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.

Excellent post.

Support them to do what?

What does 'support' mean?

Am I in favour of people who identify as TQ having the same legal rights and entitlements as everyone else? Absolutely. Am I in favour of people who identify as TQ not experiencing prejudice or discrimination in ways that breach the law, in the same way I'm in favour of no group of people experiencing prejudice and discrimination in ways that breach the law - and I'm adding that rider because 'prejudice' and 'discrimination' are used as words very freely to mean all sorts of things beyond their original purpose.

Have I spent years organising and running an LGBT group which has met all kinds of needs including an immediate listening ear, advice, sign posting to resources, somewhere for the lonely to go at difficult times like Christmas, yes I bloody have. A number of whom identify as TQ.

Do I think that means women's rights and child safeguarding should be sacrificed? No, I don't.

Do I think that the only moral answer I will settle for is answers that work for everyone? Yes I do.

And that would be because I support everyone as opposed to having picked a team. And for that lack of bias and not subordinating other interests to the TQ political ones, I would be burned as a witch and called names.

I don't support that.

gail I'm pretty sure we've been on threads before. But giving you the benefit of the doubt:
I support single sex spaces where women need them for safety and dignity. I also support trans peoples rights to be treated as their acquired gender where there is no risk to womens safety/dignity of that happening. I would like to see the GRA and GRC process used more to give people an official trans status; I'm fully aware this means updating it so people have to declare their GRC.

I'd like to see the exemptions in the EA properly used.

I think then it would decrease the number of males claiming to be trans for nefarious purposes (because they would need a GRC). Then we would be able to have more confidence in the status quo. I was always happy with the status quo - it was when self identification was mooted and we started seeing males put in womens prisons, lack of accuracy in journalistic reports, males in womens sports that I started to have an issue.

Labour policy is woman = adult female, better legal advice on how to apply the EA for employers and service providers, protection for single sex spaces for biological women only, modernising the GRA so it is less bureaucratic but maintains safeguarding by requiring a medical diagnosis of dysphoria. This all aligns with my position and seems sensible.

I'm fully aware it's possible for others to pick holes about "exactly what do you mean" and bring up loads of scenarios. I'm not going to play that game, just to save you wasting your time.

If there are times and places that you are happy to (and privileged enough to be able to) use a mixed sex women's space that's great.

Other women can't. I will not stand by and watch women excluded so that men's self expression is valued over the equality of women, and the women who can't do that are just excluded from society. I will also not stand by and watch the sexism being enabled of a woman's 'no' and 'I don't consent' being dismissed because man with wants. The price of a woman's access to daily life should not be indulging a man's inner sense of self. Should it?

Or do you support that? (Since you're requiring statements from everyone else?)

I can't think of a single women's space which isn't needed for privacy or dignity other than those needed to level the field (e.g all women's short lists, women's sport). are you saying that you think it's fine for natal males to be in those places? Can you outline which female spaces we should allow to become mixed sex? or at least a handful of examples.

I'm sorry, I don't fully understand what you are asking me?
You are making it sound like I support mixed sex spaces. I don't support it, women need single sex spaces for dignity or privacy. As I said.
Neither do I support the idea of single sex spaces just cos people said so. We've seen how historically men have excluded women from spaces in order to limit their influence (golf clubs, masons, gentlemens clubs). Let's not shoot ourselves in the foot by allowing that to happen again.

I also think there are various religious elements who would love full sex segregation (the Taliban anyone?). Let's not put in place legal structures they can exploit to isolate women.

No, because I was asking what "support to transgender people" posters were providing. Noone has said anything really. Support for them "not to experience discrimination" is kind of non specific.

We've also seen arguments from some posters that the 'legal females' (i.e. those with a GRC) should be able to access all female single sex spaces.

So the 'reasonable' suggestion that a GRC is required still results in the same issue I.e. women being excluded from the services and spaces they need because those spaces are mixed sex.

what do you mean 'no'? no you won't answer my questions? no you don't think males should be in women's sports? no you can't think of any female space which you think should let males in?

In terms of support, if I saw a TW being harassed and they looked in need of help, I'd want to intervene (if it were safe for me), or call the police. Same as if I saw others being harassed on account of their characteristics. Can you give us specific examples of how you support women. I mean actual women not TW.

