Starmer says a woman is a female adult

[WanderingWitches]

I can't see a post about this quote in The Observer today
There are a lot of pissed off people on X about this.

"Sunak received his loudest applause from the Tory crowd in Manchester when he lunged into the arguments about identity issues by baldly declaring: “A man is a man and a woman is a woman.” Does Starmer, whose own party has its divisions on the subject, agree? “Yes, of course,” he responds crisply and without qualification. “You know, a woman is a female adult.”

www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/oct/07/keir-starmer-we-need-to-show-the-country-that-we-are-the-change

I found the thread I mentioned, where someone brought it up on the doorstep - it was desiringtoremainsane and it was with an SNP candidate.

I remembered it because this bit made me laugh:

"I asked where they stood on single sex spaces. MP said she doesn’t deal with it as a topic much and ‘it doesn’t come up on the doorstep’. Cue comedic pause while I gestured to my door step where we were standing. “Well, yes, ok” she said."

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4882773-snp-doorstepping-edinburgh

😂

Exactly, so the questions need to stop being based on a TW’s external appearances as that can easily be changed and instead questions need to based on what cant be changed and what are intrinsic and specific to what sex a person is.

Even eggs and sperm….some
biological women don’t ovulate and some biological men don’t make sperm so some would argue those questions shouldn’t be what decides whether someone is male or female either.

The only absolute deciding factor that differentiates between the two sexes is our chromosomes so that is what the questions need to focus on.

“Can a person with XY chromosomes be a woman?”

Even eggs and sperm….some
biological women don’t ovulate and some biological men don’t make sperm so some would argue those questions shouldn’t be what decides whether someone is male or female either.

It doesn't really matter. You either belong to the class of humans that produces eggs or the class of humans that produces sperm. Even if you don't produce eggs or sperm yourself, you are still in one class or the other.

But Starmer hasn't actually said anything, has he? Sunak did. Kier hasn't actually replied, stated anything.

Goodness, it’s been more than two years since the cervix comment. Has he finally worked out the right answer?

I’ve just seen that the toilets at the Labour Party conference are all “all gender” and all awash with pee.

a vision of our future under Labour. A better NHS is no use to me or my elderly mum if we can’t use it because there’s no female only wards.

Nice 🤮

Labour still want to make it much easier for men to doctor their birth certificate so that it states they are female. Any definition that Starmer gives indicating that women are adult female presumably includes those men with an f on their birth certificate.

Well, that should help with the enpeakening.

But it does also give an indication of how much thought Labour give to women.

From last year:

Mr Starmer told The Times: “A woman is a female adult and, in addition to that, trans women are women, and that is not just my view, that is actually the law."

I'm sure the 'in addition' still applies in Starmer's eyes... Sly bugger.

I'm certain that's the case.

I've started getting "what are the issues " type leaflets through the door (i.e. please sign up to support us). They dont tend to mention anything about women's rights so it gets written in and anonymously posted back to them. You can bring this up in other ways than on the doorstep, with the added advantage that they have to pay the postage..

Labour is still not getting the message on women are they ?

I don’t trust him. Even the word “female” has been hijacked now. TRAs are claiming that “transwomen are female” and people are already able to change their birth certificate from male to female. Passports etc also state “female” for transwomen (biological males). What does that leave women with? How do we describe ourselves when TRAs say that “biological women” is offensive? I despair.

I fear, like 'the artist formerly known as Prince ' the only option left will be 'the humans formerly known as women '.

He needs to define female. I don’t trust him

This is what I was thinking Kier's logic would be.

Problem is, his poll lead is even higher with women voters than men. This by definition includes GC voters, and so all he has to do is maintain just enough sanity on definitions to keep a lid on things.

He's aiming not to have to rely on MN type single issue voters.

So, amongst women voters, trans ally types will likely nearly all vote Labour.
Women who have no idea what's going on out there re trans, in the pocket of Starmer.
Low level GC women who will be placated by Starmer's words, fall into line for Labour.
MN GCs...well, recent posts indicated more than half will reluctantly vote Labour.
Leaving only a small hardcore of GC standard bearers to either vote Tory or spoil their ballots or stay home.

I am surprised there isn't more of a grassroots groundswell movement like JSO to really hammer home women's discontent here.

Then again, I thought the Tavistock revelations and anger over schools keeping gender matters secret from parents would have ignited a movement, alas not.

I'm not sure any number of LWS meets between now and GE day will swing things away from Starmer. He has the GE in the bag, just a matter of by how much.

On the basis of that, my hope is that after the GE, Labour absolutely flounders as the Conservative Party lets go of its Lib Dem continuity Blair/Cameron contingent, reconfigures to a New Conservative ethos along the Cates Badenoch Braverman direction and proposes a serious offer to women in 2028/9, or earlier likely as I see Starmer's govt splitting into factions, with the Rayner TWAW one gaining control.

The only Labour govt that could be, and was, stable was the Blair one, and that was because Tony wasn't really Labour, but he fashioned the party in his image (as Thatcher the libertarian not conservative fashioned the Conservative Party). Starmer has not a fraction of Blair's statecraft and will be shown to be too Left wing and incompetent in power for the UK.

Enter stage Right, the possibility of a Conservative Party offer in 5-6 years time, or before, to genuinely address GC voters concerns.

This issue alone is not going to have much of an impact Labour's lead into the next election. Too many people either don't understand it, don't think it will ever impact them or don't care when other stuff is going on.

I'm not sure if Starmer is home and dry yet though because I think we are about to find out just how much he really got the Hamas supporting factions of the Labour party under control.

I couldn't quite believe the comments about toilets, but here there are:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12607359/Toilets-body-Labour-conference-boasts-gender-neutral-facilities-urges-people-help-feel-unsafe-Keir-Starmers-wavering-woman-penis.html

You cant see from the image from the paper but at the end of the sign "Toilets for everybody" it finishes by saying "You are safe here"

Toilets for Every Body is a scheme that is being piloted at the ACC Liverpool and operated by the LCR Pride Foundation, an LGBT+ charity working in the city.

I wonder if Labour bothered to find out what women delegates felt about this before booking the venue.

Oh yeah. For some time now. More recently I've seen 'cis woman' being applied more widely than one might have anticipated.

To late for Keir and his misogynist cronies.

Yours sincerely,

Rights Hoarding Dinosaur 🦖

Are these toilets in addition to single sex ones or all the toilets at the conference like this does anyone know? Because I think this tells me more about what's going on than any lawyer approved statement from Starmer.

Ah sorry I see now my question had already been answered upthread:All mixed sex.

Right, that tells me just how seriously I should take any pledges from Labour about preserving single sex spaces. Very useful.