Starmer: Almost no-one is talking about trans issues

[SidewaysOtter]

To quote from the rolling news section of this morning's Times:

"Almost no Britons are “talking about trans issues,” Sir Keir Starmer has said as he questioned why such issues are a focus of political debate.

The Labour leader sought to win over gender critical campaigners and MPs at the weekend, telling The Sunday Times there would be “no rolling back” of women’s rights if the party formed a government.

Speaking to LBC this morning he repeated his position that “for the vast majority — let’s say 99.9 per cent — biology matters” in defining a woman. He said that Labour was trying to agree a “common sense, respectable and tolerant position”, but that it was “not prepared to ignore” the small number of people who identify as a different gender to the one they were born in.

He insisted it was a marginal issue for many voters, however. “As we go around the country campaigning, I talk to thousands and thousands and thousands of people. They want to talk to me about the cost of living crisis, about the fact they can’t pay their bills, they want to know what they’re going to do about their council tax,” he said.

“Almost nobody is talking about trans issues. I do sometimes just wonder why on earth we spend so much of our time discussing something which isn’t a feature of the dinner table or the kitchen table or the café table or the bar.”

Funny, because I think there's quite a lot of people talking about "trans issues". Whether it's the treatment of Posie Parker and the 72-year-old woman who were violently assaulted last weekend, male-bodied people in women's sports/changing rooms/hospital wards/prisons, the medicalisation/mutilation of young adults, or the vilification of those who speak The Terrible Heresy that you cannot change your biological sex. And yes, we're talking about it at the dinner table, the café bar or wherever.

"No rolling back of women's rights" doesn't mean shit if you count men as women, Mr Starmer. And you can wang on about "respect and tolerance" all you like but we know what you really mean by that is wanting us to be quiet and stop being awkward. That isn't going to happen.

The argument for women in the UK on the subject largely revolves around vulnerable women and children - particularly those from lower socio-economic groups who aren't politically active/involved such as women in domestic shelters, children in care, women in jails, disabled women, minority women, women from immigrant backgrounds and just economically poorer women.

And it's curious.

That's much more aligned with socialist values and liberal values than a hard right agenda.

Yet no one sees this.

Why? Cos this is the ground they want to squat on and colonise.

Funny, eh?

That's much more aligned with socialist values and liberal values than a hard right agenda.

This is my opinion too.

This is why I feel so badly let down by Labour on this.

Labour supporters who are accusing us of being secret right wing blah blah blah, either genuinely can't see this, or alternatively, do see it but are so tribal they don't care.

Why on earth have I been deleted when those 2 literally lie constantly and attack women on here for thinking twam? Saying gc women use darvo is disgusting. And so clearly designed to try to silence women speaking out about safety.

He's so out of touch - the erosion of women's sex-based rights and the insidious effect trans ideology has on free speech is a main topic of convo amongst my family and friends, although I am in Scotland. I hate the Tories but I will hold my nose and vote for them at the next election in the hope of ridding us of the Scottish Nasty Party and Labour. That's how strongly I feel. Kemi for PM!

@DadJoke if you believe the earth is round, the sky is blue, water is wet, and humans breath air, then welcome to the TERF side cos cooties apparently are catching 🤩

And being a more prolific poster on FWR MN than I atm, can I ask is it worth going full on right wing fash for the cash??

Muppet.

Don't be daft.

I don't know about Doyle, because he doesn't have a column in a National newspaper, but the comments under Janices article do not support her.

'Overwhelmingly', apparently.

And this comment is false when you pull away the superficiality of a comment about ‘supporting trans people’. Of course, we have been down this direction before. More than once I believe.

Women DO support transgender people! Absolutely. I would say most posters on FWR ‘support’ transgender people.

Where the dishonesty lies is that dadjoke here is using such a superficial overstatement to try to dismiss women’s voices. Because regardless of the tactic he is using, he is dismissing their voices. Partly through dishonest claims.

There are polls out there and very easy to find that show that when that ‘support’ is drilled down, that support is not unconditional. Sure, more women may say that they support males in female toilets than male people. But it is not the ‘majority’ of women giving unconditional support. It is still a minority and it is decreasing. Splicing this as ‘disproportionately’ support is actually a meaningless point to make.

Even more so when you consider that this ‘support’ is decreasing every single year as the ramifications of this previous support is becoming publicised.

It also doesn’t take into account the female socialisation that comes through in these polls.

