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/

Why on earth do toilets become the thing where men have access?

It doesn’t make sense

It doesnt make sense at all.

Public toilets have been single sex for as long as ive been alive, and ive never known a feminist campaign to remove them. Ive seen appeals for additional family rooms so men can take their children to the toilet, but never the removal of the womens.

The idea that women are happy for men to use the ladies is relatively new and is a TRA appeal not one that women have initiated.

I think the reason TRA are focused on toilets is that they are the women only spaces that are seen almost every day, even if as individuals we dont use them. They are constant reminders of men with gender not being women.

Because we need to use them, we often take babies and small children with us, and we are in a small space, and they can exploit the fact that if we say anything, we can find ourselves in very serious trouble, very quickly. They get off on it.

Thin end of the wedge? Not seen as obviously bad because of unisex toilets on trains, in small pubs or cafés. Plus no sense of how differently toilets are used by women anden, no awareness of disability issues. Basically no idea why single sex blocks are the best solution.

Sorry, Eastern Standard, I think I misunderstood your question!

There needs to be as much of a spotlight on this as possible. Labour want this to be a non-issue, so we have to make it a massive, massive issue. It needs to be everywhere, not just MN and Twitter. There need to be leaflets dropped through every front door and billboards and phone ins to Talk Radio and everything else that makes some noise.

They think they’re going to get away with this because they think insufficient voters will understand. But voters can be given more information. Imagine you receive a leaflet through your front door with a photo of Karen White saying ‘this man is a rapist and Keir Starmer wants him to be able to change next to your teenage daughter in the gym changing room’. You’d open it up, right?

Is that humility the reason you announced your departure but came back to have the last word? Oh no, definitely not lying bothered about winning.

Not entirely sure how to take that! 😬

For those who are most 'hard lined' on here, and who are left wing and want to vote Labour, what is the least you need from them to decide you'd give them your vote?

How about if they said, we will ensure that single sex provision for certain contexts (and listed them, and these aligned with what you want) and access to these provisions, should be determined by sex recorded at birth?

Would that be sufficient when it comes to single sex provision?

If they said, we will hold the NHS to account for providing evidence based healthcare for children and young people experiencing gender distress, ensuring the same standards of care applied to other areas of health care are followed.

Would that be sufficient when it comes to concerns in that area?

I'm sorry but you're deluded if you think this - or if you think the Tories will be good for women's rights.

The Tories will be out at the next election, and about time. Gender isn't nearly as big an issue with the electorate as things like the cost of living crisis, the NHS, the economy, fuel poverty, the state of our waterways, cuts to services etc etc.

Thank goodness for organisations like the Labour Women's Declaration who are doing the work where it's needed, to make change within the Labour Party, and people like Stephanie Davies Arai and Hannah Barnes who are diligently exposing what goes on at gender clinics. Thank goodness for the Cass Report. This is how we get change, not voting Tory.

Have you to forgotten it was them who started this whole sorry debacle with the GRA reforms?

Thank goodness for organisations like the Labour Women's Declaration who are doing the work where it's needed,
I'm always singing the praises of LWD but the harsh fact is that Starmer won't even meet with them.

It's because to most men who want it, it's instant gratification. All the time.

A handy validation tool just about everywhere you look.

Most cross dressers probably aren't going to be athletes, or end up in prison. Using women to validate themselves in the ladies is something they can all do, multiple times a day.

It's why many say they agree over sports or prisons, but not toilets. In fact I think Willoughby used to say it. Jenner says it. Hayton, etc.

When sports and prison are irrelevant, you can pretend to be magnanimous about them.

Gender isn't nearly as big an issue with the electorate as things like the cost of living crisis, the NHS, the economy, fuel poverty, the state of our waterways, cuts to services etc etc

I would like to know how you know this theothercatpurred. The rights of women and girls (not gender as you label the issue) are something which I think resonate very much with the electorate.
LWD say a lot of good stuff but are regarded as a bunch of bigots by many in the party - they are not listened to.

This does make sense from the male perspective

I can’t understand the flip side in the pp where a female says they don’t care and safety and dignity don’t matter in toilets

The wanting access I get, and you put it well, it’s the granting of it that is strange to me. Plus the keenness to do so.

In sex, that would go a long way if they used that language, ie sex, sex recorded at birth, etc. but I would also have to be sure that they meant sex, not certificated sex, that women meant women, etc. And that the list of services or spaces was not an exhaustive list. Basically they would have to support the principle in the EA2010. That TWAM when it comes to equality law.

