Keir Starmer unable to define a woman AGAIN

[IwantToRetire]

Suspect that the Sun doesn't care that much about women's rights, and are only trying to score points against Starmer. But his reply (if accurately reported is so avoiding in any way accepting women as biological females. And this will be our next PM.

Reading out questions of Sun readers, Political Editor Harry Cole asked the Labour chief if he still believed men can have cervixes and women can have testicles.

Asked again about his position on trans women and whether they can be defined as women, Sir Keir said: "We set out our position very clearly..."

He added: "Everybody knows there is a difference between sex and gender. I absolutely understand that and respect that. We will not be going down the road of self identification."

He went on:"As you well know the overwhelming majority of women, it's a biological issue...

"There's a small number of people in this country who are born into a gender they don't identify with and they often go through pretty hellish abuse.

"I think most people would say if we can find a way to be respectful to all the women we must properly respect and we have defended their rights and advanced their rights as a party, as a movement for many, many years and we will continue to do so, then fine.

"But we won't and I don't think we should simply abuse ignore, make fun or mock..."

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/26845883/keir-starmer-transgender-women-define-is/

Pathetic.

Talk about not grabbing the opportunity with both hands. This is not going well.

So that's still some women have penises from Keir. Did the sun spell it out for their readership?
im still voting Tory

Just out of interest, does anyone know who is likely to be Minister for Women once Labour gets into power?

Should we be lobbying now - or is it all too late?

"There's a small number of people in this country who are born into a gender they don't identify with and they often go through pretty hellish abuse.

Is he talking about women here? I certainly don't identify with all the gendered crap that goes with being a woman. And it's true that many women go through 'pretty hellish abuse'. Including from men who, despite declaring themselves women, behave in a very stereotypically male gendered way.

Labour are thankfully handing the Conservatives the GE on a plate if they continue like this, as election day gets nearer this issue will dominate above all else with the public and certainly decide who will be in power for the next four years.

I think most people would say if we can find a way to be respectful to all the women we must properly respect and we have defended their rights and advanced their rights as a party, as a movement for many, many years and we will continue to do so, then fine.
"But we won't and I don't think we should simply abuse ignore, make fun or mock

This makes no sense.
But we won't what? Find a way to be respectful to 'all' women? Continue to further their rights?

Don't the tories also think women have penises. They have allowed the slip slip erosion of women under their watch over the last 14 years

Between this, and the shadow frontbench lauding Thatcher, I wonder if they even want to win.

He doesn't believe women have bollocks but the GRC is law is what I understand.

What he is trying not to get cornered on is the grc. He's not given one thought to the "women" part of the question.

In his attempts to not admit that men are not women he is just making himself look weak pathetic and stupid. Who wants someone weak pathetic and stupid as leader of a party or a country? I think we've had enough of PMs who fit that description

Anneliese Dodds probably. That’s her shadow brief at the moment.

No it won't. To most people it is an issue that does not affect their day to day lives. That is why the Tories have done nothing about it in the past 14 years. It is not an election deciding issue

That's the Sun's bad editing for you - it should have commas

But we won't, and I don't think we should, simply abuse ignore, make fun or mock

I don't have any issues with what he said. He confirmed no to self-ID which is the biggest threat.

It also shows he sticks to his convictions- it would have been much easier to parrot a line he doesn't agree with.

I also wish the papers would do a better job of presenting what the politicians said, rather than bad editing to make them seem inarticulate. The Mail does it as well. It's a cheap trick and a good journalist should be clarifying in writing, not obfuscating.

Oh, Keir’s still trying to have his cake and eat it, and be oh-so-clever in using weasel words to avoid startling the horses by stating clearly what he really intends? Well, colour me surprised.

Somebody needs to tell him that democracy hinges on transparency. Voters need to know what they’re voting for, or it doesn’t work. Treating voters with contempt is not anything admirable to aspire to. And neither is treating women with contempt.

I think boring competence is underrated. We haven't had enough PMs that fit that description and I think that's what most people want after the last term.

Interesting to hear Emily Thornberry dodge questions about the WASPI payments on radio 4 just now. Apparently she / Labour campaigned for £15k per woman. But now they won't say what their view is.

Maybe - like their refusal to have a principled position on what a woman is - they can duck out of what a WASPI woman is via lawyer-like, slippery definitions that irritate the shit out of ordinary people.

I hate the way he speaks, weaseling around a topic and doing all the 'it's not right to say' BS. You're a trained lawyer. Speak in plain English and say what you mean, clearly and directly. Say "I think transwomen are women" or "I think transwomen are men" if that's what you really think. But he can't, because he's constantly tying to keep all viewpoints on side and not alienate or upset anyone, even tiny minority interest groups. I find it pathetic and inherently untrustworthy in a politician. He's basically constantly lying to someone. I used to be a Labour voter but I would never vote for the Labour he presides over.

I wondered if there would be a thread on this. He said rather sniffily that “of course” he understood the difference between sex and gender and 5 seconds later started talking about “the gender people were born into”

Oh FFS!

With all that's been going on lately (NHS stating bluntly no more children put on blockers, the No/No vote in Ireland, the slew of industrial tribunals, etc.) I am left wondering how he still manages to not read the room. It can no longer be the usual politician-saying-nothing-he-can-be-held-to - it has edged into absolutely-deliberate territory.

So I'm left wondering just WTF is going on in his office.
. Who has his ear?
. Is there anyone presenting the non-transactivist viewpoint for consideration?
. Do activist staff control what information reaches him?
. Is he manipulated in this way?

The upcoming General Election should be an open goal for Labour, are the activists so sure of it that they're push, push, pushing (and get, get, getting from Labour) for more and more of women's rights to be watered down to nothing?

Right now, for me, Labour can fuck right off. If they're this shit on this matter, I wonder how many other things (that I'm not as familiar with as this) they're shit on. Any sign of competence could just be the illusion spun by their PR people.

Sticks to his convictions? What rubbish! He's flip flopped over this issue like a weathercock in a tornado. The only conviction he sticks to is his own advancement.
Do you really trust his word on self id?

What do you mean? He's moved from self-ID to no self-ID, but then so have the Conservatives and you aren't accusing them of "flip flopping".

Yes I do trust him. And he's not going anywhere so Labour's policy will stay the same.

I think there is a bigger risk from the Tories bringing in Penny "TWAW" Mordaunt as leader and changing their policy to suit. Also the Tories haven't actually said what their policy on this is. Kemi is still mulling. It's only been a year. And sunak says "a man is a man and a woman is a woman" which is completely tautological.

If he acknowledges sex and gender are different, is it weird to go on to say someone can be born into a gender they don't identity with? Newborns don't have a strong sense of identity or worry about conforming to societal expectations do they?

Being born as a sex they go on to not identify with, would seem more a logical way of expessing that to me.

Not the only iffy thing about the quote either.

"He confirmed no to self-ID"

Not enough. Self-ID is being implemented through the back door, by companies misled by their Stonewall sycophancy and charities/government unwilling to apply single-sex exemptions. We're sliding into self-ID whilst he gets to pretend we're not. And he fucking knows it.