However, what isn’t a surprise is how male people will use tactics such as this. It is emotionally manipulative in the context and in the delivery. Some could point out it is a tactic of a misogynist.

Words take on new meanings apparently.

What was it that Janice tweeted today with no thought as to the hypocrisy of what she was saying at all.... everyone can 'set their own rules'. Well that certainly will apply to what 'overwhelmingly' means.

I agree. I was speaking to the local Labour candidate about this years ago, long before the pandemic. I spoke to canvassers last year, who said that other people had raised it with them.

Well, my daughter and I talk about it; she and her friends talk about it; my partner and I were discussing it in the pub last night. Some men at the next table overheard us and joined in - complete agreement; we got talking to a 20 year old lad in the pub last month and he was talking about it (very refreshing to hear too!); my brother talks about it more than anyone else I know! Old school friends I've not seen in 20 years and who I bumped into brought it up. My friends in their 50s talk about it and my colleagues in their 30s talk about it. Male and female and from all socio-economic backgrounds.

In fact, my 25 yo son is the only person I've spoken to in years who doesn't see the problem with it.

So it's just not true that no one is talking about it.

I have contacted my MP to discuss it and he refused to meet with me. Perhaps that's what Starmer means by no one is talking about it?

"When your allies are MRAs, evangelical Christians, the Pope and the right wing of Tory party it takes some brass gonads to claim it’s a fight for women’s rights. The shear DARVO of it is audacious."

Well, considering only a minority are allies of 'evangelical Christians, the Pope and the right wine of the Tory party' (I doubt any significant numbers are allies with MRAs), I consider your post sheer DARVO. So, thank you for giving readers a live demonstration of what DARVO looks like on a feminism thread.

What a remarkable statement to make. For it to work, as it is an untargeted statement, it requires readers to believe that prioritising sex over gender when sex matters is akin to aligning with "MRAs, evangelical Christians, the Pope and the right wing of Tory party". And that there are enough women doing so to merit such a falsehood being posted here.

So, either women who are evangelical Christians, the Pope and [in] the right wing of Tory party are now deemed as never being able to be women's rights campaigners. Or there are enough women aligning with MRAs, evangelical Christians, the Pope and the right wing of Tory party. Or any women who prioritise sex over gender in the laws and policies that protect women and girls are aligned with MRAs, evangelical Christians, the Pope and the right wing of Tory party.

We have seen enough of these accusations to know there are some people who will believe one of the three. When the reality is rather different.

Readers: Very few women would be 'allies' with MRAs. Just because some MRAs hold the opinion that sex is immutable, does not make them allies of any women's rights campaigners or feminists. They are just MRAs with their own agendas and motivations. It is likely they are not shared by any feminist.

Some women's rights campaigners and feminists might be evangelical Christians. I would think more would be Catholics (who may not be evangelical) so would no doubt qualify as 'allies with the Pope'.

I suspect that the poster is alluding to the statement from the Pope that Gender Identity ideology can be harmful. Again, just because the Pope says this, doesn't automatically mean that any woman is 'allied' with the Pope. The Pope will have his own motivations and agendas here.

And I notice that we are now attempting for some truth in making it clear that there is a wide range of political belief in the Tory party. Great. There are some women right's campaigners and feminists who are in the Tory party. Some of these will have what is considered to support 'right wing' economic theories. I reckon there will be women in that group who would call themselves feminists and women's rights campaigners. Yet... here we have a male poster declaring that they cannot be. Based on that male poster's own political belief.

Not all feminists and women's rights campaigners are fully 'left wing'. It is remarkable that this needs to be pointed out. How wonderful is it that the world will continue to turn despite some feminists holding a range of opinions and that some may not be strictly 'left wing'.

But hey, who am I to get in the way of a man scolding women and using false claims to do so. I mean... 'audacious' right?

Boomboom you are right. Sometimes some posters use an accusation of DARVO to silence the women who disagree with them. We have seen this before, and it has been used in this way on this thread.

Indeed

The failure to recognise biological and the importance of sex to the medical treatment of trans people is a problem. It is not bigotry to point this out. You risk harm to trans people if it's not taken seriously.

The failure to recognise the side effects of surgery and drugs on trans people is a problem. It's not bigotry to point this out. It's negligence to fail to address the impact and the long term consequences.

The failure to acknowledge that people with autism, a history of abuse or trauma or are homosexual are being pushed on a conveyer belt of medicalisation is a problem. It is not bigotry to point this out.