Also that they were going to drop the plans to make obtaining GRCs even easier.

On kids, that would satisfy me but I am not the parent of a gender-distressed child.

Just reading that back makes me realise how hopeless the situation is - Labour would have to have a fundamental change of heart and drop all the policies that Angela Eagle announced. It's more than a shift in position.

The wanting access I get, and you put it well, it’s the granting of it that is strange to me. Plus the keenness to do so.

Exactly this. Many women will self exclude if they know that toilets are now a mixed sex facility. How can anyone endorse that?

Gender isn't nearly as big an issue with the electorate as things like the cost of living crisis, the NHS, the economy, fuel poverty, the state of our waterways, cuts to services etc etc

Neither is the conflict in Israel and gaza, but its having an impact on UK elections.

Lots of the failings of the laws and policies around TRA hit the vulnerable and women in particular situations - school children, elderly needing care, women having medical checks. These issues are only understood once the person is impacted directly. Lots of people will either will never be in the situation at all or havent experienced it yet.

If lisa nandy responded to the isla bryson case in the same way she responded to julia long's question, do you think it wouldnt have an effect on the way the electorate see her and vote?

The fact that starmer says hes learnt from scotland shows hes concerned about public perception even though its not a top 5 concern.

It makes me think of that horrendous university poster aimed at young women (and men but women will be more at risk) telling them to override any concerns they have about anyone in the loos

Training them to ignore instinct

We have no ‘gatekeeping’, the GRC overrides that, you can’t ask for it and anyone can enter based on a feeling

Did the pp want ‘market forces’ to kick in if an unsafe situation arises? I wouldn’t recommend the photograph and share price route if it’s just you and a stronger more violent man is there

Unfortunately, because of their position up to now, I wouldn't trust them no matter what they say. I've only ever voted Labour but can no longer do so.

Maybe once their manifesto is published, their intentions will be clearer? But i wont be voting for compromised safeguarding and ambiguity.

We need words that describe women and girls and only women and girls. For example, the idea that a womens toilet is not for women and girls only is bonkers, and politicians can clarify what they intend from the law very easily.

If 'ladies/women/female' on a door doesnt mean women only, why are business and councils allowed to falsely advertise them as such?

If politicians think there are services that a needed exclusively for women and men with gender, say what they are and explain why.

Yes, that's actually the problem, isn't it? They've done so much weaseling and they are so attached to their "progressive" ideas on trans rights that it would be almost impossible to believe in any change of heart.

I wonder if it's for a similar reason. Seeing cross dressers in the ladies isn't an every day experience for many women. Unless they work in the same place, etc.

So they can afford to be magnanimous when it's a rare occurrence.

It comes across, to me, as either supremely selfish, in an I'm okay Jack way, or an earnest desire to be considered woke. Or cool.

Some women appear to use it as a means to put other women down. Oh you're so parochial, insecure, unworldly, etc. So unevolved.

And I suspect that access to sports and prisons is so unpopular, generally, that opposing that is a bit of a hiding nothing, so best go with the flow.

I honestly can't imagine many woman actually enjoying the presence of random men in their loos. So, for me, there has to be some kind of desire to be 'seen' to be something.

Also I just cannot forgive their massive betrayal of women and girls - they were supposed to be the party that looked out for women and our rights.
They have been gleeful with their TRA rhetoric throwing safeguarding and women's rights away all to promote men's rights. I am not sure that I will ever be able to vote Labour again and certainly not whilst the likes of Raynor, Nandy, Dodds, Russell-Moyle etc are so prominent.

That's seeing what I said in the worst possible light.

I think the status quo works fine - womens toilets for biological women, trans women can also use them. That's been the situation for a long time, its the situation today. I am completely anti self ID and would be against a situation where a sex offender/voyeur could just stroll in and claim he "felt like a woman" so was entitled to be there.

While the status quo is technically mixed sex (as in some males will use them) it's not fully mixed sex (as in all men will think those are their facilities).

I don't think trying to police public toilets to ensure they are single sex only is practical or even possible.

Years ago it used to be TRAs who used toilets as their wedge issue for self -ID - "we just want to pee!"

Now its being used by anti-trans in the same way - "you want to harm women and children!"

If you want a change to the status quo, you propose how it would work in practice.