as they keep their majority. They will win at culture wars.

I want to vote Labour but how can I? This is so duplicitous. I think he knows clued up GC women will see this for what it is. But the intention is to dupe those women who are concerned, but not really across the detail, with the right mood music. It is somewhat clear that once he’s elected, keeping his party united (and in particular keeping happy the misogynistic Momentum bros who it seems would enjoy screwing women over now they’re being forced by the leadership to leave Jewish people alone) will be more important than keeping women happy - it’s another 5 years to the election when he needs our votes again.

Blimey. Christina Patterson on Sky Press Preview also pushing back hard on trans ideology following the Sunday Times article. The expression of such views would have been unthinkable 12 months ago. That pendulum really is swinging back towards reality. And not before time.

Not enough. What is really infuriating me is how he is STILL leaving Rosie Duffield to face all the vitriol alone, it's not even about the issue anymore, it's the hanging women out to dry. Reminds me of Luciana Berger, when he was in Corbyn's cabinet he never had the bravery to speak up, only became vocal after he became leader. He's a weak man. You don't even have to agree with Rosie to say 'Stop with the misogynistic witch burning.' He won't do it. I want politicians with principals.

Either Keir still doesn't understand this issue at all, or he still thinks he can appease both sides.
I'll assume that staffers are charged with seeing the reaction to this latest attempt to pour oil on troubled water. This thread, twitter and the Times comments section should leave them in no doubt it ain't going to cut it.

100% of women are biological females Keir, and there's not a single penis amongst them. Not 99%. Not 99.9%. Not 99.999999999%. And you really need to get a grip on the difference between sex and gender.

Any less than a 100% and you will not be getting my vote. And believe me, thousands more women are peaking every day and this is a red line issue.

He still thinks he can appease both sides because he doesn't understand this issue at all.
Labour say they will modernise the Gender Recognition Act. One suggestion I keep seeing is the removal of the clause that allows you to divorce your spouse before they transition.
They haven't realised it means they support forced marriage and retroactively changing a contract, because they don't know what they are talking about.

They don't understand what they are talking about because they are only listening to one side.

What a joy this thread is. And what a twonk Starmer is .

Flannel, obfuscation, lies, untruths - none of it works any more Starmer..
Only the clear truth - women are adult human females and transwomen are only transwomen.

Have any of us considered that Starmer is a trans ally, maybe not full-on Rayner Nandy levels, but highly sympathetic. And this language is his attempt to obfuscate and appear skeptical in winning over Middle Britain, while keeping the party on board?

with this statement Starmer has managed the difficult trick of pissing off everyone-TRA's, women, everyone. The bloke is a tactical genius I tell you.

Brexit is the nearest equivalent, he's had to dance on the head of a pin to appease Leavers, while knowing his Remainer base will likely stick with him.

Gender is an even more zero sum game than Brexit. But here he's happy to appease Middle England that is broadly GC, but not hyped up as we are, and certainly not across the detail.

He's hoping he can say to his activist base that he's not abandoning a broadly trans friendly approach, telling the Middle that he's moderate, and happy to sacrifice our vote, banking on us not being pivotal in any one constituency.

Im sure that is correct. However, he will have to nail his colours to the mast one way or the other-anything other than full fat "TWAW" will have Bloko haram throwing (another) hissy fit, whereas equivocation on single sex spaces will cause at least a significant percentage of half the population to hesitate to put their X against their names in the ballot. Do the fucking maths Starmer!