Not right to say only women have a cervix, says Starmer

[lechiffre55]

Given Labour's appearance of a tenative attempt to U turn on the gender and trans debate ( although I have significant supicion about their motives, beliefs, and their actions when they win ), will Starmer have to rollback on his statement "Not right to say only women have a cervix" given he recently said women are adult human females. The two statment contradict each other, only one can be true.

I worry that Starmer's solution is that males can change sex and become female, destroying single sex spaces. He's just not saying this out loud.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-58698406

I know this is a trusted source around here:

https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/07/26/labour-trans-anneliese-dodds-keir-starmer-gender/

TRA v GC. Zero sum game. In such circumstances, you have to support the side of material reality. We all know which one that is.

Do I detect a whiff of male violence?

Starmer is a snake. I don't trust his words. As others have said, how does he define 'female'? The transgender thefts continue, with the attempted misappropriation of 'female' I see

I’m struggling to see the issue with Starmer saying “Not right to say only women have a cervix” when transmen do exist and do have cervixes.

It doesn’t conflict with his earlier comment that a “woman is an adult human female”

Are posters accusing him of doublespeak even though he is saying what you want him to say? Are posters saying that transmen with cervixes do not exist?

I don’t see theft of “female” in what he has said because transmen are female?

It doesn’t conflict with his earlier comment that a “woman is an adult human female”

No, by his logic he'd be calling transmen - human females - women.

Which people other than females have cervixes?

He is inconsistent and deliberately unclear on what he means.

I’m struggling to see the issue with Starmer saying “Not right to say only women have a cervix” when transmen do exist and do have cervixes.

Starmer may believe that TMAM and that’s up to him but there are also millions of people who believe that TMAW. Why should Starmer be the person who gets to decide what is “right” for people to say? (I’m not sure if he meant morally right or factually right but either way it’s not Starmer’s place to dictate what people think / believe / say)

It doesn’t conflict with his earlier comment that a “woman is an adult human female”

Are posters accusing him of doublespeak even though he is saying what you want him to say? Are posters saying that transmen with cervixes do not exist?

I don’t see theft of “female” in what he has said because transmen are female?

It’s hard to know if these statements contradict each other or if Starmer is using double speak since Starrmer hasn’t indicated what he means by “female”.

If Starmer believes woman = adult female and also believes TM are female then he was wrong to say “it isn’t right to say only women have a cervix.”

If Starmer believes woman = adult female but also believes TW with a GRC are female then he is lying when he says that Labour will protect women’s right to having “safe spaces” because he will be including males when he says “women” and “female”

Starmer needs to explicitly define his terms. The language women and girls need to talk about ourselves and our rights has been deconstructed to such an extent that it is no longer easy to ascertain what politicians are talking about when discussing policies aimed at women and girls. This is why language matters.

No, I dont see that he’s giving the definition of a woman, not the definition of all adult human females. It’s not excluding transmen.

See:
A man is an adult human male
A transwoman is an adult human male
A woman is an adult human female
A transman is an adult human female

It’s like saying when someone says
Rain is water falling from the sky that they are excluding all other water that falls from the sky like snow.

If Starmer believes woman = adult female and also believes TM are female then he was wrong to say “it isn’t right to say only women have a cervix.”

Im not getting how this is wrong. I’m really not. If Starmer believes as he says that a woman is an adult human female, and that transmen are adult human females and that adult human females have cervixes, then both women and transmen have cervixes. So then it isn’t right to say only women have Xer uses because not all females identify as women.

Oop cervixes. Not that crazy Xer uses that auto correct did

It’s hard to know if these statements contradict each other or if Starmer is using double speak since Starrmer hasn’t indicated what he means by “female”.

I we apply the text book biology definition of female, then Starmer’s comments fit within that definition. That’s why I’m all confused at what can the issue possibly be? It appears to me that he isn’t conflating woman as a gender with female as a biological sex.

As the language is deliberately chosen to obfuscate, no one really knows what these politicians believe or whether they’re saying what they believe or not.
Starmer (deliberately or otherwise) left the “human” bit out of his definition of woman. I don’t think this is deliberate “dehumanisation”, but who knows? Anyone who thinks male sex offenders should have the right to be housed in women’s prisons has gone a long way in that direction already.

If TM are adult females and adult females are women then TM are women aren't they? I'm not sure how else you can interpret this. TM are a subset of women.

Therefore it is incorrect to say that "it is not right to say only women have a cervix".

But this is the plan.

People will be gullible enough to assume that when he says 'female' obviously he means that there should be times and spaces when female people are able to have spaces, resources, facilities to meet their needs, where male people however they identify may not go. And say 'oh well, problem solved, nothing to see here'.

However those of us battle scarred, fed up and now cynical as all hell from bitter experience know, he might mean 'legally female' with a bit of paper with a kind fiction on it. He might mean 'self identifies as female' because we know many male people now simply say 'I am female' and expect people to go along with this.

He is not addressing this. He is not explaining how he intends to make those spaces exclusionary of anyone male regardless of circumstance in order to meet this need. I again, trust this slippery man who seems to say whatever currently suits him today, about as third as far as I could throw him.

Despite the many threads appearing saying 'no one cares in the real world, in reality no one can hear you scream, no one will vote because they care about women's access and equality, this does not matter', obviously it matters enough for Labour to start making a few vaguely 'have a few crumbs' noises. So I'll draw my own conclusions about what they're picking up on in their precious focus groups.

