Keir Starmer New Year Speech

[Coffeelovr]

He's always supported single sex spaces apparently

Q: Are single-sex spaces safe under Labour?

"Yes, and I have been really clear and unwavering on this.
From my time as chief prosecutor, I worked with a whole bunch of people on violence against women and girls, and saw and know myself from my own observations just how important it is."

Strange, because he always seemed to me to be equivocating by talking about "safe spaces"

Can we trust him on this?

That one would have to read

DEFINITELY CONTAINS NUTS!

Deeds not words Keir! When he publicly condemns the attacks on Rosie Duffield et al by his own party, when he publicly puts MPs like Dawn butler & Russell Lloyd Moyle back in their box when they threaten & encourage the harassment of GC women, when he says to Izzard “no you should be in the men’s loos”, when he allows GC women’s groups space at Labour conferences the way he does Stonewall & LGBT foundation then ill believe him

Absolutely - he will be on LBC a little later, open to calls, and I hope someone raises these issues. How can he say women's rights are safe when he has an MP in his party who categorically states trans women are women (Nandy). So when he says 'women's spaces are protected' who does he actually include in his definition of women? Clearly his party members are against him on this, senior members too.

Words don’t mean anything unless he specifies how males who are legally female will be excluded via a new piece of legislation or amendment

Sex defined as biological sex is a way to do it but Labour oppose this so of course males will continue to have access.

He’s using the current legal term for female which includes males

What a sneak. And hardly anyone is as clued up and specific enough to actually ask directly

Yes, he is sneaky...I mean how can anyone trust Labour when you have Dawn Butler trying hard to undermine women's concerns at every opportunity. I despair. But who remembers this? You have to laugh sometimes..

https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/labour-losing-women

It should be a non-issue. Yet many Labour MPs like Eagle, Whittome and Russell-Moyle are utterly obsessed with this non-issue so women have to waste time saying no we don't want males in our toilets etc when it shouldn't even be a debate. So go and tell the Labour MPs to find something productive to do and stop attacking women's basic rights.

I forgot about that Twitter poll. How hasn't Labour HQ sent in a minder?

LondonLass91 · Today 08:39

Yes, he is sneaky...I mean how can anyone trust Labour when you have Dawn Butler trying hard to undermine women's concerns at every opportunity.

Oh dear! Poor ole Dawn!

This

These misogynist MPs are taking us backwards. We are having to fight for basic minimum rights all over again with a party that calls itself socialist.

I guess signs saying male and females can use this toilet makes it clear 🤔

or a sign that a male can pop on the door saying he is in there?

then it would be the same as male toilet cleaners do in the female toilets

There's sometimes a logo of a man with a mop for cleaning. I wonder what the logo for being dismissive of women's boundaries is?

He's a revolting male supremacist. More than that, if he actually cared about the Labour Party he'd realise his anti women fuck ups have been so monumental that they're not recoverable from and he'd resign in order to make way for a leader who has the slightest idea about how to listen to the oppressed and what's equality actually means. If Labour lose, it's all on him. He's vile.

I’m predicting more MPs along the lines of Butler, Osborne or Lammy and Drakeford

The sheer amount of women hatred is going to be bad. That kind of screaming bigot at anyone talking about sex based rights

I am concerned about any law on reduction of fact based speech

Politicians are going to have to spell it out for me to believe anyone, their words mean nothing, woman to them, means anyone who says so. Once our rights are gone, they are gone forever, I have a young daughter - it's too important to me (and goodness knows why anyone would think Starmer and his merry bunch would be able to sort out our countries current mess anyway).

This is going on in Leeds at the minute - a consultation to see if Leeds needs a women only space - sounds wonderful right? But you scroll down the page on Eventbrite and you see their definition of woman.

'This is a women only workshop. This includes trans women and gender nonconforming people who are comfortable in a gendered, women-centered space.'

What's the fucking point!

