Starmer furious that Sunak should mention his definition of ‘woman’

[HagoftheNorth]

PMQ’s today, Sunak highlighted Starmer’s famous comments that some women have a penis. Starmer was furious that Sunak should make that comment while Mrs Ghey was in the chamber. Surely Starmer should realise that it is possible to be respectful and compassionate about trans people without parroting the insane lie that transwomen are women (because ‘woman’ is sex not gender)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68229785

Not an answer

And yes society is geared towards gender ideology in law via the GRA

Which is why we’re in this mess

We should be directed away from falsifying information to acceptance in each sex class of all males

Over 8,000 have been issued with a GRC, 400 in the last quarter.

6,000 was the number of total GRC estimated to be issued ever.

We have no idea who is protected under GR, and who is using wrong sex identification.

'Aligned with Putin'.🙄

No I not evading, I did not see the question as I hid the thread for a while

No woman (or man) should be forced to refer to their rapist as "she". Only men can commit rape.

It depends what you mean by "our spaces". Open changing rooms, yes. Ladies' loos with cubicles - the reality is that most of us will neither know nor care if the person in one of the other cubicles is trans. In fact it's virtually inevitable that we've all had that experience without knowing it or being harmed in any way.

This is where "emotional intelligence" is a useful tool.

It is possible to recognise that accurate gendering is important in some circumstances (e.g. rape victim describing their trans rapist) and inappropriate in others (e.g. describing a murdered child).

I honestly don’t know why women are arguing for males in single sex spaces at all

Is it overriding loyalty to Labour. It’s crazy to me women are arguing for it.

Well that's quite the leap. Should trans people be murdered? No? Should male people compete in female sport? Also no. Not in conflict.

See also. I don't think that bishops should have an automatic place in the HoL. Neither do I think that bishops should be murdered. Nuanced thinking is also available to you. Give it a go.

Why do you need it explaining? Genuinely, why? What do all women have in common? They were born and they will die. That's it. Stop reducing women to their biological functions - it's exactly what the patriarchy has always done, and you're running the patriarchy's errand here. Women are not walking vaginas.

"Describing something by" is not "reducing to". Try again

No we’re absolutely not walking vaginas!

we do, as a sex class follow a biologically defined developmental pathway which is starkly different from the male developmental pathway. That’s what’s obvious, sorry, any commonality with transwomen not obvious. Try explaining?

Being an ex-practicing solicitor has no bearing of my observation that the police has been overreaching by arresting women for correctly sexing.

it is interesting that they have preferred to do that rather than question the males who have been harassing women with death and rape threats.

None of these women have been prosecuted afaik.

There never have been “single sex” spaces in the way that some people here want, and there never will be, because people like this exist: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Z4xG0UwBWeY. Dividing spaces as some GC people want would never be feasible.

No, humans all have that in common, that they were born and will die.

Adult human females also have their biological characteristics in common.

Males do not, even if they pretend.

Oh Veronica, the insults and hyperbole don't help your cause.

But allowing males into single sex spaces and sports really isn't any form of feminist position.

It's ever so kind though.

No woman (or man) should be forced to refer to their rapist as "she". Only men can commit rape.Edited

So you mean that some trans women are good (should be treated as women) and other trans women are bad - in this case rapists (should be treated as men)?

How does that work? Where is the line drawn?

I don’t argue for it. I just don’t care. Like @Flamme if I’m in an enclosed cubicle it’s a matter of supreme indifference to me who’s in the next one. I don’t spend enough time there for it to matter - or even for me to notice.

Lemon, I haven’t opened the link, but I guess you are once again dragging in people with DSD’s. They’ve specifically asked you to stop. Please desist, very few transpeople have DSD

Agree. Do they have to be guilty? How does that work pre jury outcome

I think if the argument is reduced to toilets a lot of women would agree.

This is not about toilets though, it's:

Women's prisons
Rape Crisis Centres
Sports
Refuges
School residentials (especially in teenage years)
Changing rooms and open showers
Women's prizes
Scholarships reserved for women

This is a non exhaustive list.....

The person isn’t asking anyone to stop anything, and it’s not about trans people. I was talking about what’s realistic in terms of spaces. You’re speaking for an intersex person without even seeing what they have to say. I haven’t spoken for them; I’ve provided a link to what they themselves are saying.

@AdamRyan answered this and I agree:

This is where "emotional intelligence" is a useful tool.

It is possible to recognise that accurate gendering is important in some circumstances (e.g. rape victim describing their trans rapist) and inappropriate in others (e.g. describing a murdered child).

Is it a lack of emotional intelligence if you can’t imagine how mixed-sex toilets might affect SA survivors?

So a male presenting as a woman on trial is ‘he’

And If the outcome is not guilty? Is it all on trial or just the criminals

And with a legal document stating he’s a female - why can you override it there. Does he use all male facilities too?