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 think he's being disingenuous, or needs to get out more! Everyone I know, age range twenty something to eighty something talk about it.

He is speaking his truth. He says 'no-one' is talking about women's rights. Clearly the average woman is a 'no-one' to him.

Starmer has not stood up and said clearly that we have to stop imposing the gender religion on children in schools. No child should be "affirmed" in self harm. No child should be told there is something wrong with their body. This country is in the gutter but while Starmer may try to rescue public services can he be trusted to row back on the promotion of trans ideology in schools?

He will not even speak clearly on harming children.

I think he's a good old fashioned snob.

He's absolutely irritated that his steady course to power is being rocked, and worse still, by women.

His pained expression, and projection of seeming competence compared to the Tories.
I'm not buying it.

Yes, the Tories need a good kicking.
But Starmer needs to prove he's not an elitist snob who feels he can take the female and GC vote for common.

I don't think he can.

@Aaron95 if the existence of women is a key issue for 8-10% of voters that could have a big impact on the election. There must be several seats where even a 1-3% swing would make the difference.

KS did well clearing out anti semitism. He saw that was a toxic issue. But then why appease the anti-women brigade in Labour?

I talk about it a lot at work (nice terfy environment).

Starmer is an idiot and a massive risk to women’s rights and child safeguarding.

To be fair, I have not once had this conversation come up in real life- only on mumsnet. But I'm only one person within millions of course

This...

He didn't say that. He said no-one is talking about trans rights

Actually, even more fairly he said no-one is talking about trans issues

Then he and the Labour Party are holding the conservatives to account on their abysmal performance prosecuting rapes.

The Times is a right leaning paper and isn't going to be pro-Starmer

Here's sky news take:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/keir-starmer-says-99-9-of-women-havent-got-a-penis-as-he-faces-questions-over-trans-rights-12848438

Sir Keir Starmer has said trans rights cannot override women's rights in an apparent change of tone as he tries to clarify his position.

To be fair women aren't generally talking about trans rights as trans people have the same rights as any other person. So he might be right that few people are talking about trans rights per se.
Women are generally talking about protecting women's rights from a very small group of people having extra privileges that impinge on women's rights.

I can believe that no one talks to him about these issues. He has made his position clear and that is TWAW.

No he hasn't said that. He's said that people with a GRC are legally recognised as women
Hes never said someone like Isla Bryson is a woman

On Finland. Before the election:

Is the party over for Finland’s fun-loving prime minister?

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/2effdbdc-cf8c-11ed-9a78-fca06b87e87b?shareToken=d4019f58390ec13c101c5d05639dcc1e

"Yet the outcome remains finely balanced and could be decided by a margin of only one or two percentage points. Marin cannot revive her present left-leaning coalition because the Centre Party, her biggest ally, has had enough after half of its MPs rebelled against the introduction of gender self-identification in February, capping a series of internecine disputes.

That gives Orpo and his National Coalition Party a strong hand in the negotiations after the election. If they can cling on to their slender lead in the polls, Orpo could either establish himself as the senior partner in an alliance with Marin’s SDP or at the helm of a right-leaning government with Purra’s Finns and the Centre Party. Equally, Purra herself could yet pull off a surprise victory and stake a claim to the premiership."

After the election:

www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/02/sanna-marin-finland-election-sdp-social-democratic-national-coalition

"Finland’s prime minister, Sanna Marin, has lost her battle to stay in power after her centre-left Social Democratic party (SDP) was narrowly beaten into third place in a cliffhanger election by its conservative and far-right rivals.

With all of the votes counted on Sunday, the right-wing National Coalition party (NCP) won 20.8% of the vote, with the populist, nation-first Finns party scoring 20.1%. Marin’s SDP took 19.9% of the vote. Voter turnout was 71.9%."

"No he hasn't said that. He's said that people with a GRC are legally recognised as women
Hes never said someone like Isla Bryson is a woman"

Apologies. I thought he was TWAW.

In all practicality, there is no difference.

If a man with a legal fiction on paper can use womens spaces, and it's not possible to check or ask on the door if that person has such a legal fiction, then any male at all can walk in on the presumption that they do. They can't be challenged. The entitlement for men to be there is set.

And as the gatekeeping is anyone at all - including Bryson - can apply for such legal fiction and barely any are refused including those with a history of sex offending against women?

It's pointless anyway.

Which means a hard line of no. No men. No circumstances. Nothing on paper changes that. Because men have exploited the ever living fuck out of the situation and broken it beyond repair.

(Cue: well women should suck up all the harm because of the mythical unicorn fully transitioned accountant who deserves women's spaces...)

No. No exceptions. I care about distraught, harmed, excluded women. The men are going to have to find other solutions.

I can't see anywhere for Starmer to go beyond this other than a Fully Compliant Mumsnet Position. And surely we all know that's not gonna happen.

I believe he'll double down on his 99.1/0.1 figure, say that no women's rights will be threatened, but that legally some biological men can certify as women, and that minority need protections as well.

Where exactly will he row back to? For one he would look stupid and hypocritical if he suddenly proclaimed he got it wrong and that no women can have lady dick.

Imagine if he did, would anyone here trust him anymore?

On flip side, anything more MN compliant re policy change would cause ructions in the party, including within the cabinet.

Yet he also knows that any move to Self ID when in power would fast forward his demise.

I think this is gonna be it.
99.9/0.1, beefing up women's rights, modernised GRA to (he would say) clarify gender v sex, absolute crackdown re online critical comms on trans, total outlawing of trans conversion therapy.

Q is, will generally skeptical women re gender consider this enough, with all the other areas women would be happy to vote Labour in?

How was this question asked? Was it opened ended or were people given a number of issues and asked to rank them?

I've seen other polling quoted that suggests it's a non issue then it turns out there was no opportunity for people to bring it up due to the wording of the questions.

The thing is, there is no compromise position.

The compromise position was the GRA. The men involved broke it by exploiting it to the nth degree.

'Compromise' at this point just means 'how many womens' rights are we going to take away to benefit men?'

And no, women are not going to accept that nicely. Ever.

A growing number of parents whose children have been captured by gender ideology, promoted to them by schools and health professionals, to believe they are ‘born in the wrong body’ are very much talking about this issue, but perhaps not openly for fear of being branded transphobic.

@Manichean

Another five years of Tory rule and this country will be in the gutter, but no worries as long as they go along with your GC ideology.

'Our GC ideology' is the current law. Its trans activists who are trying to change the law and remove the existing safeguards, and Starmer has signed a pledge to support them.

Either Labour have a duty to oppose the Tories - in which case they need to drop gender ideology because as Starmer has admitted, it does not have majority support.

Or gender ideology is so important to all of you, its worth risking another 5 years of Tory rule.

It's fascinating how many people insist how much better things would be if women just accepted having less rights than men and stopped making such a fuss about it.

Well MrStarmer people I know are talking about it.

My children back from uni, my eighty year old mother, a neighbour I had coffee with after missing each other for the last five months…all in the last week and all introduced the subject to me not the other way around. Of course they are all female so perhaps they care mor3 about it.

Please god send someone we can vote for.

Given all the related issues people have written to their MPs about over the last few years, if he really thinks no one is talking or thinking about these things then he is out of touch with reality.

And what about the Women’s Declaration whose stand he refused, whose members only recently wrote him a letter? Is that not a clue that these issues matter?

Does he not think women were talking about it when Russell-Moyle launched his attack on them for doing so, and does he think this was never discussed?

Also, does he not know that if people don’t talk about it openly in public that is because they could be arrested for hate speech or lose their job?

He's pusillanimous.