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’d have to disagree with this. Most people might not be able to anatomically describe it but they sure as hell knows whose body it resides in.

Noone owns decisions anymore. Noone looks at wider society and asks themselves, should I be doing that?

No, decades of the search for the authentic self, weaponising kindness, expecting lived experience to trump all other "realities", has led to a whole bunch of public shit shows and infantilising of society, indeed the whole West.

In prime position is TRA, and the managerial Left classes, in their flight from the true class war (it's the bosses, dummies, not pummeling women for magical thinking on a par with superstition), who have turbocharged the only misogyny that is still socially acceptable.

So, no more women as chattel or unable to divorce, women can vote, women can have contraception and abortions, women can choose to work and not have children...but women have found out to their horror that men still control their category and dictionary definition.

It's going to be a while even if Labour reach a reasonable compromise here when in power, for women to feel emboldened to start publically calling me out.

The pub loos, gym and boutique changing rooms, lesbian clubs and dating sites. Even the parkruns and club cycling. The WI.

Is Labour gonna back up women claiming back their good name? Because Labour will be the only game in town, maybe for the next 3-4 elections, if not in perpetuity.

God damn typo
Calling THIS out
Otoh, plenty of women and my GF especially have called me out. For being a mistyping idiot amongst other things, lol.

Starmer is trying to obfuscate the meaning of female on order to facilitate the withdrawal of female protected spaces. It's likely to be a deliberate attempt to confuse in order to get a contentious anti women set of legislation through IMO. Don't trust him. He's no friend to women.

So, tortoise Starmer dissapoints all his activists by reneging on all the policies he won the leadership on, and currently the New Green Deal, the two child benefit cap, and flexing his muscles as a Brexiter...yet on this one issue of trans, he's lockstep with his activists?

Seems inconsistent and unlikely.

The way I see Starmer thinking based on his two comments is that transmen are a subset of females not a subset of women?

It’s not always true that if A= B, and B= C then A=C

For example Rain = Water and Water=Snow but Rain =/= Snow

I'm afraid I agree.

No more endless sympathy and respect given to those who give no fucks in return. If you want to use women's spaces and expect women to be ok with it, then you have to provide for the women in that group who cannot use mixed sex spaces regardless of word obfustication and lies on paper.

Plan? What plan? Is there a plan of Starmer’s to change the definition of female? If so, where is it?

I agree with not trusting politicians- I never trust any of them. I suppose that’s another reason why I’m struggling to see how and why there seems to be a major issue with what Starmer said? It all seems reasonable. Of course there is never any guarantee any politician will do anything they promise once in power.

However, the definitions I am using do match with the logic of Starmer’s statements. If he were using your definitions, then his statements are contradictory and illogical. So presuming he’s relatively settled in his views, why would you think he’s using definitions that make his statements contradictory when he’s trying to win an election? That seems highly unlikely. Isn’t it far more likely that he views his statements to not be contradictory because he’s using the definitions I have posted?

why would you think he’s using definitions that make his statements contradictory when he’s trying to win an election? That seems highly unlikely.

He’s a politician not someone obsessive with strict logical consistency. So maybe he changes his position. Maybe be says whatever he needs to in any particular interview.

He probably wants to be logically consistent in theory, but on this subject, under pressure, trying to please different sides of the debate...

That’s possible. What is the saying? Politicians speak with a forked tongue?

There is no logic in Starmer's statements. Logically it is not possible for woman to mean AF if woman also means AM.

You are making assumptions about how Starmer is defining his terms based on what you believe to be "likely" and a presumption that he is "settled in his views". Personally I don't think Starmer is settled in his views. I think he is being dishonest about what he believes. He's an intelligent man who is attempting to please both sides. He comes out with a different spin on the issue every time he's asked. He is using ideological terms and concepts on one occasion and then (possibly) biological statements on another and then attempting to blur these together.

I don't see the definitions in public discourse are ever gonna get more tightly circumscribed.

The day where Starmer or anyone else uses terms like "large gamete producer" etc, which would be unequivocal, are never gonna happen.

For me, this is a massive trust issue. If I vote Starmer upon believing he's arguing in good faith, while still having to look both ways, also standing on the head of a pin, and he goes onto make the women/female category so leaky as to be not fit for purpose, well, I'll feel forever I let myself down for being so naive, and GC women down similarly. And obviously, all females.

It could be now that KJK's "adult human female" gambit backfires. Because if the definitions in debate and interviews don't stretch to eg "large gamete producer" clear information, yes, female/woman could be traduced in an ongoing Labour administration lasting a couple of decades.