Incidentally this is the next thing to work on, on the doorsteps and in responses here and on newspaper articles (waves to the Labour party workers reading all this to see how their water testing is going).

• define female
• how are you going to gate keep those spaces when we have many male people of various TQ+ identities who define as female and refuse to use accessible spaces provided because they wish to use female spaces for their own agenda and have no interest in female access, needs, equality, or who they exclude
• why all the wittering about 'inclusion' when unless strong action is taken to gatekeep some spaces for the actual female people as opposed to identified female people, many women of minority and marginalised groups, without loud, shouty, hit everyone political lobbies screaming rape threats behind them to get them heard and cared about, will be excluded from anything at all so that male people who identify as female can have their preferred and most comfortable choice from everything?

And how is this not just plain male supremacism, where the kind of female with a penis (or with a scar where a penis used to be) gets whatever they want and never has to hear the word 'no' while the kind of female born that way hears 'no' and 'we don't care' and 'fuck off and die'?

Doesn't that prove that pretending this is one group of the same kind of human is a now very grim pretense wearing thinner on a daily basis?

Many TW and TRAs claim that TW are AHF though (RMW and IW and Kirsty Blackman MSP being good high profile examples of this). The meaning of "woman" has already been deconstructed to include males. The same is now happening to the word "female". Starmer has not yet defined what he means when he says female has he? So for all we know he is using it to include male people. Your definitions are not necessarily Starmer's definition which makes your argument, about what Starmer means, meaningless.

Ok, so you interpret it as 'a woman is a subset of the group "adult females", which also includes transmen, both of which have cervices'.

So he is saying that a transwoman cannot be a woman, and a transman cannot be a man.

That is possible, but I think unlikely, as that is clearly the GC position.

This is the problem with brief and undefined statements. We are all interpreting them differently and their previous stated position will obviously influence which interpretation I think is more likely.

He is saying 'female'

knowing that most people will assume he means 'actually, biologically, from birth, in material reality, female'.

This is helpful to him.

I am willing to bet that he actually means the TRA version which is 'any male who currently identifies as female and those service human cis thingys'.

Or at the very least 'any male with a GRC and legal fiction of being female, and those service human cis thingys'.

Because he plan seems to be to hand out GRCs to as many males as want them, basically free in a packet of crisps, and say he's fixed it because 'only legal females are in female spaces'. Which means men can crack on hurray, and women can get their kit off to the enjoyment of random males with them, or they can lose all access to public spaces.

This

Starmer has previously stated that TWAW.

AFAIK he has never retracted his statement that TWAW so we can assume that he still thinks some AHM are women.

He is now saying that women are AF. He doesn't say though what he means by female but in light of his earlier statement that TWAW we can assume that he thinks some AHM are also AHF especially if they have a certificate (which he wants to make easier to obtain) and a shiny new birth certificate.

One of the biggest sins of the TRA movement is reducing the English language to jibberish, and trashing previously universally agree concepts.

Say to any sane person a decade ago that Woman = Adult Human Female, and there would be zero confusion or dissonance.

Today? The whole of MN is trying to see when Starmer says female rights does he mean women and those men IDing as, and calling themselves, female?

Because even if you were minded to take him at face value, you know that the Labour Party at large, indeed the activists, unions and whole Left managerial class, believe that woman/females can have any number of men/males shoehorned into a definition and category that was 100% watertight just a decade ago.

My personal decision on voting will come down to taking on trust Starmer's seeming intention here with this statement, or reverting to anxious and suspecting type, believing that he's obfuscating, or at very least will deprioritise the matter when in power, letting Angela Rayner and the unions make the running on radical policy.

The plan behind 'female is an identity' and males shouting 'I am an adult human female' is yet again to ensure there is no term remaining for real women to be able to retain their group, class, recognition in law, spaces for their equality of access in a way that pisses off entitled men who feel owed female bodies consenting or not and have no fucks to give about how that affects women.

It permits this kind of rotten obfustication that merely stuffs stinking reality under the rug and throws a lot of glitter at it.

What's left? Starmer, I want identified as biologically female at birth with 'female' on their original birth certificate WITH XX chromosomes and WITH ovaries and uterus not necessarily in working order spaces. Anyone wittering about 'are you going to do body checks on the door' is just saying 'but men will be entitled bastards about this'. Yeah, we know. The whole issue is men's total lack of respect for women and their utter entitlement to take and use women at will unless stopped from doing so.

Put it this way. If Starmer reaches the very basest of baselines in saying only biological females should be able to access their designated sex segregated spaces, then it'll be up to men to revert back to policing their own choices as per the letter and spirit of the law, and if they won't, women and other men will be emboldened to evict men trespassing in the wrong spaces.

Ie no more would I see a man exit a women's loo at a pub and be inhibited in expressing my displeasure, or backing up women outing such men in public.

And before trans say this is inhumane and cruel, upon their heads it is, as they've had a decade of women saying this was never fair to begin.

Men feel like they’re on a crusade. Look at the male in teen girl changing room thread.

Access is a crusade

It’s unreal, in more than one way

I’m not convinced Starmer isn’t just using whatever meaningless language he can grab at nor that he’s not sticking to pledge to ‘take the public with him’

Sod that.

Well said ,RealityFan, it IS on their heads, THEY brought it on themselves with their entitled, delusional behaviour. No more sympathy, they need to own it