These concerns all come of a place of caring about those involved. It's not coming from a place of wishing ill on them.

. Quoted wrong post

Genuine question here: what does "support transgender people" mean in a context where "sex based" spaces are rigorously enforced and the right of people to use sex based pronouns and names is protected?
I honestly want to know!

I can see how I personally would maintain a GC position and support trans people (along similar lines to Janice Turner and the Labour proposals) but on here my position appears to come across as a TRA and labour activist.

So I would honestly like to know how more GC posters think "support for transgender people" would work.

Does 'support trans people' require welcoming men into single sex female spaces regardless of the impact on the females in there and the exclusion of females as a result?

Genuine question.

This is kind of it. This is not a reasonable demand, it does not work for women, and one could equally demand of the TQ lobby do they support female people in that same accusatory tone.

Which gets us straight to the bottom line.

There are many ways to support trans people.
Sacrificing women's rights and inclusion cannot be one of them, this is neither reasonable nor sensible.

So let's be clear. Does 'support trans people' actually mean 'harm women to prove you love trans people more?'

Where you've got yourself really confused ia your lack of understanding of what 'supporting trans people' means. Of course trans people should be able to live a life free from harassment and actual discrimination. Of course it doesn't matter of a man puts on a frock and some make up. That doesn't mean it's ok to obliterate women's sports, lock up men with women, remove all access to female only rape crisis supports and obscure medical language such that women's health is at risk. You're OK with the removal of women's rights though and the rapes which have happened of women when TW were allowed into their spaces (to be clear for the hard of understanding, I'm not saying they're more likely to do that than any other male but we know that being TW does not change male pattern offending) so it's not just your allies you need to watch out for, it's yourself. Your moral compass is not functioning and you're not acting in ethical ways.

We could have used the last twenty years to increase acceptance in each sex class

Males and females whatever the presentation

No falsification, no mangling language, no children damaged

Yes.
Anyone can be as ‘masculine’ or ‘feminine’ as they want regardless of their sex, but they can’t be the sex they aren’t.

No pretending. No falsifying laws.

I studied feminism a long time ago - with the excellent Shelia Jeffreys no less - and it seemed we were in a solid place at that point.

It all went downhill after that with new falsifying laws

What a mess we have created. Especially for children and women

Women DO support transgender people! Absolutely. I would say most posters on FWR ‘support’ transgender people.

I was responding to this. What do you think? Would you say you support trans people? How does your support manifest itself?

Genuine question here: what does "support transgender people" mean in a context where "sex based" spaces are rigorously enforced and the right of people to use sex based pronouns and names is protected?
I honestly want to know!

So from this am I right that you do not support single sex spaces? In order to support trans people in your view then they must be allowed free and unfettered access to any and all spaces, services, sports, etc., of the sex they wish to be? To demand that language is changed solely for their benefit and to the detriment of women and girls, to impose dehumanising terms and descriptors on women (as they never fuck about with changing the language for men)? To compel people to use the language they demand, to believe in the lie they have in fact changed sex and facilitate it?

Why is it so abhorrent to you and @DadJoke that women should want and have provided spaces and services that are male free, all males even those with a piece of paper falsifying their sex?

I can see how I personally would maintain a GC position and support trans people (along similar lines to Janice Turner and the Labour proposals) but on here my position appears to come across as a TRA and labour activist.

What are these Labour proposals?

So I would honestly like to know how more GC posters think "support for transgender people" would work.

Support them to be transgender ensure they are not discriminated against for being transgender.

I can certainly understand where some of the arguments come from regarding pronouns (the slippery slope metaphor) and I won't use 'preferred pronouns' but I know that there's many reasons (workplace pressure, wanting to keep family peace, wanting to avoid confrontation etc) that other people would use them. I don't like compelled speech in general. I have seen some of the ongoing arguments and despaired but I can see why it is a contentious issue.

Again, I can understand the mistrust of Hayton given that Hayton was a major contributer of the NASUWT guidelines which do impact on single sex spaces and doesn't appear to have rowed back on them while declaring themselves an ally. It is incongruous. It's also a silly argument that if a TW is 'nice' enough, that they somehow 'deserve' access to single sex spaces.

And unlike gender ideology, where threats/violence against women are a feature rather than a bug, even the author of this article acknowledges that the (abhorrent) comments about gay men etc are a rare example. To say that there is a equivalency is just silly.