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.

Why can’t men accommodate all males?

Twenty years of this approach where the outcome is bad for women and children

It’s not working for the majority.

A democracy sounds great. Let’s vote, sex or gender? I’d like to vote on it.

It's not a very good analogy though.

You cannot be physically harmed by Britain not being an EU member. Children have been physically harmed by tw in toilets. Dolotowski being a known example.

No one is going to feel the need to self exclude from visiting Europe because we are no longer in the EU.

Not liking something is not the same as something being physically harmful or reducing the ability of some women to function freely in society.

If it’s not working then the democratic process can allow change

Great. Bring it on

Female will always include people GC people think are male, because of intersex people, even if trans people didn’t exist. It’s always been the case. Those people are female on their birth certificates, live their lives as women, and don’t even know they have developmental variations themselves in some cases. Excluding them is unreasonable, impractical, and will never happen.

We had a system pre 2004 and the GRA

Use that

So?

The fact that people with differences of sexual development exist doesn't mean we should open all spaces to all males.

It was a system where female included people that GC people think are male. It always has done. Intersex people don’t need gender recognition certificates.

Hmm. I'd say the country going bankrupt, and people losing their jobs and being pushed into poverty is "harm".

Dolatowski is the worst kind of scum and I don't think any legislation would have stopped that attack happening.

This is precisely why it is really important that politicians are asked questions about their proposals on matters which impact on women's rights.

Adam's suggestion that we should ignore it for the 'greater good' isn't very democratic. It's just saying that women's rights don't matter enough.

If you want the pre 2004 system great me too

Get rid of the GRA and GRCs and it’s a deal

That's why I said physical harm.

I do not dispute the harms of Brexit.

Interesting that the Labour Party weren't openly pro-remain, wasn't Corbyn quite keen on the idea of Brexit?

Of course it isn’t democratic

It’s a very tiny minority who benefit. Women are clearly seeing the harms more and more so let’s vote on it

Where did I suggest we should "ignore it for the greater good"? Don't misrepresent me please.

I wasn't a labour supporter then and have no idea what their position was. I was lib dem.

My point isn't about Brexit; my point is that in a democracy everyone lives with things they don't like. And people should be able to recognise other points of view without resorting to personal attacks and black and white thinking.

Today at 11.08
You said about the Labour Party current stance vis a vis your personal feelings.

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 took that as meaning that you were prepared to sacrifice your personal beliefs for what I assume you mean the greater good of having the Labour Party elected into government.

if you didn't mean that then please explain what you did mean?

My point isn't about Brexit; my point is that in a democracy everyone lives with things they don't like. And peopleshouldbe able to recognise other points of view without resorting to personal attacks and black and white thinking.

Please point to any personal attack I have made about you?

I agree that sometimes it might come across that I have black and white thinking, it's probably the former lawyer in me that makes me want clarity on meanings of words when it comes to ensuring the rights of 51% of the population are protected.

I meant what I said. A compromise. A compromise isn't "ignoring for the greater good". A compromise is both sides give up a bit of what they want to reach a position they can agree on. It's kind of how human relationships work

What compromise?

What compromise is there in the Labour Party position when it is de-facto self ID for the reasons set out in my post of 11.12

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'.

We don’t have a ‘compromise’ and having males in single sex spaces isn’t one either

Women and children are impacted negatively.

It’s only accepted because the narrative is to ignore women

I write about my personal circumstances because of safeguarding the vulnerable. For example when DC has been hospitalised and been bedridden physically. Depending on which hospital and which ward, you can’t stay overnight with your child from 16 in some places. Wards vary but some are not staffed well (particularly when going through A&E). The people teenagers could be sharing a bay with more often than not will have mental health problems too (dementia/low mood etc). Recent example an alcoholic fixating on my Dd and wanting to touch her when Dd was unable to get off the bed. They didn’t have enough staff for 1-1 nursing of this patient. The hospital was over-run with patients lining cooridors.

There really is not the niceties of having wards for ‘how you feel inside’. It took 24hours to even be allocated a bed last time DC was wheeled in. There were very ill and lying on the floor around us but there is a degree of protection is than someone can see you. And the ambulance staff waiting in the cooridors. Not so much in a toilet or curtained off cubicle.

Medical care=reality based. For safeguarding all patients=single sex wards as soon as possible.

It’s obvious many posters haven’t seen as much/as many hospitals as I have. Seven at the last count. Everyone is one virus or accident away from that though so when people are airy-fairying about with their inner ideals, listen to those who are actually having to deal with mixed sex toilets/ hospital wards when they are incapacitated.

The most important thing you can do if going to A&E is to have someone with you to keep you safe. Give you water. Shout up if you collapse. Fend off other patients. All which I have had to do. Adhering to gender ideology is absolute bollocks compared to the basics needed.

I'm leaving the thread now because I am very upset with the continued grilling as if I'm some sort of official spokesperson. I'm sure the echo chamber will be much more comfortable for everyone.

‘Compromise’ is just women deal with males there

No thanks

So glad other women aren’t ready to do that

I'm not grilling you. It's not a personal attack.

I'm just trying to understand your position because you are constantly on these threads trying to tell women we shouldn't ask questions, particularly on the stance of the Labour Party.

I want to try understand your reasoning for this because I'm interested particularly as there seems to be an incongruence between your personal beliefs and the beliefs of the Labour Party.

To be honest, when you enter onto a forum in which you know that you are largely swimming, or pushing, against the general tide of that forum then it can feel like you are permanently embattled or besieged. It goes with that territory.

But you do have a tendency not to engage with content when people pick you up on certain points - instead resorting to laughing emojis, name calling, or suggestions that people are 'right wing'. So I don't think it is fair at all for you to suggest that people are not open to debate or discussion, when you do this.

You know full well this has been the only place, for years, that women have ben able to come and openly discuss their critique of Gender ideology/Queer theory, and the ways it impacts upon women and children, and so on - but then you keep calling it an 'Echo Chamber'. I'm not sure really what you expect.

Most people here are not in agreement with your brand of intersectionalist/'trans friendly' feminism. Why would you expect otherwise? The 'chat' thread was created for people such as yourself who wanted to have those kinds of approaches - free from those of us who do not share them.

This is an example of what I refer to.