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.

I suppose I meant it as an example of the whole 'shrug' aspect towards women's safety.

Yeah, it's kinda difficult when you run with the hares and hunt with the hounds.

I get where you are coming from to a degree. I think many of us were willing to explore the compromise opinion previously.

The trouble is, I think we realised that the give and take relies on both sides being willing to do that and what we realised is that the whole trans activist movement wasn't really willing to do that and the whole thing about it was about pushing the boundaries as far as they could whenever they got the opportunity. That was the entire point and many were effectively getting off on it.

So think there's been a dawning realisation of this and that the compromise option isn't going to work in practical terms.

This isn't therefore a purity spiral. Purity spirals are about ideological belief. This shift was about pragmatic understanding of the situation and practical implementation of it.

I think the phrase "give an inch and they'll take a mile" best sums it up.

I think that's the problem. The aggressive nature of the activism has really shown how there can't be this trust because ultimately it's the women and children who end up harmed if the trust is broken. It's still not the men who are at risk, despite all the whining to the contrary.

It's the gender stereotypes and the lack of respect for women and girls dignity and the sheer racism and lesbiphobia that is the problem. None of these are resolved with a 'compromise' solution. Indeed it simply ingrains and legitimises them. And that's not ok.

Not wanting this is basic. It's not a purity spiral.

Ultimately nothing changes for trans people if you say no and say third spaces. All people should be afforded dignity and respect and that's ultimately the only way it works.

In terms of social spaces like a book club for women, I think it's the only area which is vaguely grey. And having done women only sporting sessions and knowing a few transwomen, I still think it's more problematic than people are willing to admit. Precisely because it's about socialisation and life experience. A book about having children from a woman's point of view for example still is about the female experience. And I've found the way in which I've been spoken to by transwomen still being be mansplaining and at times deeply sexist - precisely because you can't be trans and not hold deeply sexist views because it's founded on the principles of rigid gender stereotypes.

But it's difficult to point that out for obvious reasons (you should be able to - it's still part of holding people to account). It's a totally different atmosphere and I think it is typical for a hierarchy that the purpose of a women's only group is trying to avoid, forms anyway and certain topics become things many don't want to talk about in the presence of a male because they are only relevant to the experience of a female. Even if that comes from a place of wanting to be kind and not wanting to upset that individual. It's still deferring to the male at the expense of females. Women's only group have the purpose of trying to give women the confidence and ability to speak when it's something they often lack and it kinda ends up defeating the point.

Thus women's single sex groups effectively end up being destroyed anyway by the backdoor even in 'soft' social scenarios because Genderism is based on sexism and that's ultimately the problem.

Agree

What they post doesn’t stack up

Clarity would help

This for example

pp agrees on this statement

Unless it means excluding biological men with a GRC ie trans women (= legal woman) from biological women only spaces. Then, yes, I would exclude them from those spaces to uphold the safety, dignity and privacy of the biological sex class woman.

And then posts this

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

Can anyone make sense of it?

@AdamRyan I've read your posts over the last few pages with some interest.

I understand what you are saying about your own personal boundaries on this, but I assume you know you can't talk for every woman and with your ideal scenario some women, particularly women of religious minority and sexual assault survivors might self exclude from parts of society and you are fine with that if it makes 'genuine trans' women with severe gender dysphoria feel better?

But I have questions about some of the specific language you have used:

You mentioned severe dysphoria in the context of the number of TW who have a GRC. What is severe dysphoria? I've never heard of it being necessary for obtaining a GRC? The requirements don't specify 'severe' dysphoria

These are the requirements

You can apply if you meet all of the following requirements:

• you’re aged 18 or over
• you’ve been diagnosed with gender dysphoria in the UK
• you’ve been living in your affirmed gender for at least 2 years
• you intend to live in this gender for the rest of your life

Gender dysphoria is defined in the NHS as

Gender dysphoria is a term that describes a sense of unease that a person may have because of a mismatch between their biological sex and their gender identity.

There doesn't seem to be any requirement for a degree of severity to meet that definition? So have I missed something?

You seem to think that services providers should be able to require a declaration of a GRC? Is that what you are saying? That's not a condition under the Equality Act in fact it is unlawful for providers to request such evidence so how does that work?

What I find particularly inconsistent in your position is that people are pointing out these issues with the Equality Act and GRC which means that we have de facto self id (which you state upthread that you definitely don't want). This will continue going forward without amendments to the Equality Act - yet you are satisfied with the Equality Act as it stands which doesn't do the things you think it does and don't think that we should be questioning the Labour position on this that it doesn't need amending.

So do you just believe every word that comes out of the Labour Party's mouth on this even though the risks to your stated preferred position are clear? Or don't you really mean it?