And by single sex you mean just real women, not males with GRC? you know that makes you a TERF yes? according to the MRAs.

No I'm not answering your questions. Go read the "let's have a poll" thread, all the info you need is there.

I support women by donating to womens charities, mentoring women at work and school, challenging misogyny and misogynistic behaviour wherever I can. Being feminist is very core to my life.

For someone who spends so much time on this board Adam, you seem to have missed some very basic issues. A piece of paper does not turn a man into a woman.
As the police discovered when they had to withdraw their Stonewall advised "guidance " that a man with a GRC stating he had magically become a woman could intimately search women and girls. As the press and public clearly commented, this was an invitation for born males to sexually assault women and girls. Hence their speedy removal from public scrutiny. Oddly enough I couldn't find any comment from Starmer about this.

Until Labour returns to being a party that openly stands against sexual VAWG, my decades of support for them is removed,

It's odd not to answer a simple question tbh and unless you mean natal women by 'women, then your support means very little tbh. Obviously women who actually care about natal women can't support trans charities directly because they are all based on a false definition of woman which is misogynistic and dangerous. But other tha that it sounds like the same support people here will give to people who identify as trans. Plus many of us continue to challenge the oppressive stereotypes without which the concept of trans is not valid (therefore doing away with them would solve any dysphoria or desire ro be the opposite sex).

I haven't "missed it", I'm just fine with the idea that some people are compelled to transition and we need a way to support those people while safeguarding from predators.

The inappropriate application of the law by e.g. the police is a different thing.

I'm allowed to disagree with the majority view you know. I thought this board was about supporting womens voices.

Haha you are so reaching.
Woman = adult human female
It is possible to be feminist, gender critical and not 100% trans exclusionary. In fact its more common than you like to think.

I’d like to include people. Everyone in my sex class

And for men to do the same

You are allowed a different view of course. And if it's that males should be in women's sports, short lists, protected spaces, prisons, rape crisis centres, then we're free to think your views are immoral and not worthy of respect. There's nothing about people feeling compelled to present themselves according to their idea of how the opposite sex present which justifies any of that. Safeguarding TW from predators is important and that needs to be done in male spaces in order to safeguard women from predators, which is also important.

what do you mean by trans exclusionary? I don't think trans people should be excluded from anything. TW should be fully welcomed in all male spaces.

In fact we seem to have lost the wording for what that is

No one is ‘excluded’

All males - make up a broad sex class

and for women

Sorry, just need to add that this board is not about supporting women's voices in an indiscriminate fashion and those which are considered abhorrent to most civilised people (e.g. making women's spaces mixed sex) of course will be robustly challenged given the vast evidence of the dangers associated with that.

Oh for goodness sake.

If you seriously cannot see why women would like time and space without men (lesbian groups, book clubs) because you think it's opening the door to religious segregation then I can't help you.

What we have now isn’t working.

We tried with a GRA approach and the outcome is bad for women and children

Revisit and go another way, sex based not gender

The inappropriate" application of the law is not a "different thing". It's absolutely central to this misogynistic view of society that views the bodies of women and girls as available for men to access - whether via enforced intimate searches or in single sex spaces where women are unclothed. It's baked into this ideology - which is why certain sections of our dysfunctional police forces (and transactivists) are so very keen on enforcing it.

I support the right of trans people to be able to use the facilities for their biological sex without fear.

I support the right of trans people to not be discriminated against because of their choice of clothing, name, hairstyle etc. (As long as the same standards are applied for everyone).

I support the right of trans people to live their lives free from abuse or violence.

Essentially I support the right of trans people to have the same rights as everyone else (which they do).

I do not support the right of trans people to insert themselves into single sex spaces intended for the opposite sex as enshrined in law by the Equality Act.

Clear enough?

I also think there are various religious elements who would love full sex segregation (the Taliban anyone?). Let's not put in place legal structures they can exploit to isolate women.

Oh please, various religious women are already self excluding and withdrawing from society due to the fact that because of this ideology they cannot be confident that single sex spaces such as toilets, changing rooms, swimming sessions will not have males in there. What do you suggest they do? Dispense with their deeply held religious beliefs?

Third spaces were a possible solution BUT we are dealing with a cohort of people who when these are available will not respect this and indeed go out of their way to use the female spaces and then brag about it on Twitter. Their spite is causing more and more women to be excluded from society.