My decision on voting here will be decided by how tight Starmer's Trans Conversion Ban and Anti Hate Speech legislation will be, and the specifics or not of his proposed amendments to the GRA. Not on fine words like "let me clear up.../let me solve this argument simply..."

Seems that even Rosie Duffield is a bit suspicious of the policy shift…

https://twitter.com/RosieDuffield1/status/1685257110769025024

My bet is that Starmer is working towards what he plans to try and sell as a 'middle ground compromise', of 'women and men with GRCs' on the principle that GRCs can be made really easy to get, but are simultaneously so very emotively hard and difficult for poor men to go through the process of getting that they get you and your body as their consolation prize. (So get your knickers off for him like a good girl, or sadly you've lost your access to public life and equality, your choice.)

Anyone with a clue could give him a list of why this isn't going to work in any practical sense, even if it wasn't morally the stuff of some horrific dystopian novel.

Women should also be asking him and every other politician at this point: these are rights and access that it was considered absolutely normal for women to have a decade ago. It has been so very easy for these rights and access to be unrolled because suddenly a group of men appeared who found them inconvenient, with the full permission and support of politicians and the establishment. Shouldn't women be very concerned about the fundamental misogyny of politics and the establishment that has enabled this, while wondering what group of men are going to turn up next and find another section of their rights inconvenient.

And make a lot of noise about how the right to vote/own property/get divorced has never really been a right, and is racist/pomowankerysalad/bekind while the establishment sagely nods and enables them.

This isn't an every day normal election issue, this is probably the biggest threat to women's rights and equality in the lifetime of any woman living in the UK right now.

Good on her. Total kudos. They were misogynistic bullies

Has Starmer disciplined Lloyd Russell-Woman-Botherer?

Ask a few people - you’ll be surprised. Particularly grown men. Even ones who are dads. They have no idea what or where a cervix is.

I was a biology teacher and the answers I got from both sexes ranged from neck/ collarbone/ tailbone/ vulva/ clittoris. I think the reason most women know is from smear tests and having babies.

The reason Starmer is embarrassingly wrong is that you can only have a cervix (if you had not been born with one) with a uterus transplant. If he knew what he was talking about he would realise how silly he sounds from a reality point of view to all those people who do know. Men aren’t having uterus transplants. His only ‘saving grace’ I suppose is if he were trying to stop the distress of transmen from having to deal with the fact that many of them have a uterus if they have not had surgery.

Starmer's problem is that the extermists TRAs have their hopes pinned on him. They are a liability that's going to be very difficult for him to shed. Compare to the Tories who are a lost cause as far as the TRAs are concerned, but they put no pressure on the Tories. For Starmer to join the voters position he has to face an avalanche of abuse and hatred. No one gives a fork about the Tories on this front. Support is good, but the wrong support comes at a very high cost.
It's similar to the momentum support and anti-semitism. You get all this support and think it's great untill it becomes clear that the price associated with this support comes at a high cost.

I don't see how there can be a middle ground as the fundamental issue is whether TWAW or TWAM. That's a binary situation. You can't have TWAW unless...eg bryson.

Trying to find a middle ground will only puss off both sides

I think Starmer thinks hes drawn a line under it but in all honesty hes just raised more questions. Hes settled on the defintion most sensible people use women are adult human females but does that mean labour policy is no longer TWAW or is female just a feeling and TWAW?

Was just catching up on the podcast the rest is politics from last week and Alastair Campbell is convinced that Labour will abolish the 2 child benefit cap once they are in power and are just saying they don't intend to pre election because they don't want to get drawn into how getting rid of it will be funded etc. Who knows if what hes saying is true but if they are planning on saying whatever to get elected and then changing their tune once in power then self id is the #1 policy I bet they will go back to.

They’re desperate for us to stop speaking up

But they haven’t said anything useful or actually on policy changes

Just we created a mess and you keep reminding us too much - GRA etc, they’re more interested in defending those laws over anything

He's taken the words that women use 'adult human female' and applied the TRA definition to it.

Which starts with 'anyone legally female' including males with a certificate, and then opens the door to 'any male who feels like saying I identify as female'.

Yeah pull the other one mate, it's got bloody rainbow flags on it.

Article in the Critic on this. I think the corollary at the end is wrong. I o what Streeting said falls short of an apology. At best, he voices regret that 'someone' was nasty. Other than that, I pretty much agree.

https://thecritic.co.uk/keir-starmer-should-apologise-to-women/