Nobody's ever been able to explain why, if I have to share a space with women and a handful of men, I would choose specifically those men who think my opression is based upon the fact I have long hair and occasionally wear make-up and dresses. If I am forced to share an intimate space with a handful of men, I want the ones who desperately don't want to be there, thanks.

One of the problems politicans have is that they've being misleading us with language for so long, they have no way of communicating exactly what they intend now.

Starmer may genuinely want to support women only spaces, but how does he say it in a way that reassures women and tell men with gender that they are excluded? Thats even before he can actually make it happen.

When he says that a percentage of women have a penis, no one can know what he means by 'woman'. When actively committing to modernise the GRA, he has the same problem when using the word sex.

So saying something as simple as he 'supports single sex services for women' means nothing.

This may be intentional, he only has to convince the media that the statement has meaning, but what does he do when in power? How is he going to minimise the risk of safeguarding fails, or how is he going to respond if they happen under his watch?

He either doesnt take the risks seriously, or is crossing his fingers and hoping nothing happens.

That is an extremely good point, Lentil

It illustrates that women as thinking, sentient humans do not enter into this equation. The start and end of your involvement in that space is your providing a physical body for the males in question to use in their own agenda.

Whether they wish to use it for validation and emotional satisfaction, for sexual arousal or for actual assault is in their gift: you won't have a say in that either.

It's abhorrent.

He can do it by proposing legislation or amendment

A good example is Badenoch looking at biological sex definition in the EqA

It’s pretty much the only solution that’s possible. Labour have said they oppose it

He uses the words he does because he doesn’t want challenge, he knows what he’s doing

Tbh I feel quite gaslit by Starmer when he tries to backtrack and deny things he said in the past. He was all over the gender bollocks, saying “it’s not right to say that only women have a cervix.” Now he says he protects single sex spaces and “that’s never been an issue for me.” Is he stupid or does he think we are stupid?

I would respect him so much more if he came out and said he was wrong and is taking a different path now, rather than pretending that this was always his stance. He is just such a disappointment.

From The Independent: Asked whether it was transphobic to say that only women had a cervix, Sir Keir told BBC1’s Andrew Marr Show: “It is something that shouldn’t be said. It’s not right.”

Its not just that fact that he has changed the definition of women away from sex, he wants to stop women questioning him. What sort of politician says something untrue and then says the contrary shouldnt be said?

This is why i think things are going to get worse under labour. We wont just have to fight the gender laws, we are going to have to fight for the right to question them.

Labour in opposition have been useless. If the tories have badly implemented good laws, labour hasnt questioned it. They have just talked about making it easier to hide sex.

Fucking sick to the back teeth of all this everything is fucking transphobic bullshit. He's such a liar, he will never have the back of women.

Another thing Starmer could fo is deal with Young Labour - see this thread https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4974184-young-labour-piling-on-tonia-antoniazzi-on-twitter

He won't, though.

Once again with this and the Rosie thing being dropped Kier has managed to piss off the Labour supporters who know what a woman is AND the Labour supporters who are raging TRAs.

At this rate is there going to be any Labour supporters he hasn't alienated by the time it comes to an election?

It makes me laugh when I hear the trans crybullies wibbling about how transphobic labour or the BBC are when they very occasionally mention something factual about women or accurately reference the law.
Starmer's repeated lies and inability to get himself out of the hole he's dug in signing up to trans extremism doesn't bode well for the country. It exposes his lack of judgement, inability to identify batshittery when he sees it and a depressing inbuilt anti-women bias.

I was watching the McLibel documentary over Christmas. I was struck by similarities with the defendents; ordinary people wanting to spread the truth and refusing to apologise to a rapacious global juggernaut, and women currently refusing to pretend TWAW. Then who should turn up but a young, idealistic Keir Starmer (represented them at their later case to the ECHR over the UK government's legal aid stance and libel laws). Surely he should know what enforced lying is?