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.

You can have opinions but they’re contradictory unless you clarify

I also said that I work, like other women, to challenge the gender stereotypes without which trans ideology is meaningless and there is nothing for trans people to feel constrained by. I think that's the most meaningful support. Wear what you want, choose whichever career you want, have whatever personality you want. No judgement. No gendered expectations.

What nonsense. You express yourself poorly, refuse to clarify and then act like a wounded soldier when people try and help you to see where you've been unclear. Objecting to 'further questioning' is a bit pathetic tbh and you've been subjected to no more personal attacks than you've handed out. It's quite frankly boring to hrsr you keep say that you're entitled to your opinion. Your opinion, like everyone's, can lead to real world outcomes so yes you're entitled to your opinion but when those opinions are supporting anti women actions, others are entitled to challenge them and state opposing opinions.

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?

That just makes no sense. Trans women have always used the ladies. It’s not like it’s a new thing. But more confusing to me is toilets have had opposite sex cleaners for as long as I can remember. Why the big fuss about trans women, when male cleaners are routinely present anyway? If people are concerned about men in the toilet, I don’t understand why they aren’t more concerned about men dressed as cleaners??

There.are signs up when male cleaners are around so you can make a informed choice. I believe they have DBS too. TW might always have tried to use the ladies but they could be challenged without that being seen as a hate crime by the woman.

Because of trans ideology, we have the ridiculous situation that some secondary schools’ toilets have been changed from single sexed to mixed sexed. This positively disadvantages the most vulnerable pupils.
Why? Because (surprise, surprise) mixed sexed toilets don’t have the toilet door gap because everyone realises the boys would use this to look at the girls.

The most vulnerable pupils are those who have been abused, or have (sometimes) life threatening illnesses. So in 2015/6 it was announced in Parliament the stats that one pupil at least got raped in a British school each school day. And then there’s all the children who are ill and could collapse (now unseen) behind a toilet door - like with epilepsy (one in 100 children), strokes, head injuries . Then there’s the fact hidden cubicles could be used for drug taking or self-harm.

Safeguarding relies on visibility and prevention is better than cure.

Reality rather than ideology should be governing laws and planning.

The signs part I agree with. My plan is to make a hasty exit if I think there’s someone suspicious / dangerous though, not challenge them. Some people must be braver than I am!

Oh god, we seem to have gotten to the 'rapists gonna rape, amirite? Shrug' part.

It's going to be either 'what about your toilet at home - it's mixed sex!!!' or chat about genital inspections next.

Wake me up when it's over....

But they are though? Aren’t you wary of out of the way deserted toilets? It’s not so much an issue now, as I can’t remember the last time I actually saw a public toilet block (the only ones I see now are individual occupancy units, which is much better), but I definitely used to be wary of the old toilet block ones.

How about all us Mumsnetters who have concerns about female safe spaces and women’s sports write to kier he then can’t say no one is raising it. [email protected]
or
[email protected]g.uk

Can we cut straight to the 'its fine if there are a few rapes' spiel and ask how many is an acceptable number in terms of 'collateral damage' get it over quicker please.

And yes this has been used in arguments before.

Oh Christ yes always said by people who have no fucking clue about safeguarding.

Yes Red let's cut to the chase and just have a number of how many rapes, sexual assaults and collateral damage, how many women and girls excluded is acceptable to these posters. Come on rip the plaster off and tell us.

What about this one?

If memory serves me correct a poster on here did mention a figure in the hundreds for rape/sexual assault so that's nice, isn't it.

That would need changes to employment law, as people can be sacked for doing that and the only protection they have is “gender reassignment”. It’s a good idea, but not the current reality.

For accuracy. Transwomen have not always used women's toilets. There were vanishingly few transwomen until relatively recently and historically women did not find them in women's toilets.

And women's toilets were not routinely cleaned by men - they were usually supervised by women until maybe the last 15 ? years as budget cuts replaced women with turnstiles and cleaners calling in occasionally.

The rewriting of history with fantasies is infuriating.

what gendered expectations breach current employment law?

Wasn't the specific example I was thinking about tbh...

As I understand it, if a man just decides to wear dresses as a man, and isn’t transitioning, then they can potentially be dismissed, without it being considered discrimination. Similarly for a woman, dressing like a man, although less likely to be an issue for a woman due to greater breadth of female clothing options, than the other way around.

Well personally I'd defend the man's right to wear a dress as long as a woman would also be able to. I.e. not I situations where dress code is dictated by other criteria (e.g.we wear scrubs at work).

100 a year if I remember correctly. We calculated based on that that it would be at least 500 women and girls assaulted based on 5 years would have to pass before a pattern would be demonstrable as evidence of harm to women by removing sex based facilities.

But that was ok to give men more options and women none.

I got followed into a deserted public toilet by a man once. It was terrifying. Luckily I was running and had just gone in to splash my face with water, so he was coming in as I was leaving. Horrible.

It is easier to defend an absolute than a nuanced position.
But nuanced positions work better in practice because life is rarely black and white.
It is annoying to answer questions in good faith and then be told I'm harming women, I'm a TRA, I'm trying to persuade people, I think I'm morally superior etc. It does not make me want to answer questions because that's always the way.

Then people get upset when this board is called an echo chamber. And I agree with that unherd article. The debate is now a purity spiral as there is no way to deviate from the board line.

'Annoying' is not that big a deal. You are not a victim here but you do defend removal of female protections which victimised other women. Stop with the hyperbolic nonsense and actually engage. You seem to want some kind of protection from critique when you post your half answers and platitudes. But your position causes harm to real women sorry that's not a reasonable ask. You can have as much space as you want to defend a nuanced position but the 'it's complicated' rhetoric is not going to wash with women who've engaged with the shit of real life.

So sorry to hear this. That man may of course have been a TW so shame on those people who want to normalise that.