Thank you.
The "purity spiral" is not having the "no compromise" opinion. The purity spiral is attacking other women for having a different opinion, and piling on so no dissent is tolerated.
I have been on this board a long time and there used to be robust debate, its now just turned into "pile on and attack" so there is no debate. Its not OK.

Adam I am sorry you were assaulted as a child but you are wrong if you think I am trying to evoke sympathy by raising my autistic daughter. It is to provide context, not to seek sympathy.

My daughter is fantastic. I find it offensive that you think I'm trying to use her in some way and I also find it offensive that you have used her as an example in your post.

You could just answer my questions rather than be personal.

I think the law will have to be altered for any change, especially the change to no men in womens spaces ever.

If it was me I'd make a change to the GRC that makes it declarable. So I'd have 4 "sexes" ( but two are not a sex) male, female and trans male, trans female. That would be what's on people's birth certs.

To be honest I'd get rid of sex markers off passports/driving licenses. People can just use their eyes.

By "severe dysphoria" I mean people who are still dysphoria despite other medical interventions.

I don't think that. I am pointing out I havent used your personal circs to "win" a point. It would be a low blow and also its none of my business and I know you will be doing the best for her.

I have been extremely provoked by repeated accusations I want to harm women, I don't know what it's like to be a victim etc.

I'm fucking furious about it truth be told.

I'm sorry if I offended you
Mypoint was despite us having some robust debates I try hard not to make it personal.

So to be clear Labour's current position on this doesn't go far enough for your ideal scenario either? As they don't intend to change laws or change sex markers.

I take your point on severe dysphoria but again that runs contrary to proposed bans on all forms of conversion therapy, because that can be interpreted as including other medical interventions, including talk therapy.

Thanks for answering, I appreciate it.

When posters ask for clarity then that’s what they’re after

You agree with this

Unless it means excluding biological men with a GRC ie trans women (= legal woman) from biological women only spaces. Then, yes, I would exclude them from those spaces to uphold the safety, dignity and privacy of the biological sex class woman.

and then post this

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

Can you say what you mean so it’s clear?

It doesn't go as far as I'd like but they have to compromise across democracy so that's OK.
My red line is self ID.

I've made no assumptions about you. I'm critiquing your actions because they put vulnerable women at risk. I've also experienced CSA. Our shared experience does not make us agree and does not mean that people shouldn't be held to account.

But that is effectively what Labour's position is.

Biological woman has no legal definition.

Single sex spaces can't be reserved for females because males with a GRC have protected characteristic of both sex (female) and gender reassignment so service providers who exclude these males are likely to face successful legal challenges.

Most service providers can't ask for a copy or declaration of the certificate.

So what is going to keep transwomen without a GRC out, how can we tell?

This results in de facto 'self id'.

Clearly put

Thanks

Adam I'd ask you to look at what you are accusing those who disagree you of. We are not excluding trans people. We are not victiming trans people.We don't consider them sub human or not worthy of the rights which other people enjoy. It's not reasonable of you to fling out accusations of bigotry to others and then object when we point out the harms your ideology causes.

@AdamRyan

Four weeks ago you wrote "The status quo is some males can access toilets if they look like they've made an effort to "pass" and aren't being creepy. The GRC is irrelevant.
I can't foresee a situation where a GRC is relevant. So it becomes about who can access the space. At the moment I think there are easier ways for predators to access women than by dressing in womens clothes and acting non-creepy. So I'm happy enough. You aren't. Fair enough. How are you proposing to stop males using womens toilets?"

Your recent posts on this thread are very much at odds with this. Have you changed your position?

AdamRyan

What if women don't want men in their spaces?

However much you've tightened the criteria, and try to mitigate for unforeseen circumstances, and because you think some men really, really need to, or want to, what if women just don't want them in there?

If they just say no?

Where have I called anyone a bigot? Don't put words in my mouth. My deleted post (which I'm very glad was deleted) said no such thing. It was about my personal circumstances. Low blow to imply I said something I didn't.

And "my actions" as you put it, in no way put women at risk. Because "my actions" are supporting women in real life and posting my opinion on the Internet.

I'm not in charge, I'm entitled to their opinion. It's not an easy debate, is it?

Of course the simplest thing to do is say "no males ever". But we live in a democracy. We need to accommodate different views and different ways of living, otherwise it becomes authoritarian. The majority view is not "no males in womens space ever" and its not "trans women are women". Its somewhere in the middle. That's where I am too.

I don't know what the answer is. But there are all sorts of things people "just want to say no" to and they can't. Because in a democracy we don't all get our way.

Like I just wanted to say no to Brexit. I liked being European and I think it was very harmful to British people to leave the EU. Another sector of society imposed on me that I'm not European any more. I have to live with it, because its what the majority decided.