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.

Those trying to defend the indefensible are all over the shop as there are no ethical coherent arguments for why women's rights to privacy, safety from males should be breached. No acceptable arguments why children should be subject to trans ideology in schools. No coherent explanation as to why labour are incapable of stopping transactivists bullying women out of the party. Hence Starmer's "nobody's talking about this" claim rather than finding the courage to address the mess labour are in.

It really would help the conversation if you could list 'women's' spaces which you feel should be mixed sex by allowing TW in and explain why you think TW but not other males should be let in.

And please don't hide behind 'I've explained it on other threads' because you really haven't.

Or a lesbian booking a venue for women only lesbian speed dating?

In those cases there’s (arguably) no threat to women’s safety/dignity but they’d like to not have any men, the biological kind or the kind holding a GRC.

So you really think that a male attending a lesbian dating session isn't a problem and doesn't pose a threat? Really?

no? so we just have a GC Terf lecturing others on the idea that book clubs should include males even if they purport to be for women and because you belive that, you're morally superior to others?

OK. I'm getting my flameproof coat on

Personally I dgaf about TW using womens toilets at work. Everyone knows who they are, they are unlikely to be pervs and if they do anything out of order they are putting themselves in a position to be sacked.

Less comfortable about public toilets due to the anonymous nature, but i also think they are risky anyway as impossible to police. So im ok with TW in the ladies, nit happy but alright.

Shop fitting rooms, don't care if TW use womens ones. I wouldnt want a TW to do a bra fitting for me, id want to reserve the right to say "no thanks"

Dont care about TW joining feminist networks at work. They can knock themselves out.

Happy to use preferred pronouns except for sex offenders.

The amount of posts..

And I still have no idea which spaces they think males should be in

Rude. I don't believe I'm "morally superior" to others. You are projecting.

Nothing! I just don't know how that squares with "supporting trans women". For some reason noone seems to want to answer it.

At least I'm putting my opinion out there.

OK. this is a start. so men are unlikely to be pervs. most men aren't. TW seem to be perva at about the same rate as other males. So yes, most aren't. But some are. So why not have open changing rooms because most men aren't pervs?

some women now can't use the ladies because it's now socially acceptable for some to have TW in there, e.g. EI writes about intimating teens in the ladies and does not get roundly condemned. So you might be OK with TW in the ladies but are you OK with some women being increasingly excluded from society because there might be a male in them?

What the rationale for single sex changing rooms if you then let some of the opposite sex in?

Your posta, e.g. having a go at others for being '100% trans exclusionary' very much come across as moral superiority.

I'll answer it. What's the actual question?

The "rationale" as you put it is that some people have severe dysphoria and want to transition. Not many. Only about 5000 people have a GRC. But I am happy for those people to have some access to sex based spaces.
I'm totally against self ID and would not be happy with TW in other single sex spaces.

Maybe now you can answer my question about what "supporting transgender people" means if you believe they can only be treated as their birth sex?

How can you tell who has a GRC?

That's a poor rationale because it completely fails to address the reasons why single sex spaces were set up in the first place and the impact this has on women. It's male centric, anti equality and unjustifiable. I already answered that question and will find the post to repost because you seem to be struggling to follow the thread.

Oh for goodness sake.
Why ask questions if the answer is never good enough?
All these options need changes to be made, I've already said I would make the GRC declaration.
You can't keep all males out of women's spaces at the moment either!

Here you go @AdamRyan reposted because you seem to have missed this.

I've already said I would make the GRC declaration.

No idea what you mean. What’s this?

Thats what conversation is @AdamRyan why are you so threatened by it. I'm asking you to explain your rationale. Why the refusal to do so. I'm genuinely listening and always up for changing my mind but not ont he basis of the banal 'be kind' (to males and fuck women) why you've outlined here. If there is a coherent rationale, I'd like to hear it.

No I saw that, but I wouldn't count that as "supporting trans people" because it basically just is being a decent human and not an arsehole. It's the very lowest level of support someone could expect.

You also can't prevent all rapes but that doesn't mean we roll over and say let's make it legal then.

Your version of supporting TW hurts women so you don't even meet that threshold.

This seems to contradict this

I've already said I would make the GRC declaration.

Can someone make sense of it?

Quoting this because AdamRyan keeps saying no-one has explained how they would support Trans people.

I'm not trying to change you mind, I'm expressing my opinion in response to repeated requests from you and others that I do so.
As usual, all that happens then is personal attacks and further questioning. Boring.
I am allowed to have my own opinions on this.