Page 5 | Starmer in favour of clarifying Equalities Act

Apollo441 · 2023-04-05T23:52:56+00:00

[[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/04/05/keir-starmer-backs-rishi-sunak-rewrite-equality-laws-women https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/04/05/keir-starmer-backs-rishi-sunak-rewrite-equality-laws-women/]] Behind a pay wall but basically says he backs Rishi Sunak in clarifying that sex means biological sex in the 2010 act. That's it isn't it? Game over for the Gender ideology crowd if they can't misrepresent the law and sow confusion.

BluebellBlueballs · 08/04/2023 23:53

ZuttZeVootEeeVo · 08/04/2023 21:02

Do we split by gender or by sex? It’s a massive deal with so many ramifications as we’re finding out.

If politicians want us to be split by gender, they're going to have to define it and be honest.

Because its not feminine people over here and masculine people over there, its really 'women and girls and whichever men want to be here' and men over there.

Sex
We split by sex

I say this as someone who works professionally when EA

BluebellBlueballs · 08/04/2023 23:53

*with not when

ZuttZeVootEeeVo · 09/04/2023 14:37

The problem is, while Labour are talking about .1% of women having a penis, and 'biological women' being different to women, its obvious that labour do not see sex as the way we split in every way.

They could change signage and information - 'biological women only' 'women lacking a penis only', but everytime someone says 'woman' it will include the '.1%'. So the question is what is it this group of women have in common that the group of men do not?

nilsmousehammer · 09/04/2023 14:41

ZuttZeVootEeeVo · 09/04/2023 14:37

The problem is, while Labour are talking about .1% of women having a penis, and 'biological women' being different to women, its obvious that labour do not see sex as the way we split in every way.

They could change signage and information - 'biological women only' 'women lacking a penis only', but everytime someone says 'woman' it will include the '.1%'. So the question is what is it this group of women have in common that the group of men do not?

It is only relevant that they admit that biologically female women are different to biological male people who identify as women, if they also agree that biologically female people are allowed their own language, spaces, services and resources, and to limit a group, space or service to female only regardless of what legal pieces of paper are involved. Because of this otherwise excluding and harming the equality and access of females.

If they have not got to that bit, they're still enforcing male privilege over female equality. Cos Reasons.

ZuttZeVootEeeVo · 09/04/2023 15:16

if they also agree that biologically female people are allowed their own language

That seems like their line in the sand. They are activitly avoiding having words to describe a persons sex. We can't say woman, or even female, and have that be clear, we have to say 'biological female'.

And tra are going after the word biological now. We are going round in circles trying to appease TRA and weak politicans who do not want women to have language to describle themselves.

borntobequiet · 09/04/2023 15:20

Isn’t there a line that taking cross sex hormones effects a “biological” change?

Well it sort of does, but not in the way they interpret it.

nilsmousehammer · 09/04/2023 16:53

There is an attempt to argue that cosmetic alterations and medication can change a person's sex enough to justify the invasion of female spaces and the right to control biologically female people's boundaries. Yes.

Unfortunately the reality is that a male person who has made cosmetic alterations to their body and taken a lot of hormones their body was not designed for, continues to be a male person who has made cosmetic alterations to their body and has taken a lot of hormones their body was not designed for. They have not changed sex. They have added diversity to maleness.

They met at this point prefer an alternative provision to their sex based one, and their privacy, dignity and safety should absolutely be seriously considered, but that is a problem in its own right with many possible solutions.

None of which justify or necessitate removing single sex provisions from people born unambiguously female, and who want and need those single sex provisions.

literalviolence · 09/04/2023 23:18

"I do believe that safe spaces for women like a women's refuge for instance, there are very good reasons why that should be for biological women," he said. "I don't think the debate is as polarised as people sometimes imagine. Of course, we need to protect women from those who might seek to abuse them and where that means biological women, yes, it must mean biological women primarily.”'

No Kier. It means biologically women entirely. Or it's not worth the paper it's written on. You admit a male, even one, and it's not a single sex space.

RedToothBrush · 10/04/2023 09:07

nilsmousehammer · 09/04/2023 16:53

There is an attempt to argue that cosmetic alterations and medication can change a person's sex enough to justify the invasion of female spaces and the right to control biologically female people's boundaries. Yes.

Unfortunately the reality is that a male person who has made cosmetic alterations to their body and taken a lot of hormones their body was not designed for, continues to be a male person who has made cosmetic alterations to their body and has taken a lot of hormones their body was not designed for. They have not changed sex. They have added diversity to maleness.

They met at this point prefer an alternative provision to their sex based one, and their privacy, dignity and safety should absolutely be seriously considered, but that is a problem in its own right with many possible solutions.

None of which justify or necessitate removing single sex provisions from people born unambiguously female, and who want and need those single sex provisions.

The upper body, arms and waist of an influencer do not look feminine in any way.

Passing seems to be all about the face and implants tbh.

ZuttZeVootEeeVo · 10/04/2023 10:21

When a politician deferentiates between a women and biological women, we need to look at all legislation that mentions woman because it obviously doesnt mean adult human female to him.

We need to get politicians to explain when woman means female and when it doesnt. It does make a difference to the meaning of manifesto promises. A pledge aimed at 'women' might advantage males and disadvantage females.

MarshaBradyo · 10/04/2023 10:23

ZuttZeVootEeeVo · 10/04/2023 10:21

When a politician deferentiates between a women and biological women, we need to look at all legislation that mentions woman because it obviously doesnt mean adult human female to him.

We need to get politicians to explain when woman means female and when it doesnt. It does make a difference to the meaning of manifesto promises. A pledge aimed at 'women' might advantage males and disadvantage females.

Absolutely. Definition is crucial

Didn’t Sturgeon say she was for women, but since she included males in that anyway she just got away with the word meaning both

nilsmousehammer · 10/04/2023 10:26

ZuttZeVootEeeVo · 10/04/2023 10:21

When a politician deferentiates between a women and biological women, we need to look at all legislation that mentions woman because it obviously doesnt mean adult human female to him.

We need to get politicians to explain when woman means female and when it doesnt. It does make a difference to the meaning of manifesto promises. A pledge aimed at 'women' might advantage males and disadvantage females.

^^

That. Anyone waffling away in pretty fig leaf language who in fact means that the group 'women' includes people of both sexes has wholly and entirely missed the point, and is already placing male feelings above female equality and humanity.

And fuck that. I wouldn't vote for that no matter what else was on the manifesto.