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/

Helleofabore · Today 12:37

‘How would you even police this’ particularly used in conjunction with ‘it was always this way’ is a tactic that has the effect to silence or at least try to dispirit others. But we did it in the past.

Well, it would be a start to legislate that women's toilets, changing rooms are women, female only and that woman / female is based on chromosomes. Then, very few women would be afraid to challenge and man trying to pose as a woman, who had gone into such a place.

Is the 'how would we police it' meant to mean 'how would we know?' As in many men look like women and many women look like men?

If that were true, we would never even attempt to have any sex segregated spaces.

How do I write to Keir Starmer?

How would we police it also reveals a lack of confidence in the honesty and decency of the male people involved!

I remember when there was women-only swimming once or twice a week at most local authority pools. I knew quite a few men who moaned about it - they didn't agree with it or see the need for it - but none of them attempted to go swimming in the hours that the pool was reserved for women.

https://members.parliament.uk/member/4514/contact

And here you are, yet again, throwing women who cannot used mixed sex facilities under a bus. And yet you say you miss feminism? Damn right you do, you're totally not acting as a feminist. Maybe try harder and feminism will come back to you.

How do you control it? With the law. Natal women only in single sex spaces. All of them.

“A layer of gatekeeping. It's a bit like locking your house. A determined burglar will still get in, but if the house is unlocked then any old random could choose to walk in on a whim.”

“Also if TW are "allowed" but men aren't, then it's much easier for women to challenge someone who is giving them "creep" vibes. That's not possible under self ID.”

I have to ask… how?? How? When women and girls have been told and educated that they have to damp down their discomfort in allowing ANY male into their space. Yet you now confidentially assert that by allowing the current system to continue, women and girls can challenge someone ‘giving them creeps vibes’.

I am quite surprised to see this posted. Women and girls have been saying any male coming in is causing them discomfort but they are being told by organisations, by activist groups, by their friends and family, let’s face it they are constantly bombarded by messaging that their ‘creep’ radar has to be turned off to allow these male people to access toilets.

Now someone is saying that allowing special male people in using some magic gatekeeping will somehow then make a difference?

This is remarkable to read. I look forward to reading more. Please give us more details. Because I really want to know how this works.

And … what is the magic we can apply to know which is a nice male to be allowed in and which is not a nice male.

Can you tell us how that has worked in working out which males in general are predatory and which males in general are not? I mean, all male people were supposed to be kept out, and many many women believe that was still the status quo. In fact, when I talk to other women who are not following this issue, that is what they believe is still status quo.

But whatever you are suggesting will be a huge short cut for safeguarding practices surely? Or shall we go back to the highest available safeguarding - no males above about 8 years old at all. Which is what it really was despite attempts to portray it any other way and what a lot of women and girls think it is now still.

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?

As things stand, the main reason I might still have for voting Labour would be the possibility of a hung parliament. I dread to think what kind of deals a weakened Starmer would make with other centre left parties in order to form a government. Then factor in the possibility of someone like Penny Mordaunt becoming leader of the opposition (I'm assuming Sunak wouldn't survive) and I think things could get very grim very quickly.

For me to give them my vote without feeling I had one arm up my back, I would need them to clarify a) whether or not they intend for a GRC to give transwomen the right to use a women's single sex space or service and b) what they mean by 'conversion therapy'. And by 'clarify' I don't mean prefacing some piece of double-speak with 'Let me be clear'.

To begin to win back my trust and goodwill, I would need them to acknowledge that the Gender Recognition Act has had unintended consequences for women and children. But given their emotional investment in that law - Anneliese Dodds considers it one of Labour's crowning achievements - I don't expect that to happen.

Can posters please stop referring to people who want there to continue to be linguistic, social and legal categories based on sex as "extreme" or "hardline"?

It really isn't an extreme position to say "sex exists and has material impacts especially for women so if we want to recognise feelings of gender as well this needs to be done in addition to sex not overrwrite it."

The belief that the material fact of physical sex (including needs arising from cultural contructs around sex) can default to being replaced legally, socially and linguisticly with a metaphysical concept of "mostly sex but some certified feelings" and that this can be just done wholesale without considering the implications because swapping sex for feelings doesn't really change anything is far more extreme.

Well said

There was a thread on here about some military men in spain claiming they were women to get benefits

and then there was a ‘transwoman’ who said that these men were lying and weren’t women at all

and there was a picture of the ‘transwoman’ and the military man and I couldn’t tell the fucking difference, and thats not me being bigoted

Is it reasonable to assume that Starmer agrees with his deputy, Angela Rayner?

"We have biological women and we have trans women. And they’re both women: one is a biological woman through sex, and one is a trans woman who has transitioned. Most of the public can get that.”

https://www.theguardian.com/global/2024/mar/23/angela-rayner-roots-rough-edges-ready-for-power

Thread here:
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5035214-angela-rayner-in-the-guardian

We need some lessons from Layla Moran to help us to tell the difference between men who are genuinely pretending to be women and men who are only pretending to pretend to be women.

That would be funny if it wasn’t so true oldcrone

its a complete shitshow

@OldCrone
It is indeed reasonable to assume that Rayner and Starmer agree. It's just that, given her shtick is "blunt and bolshie", she is happy to spell out what he likes to couch in ambiguous language.

Actually I have a gut (but mostly unevidenced) feeling that Starmer and Rayner don't agree or gel on very much at all. Hasn't he tried to get rid of her at least once and didn't she basically refuse to go?

You could be right there... But on this issue, their views do seem to align. He might be a bit more fixated on the use of GRCs to turn men into women, though.

Thank you for answering.

For the few where the law does not matter use the same process as say someone harassing on the underground
So CCTV on the toilet doors and police effort to monitor it and respond to complaints then?

I think a lot of people would probably feel uncomfortable being captured on CCTV going into the toilet (not me personally, but I can imagine many would feel that was an infringement of civil liberties).

Also we would need to increase police resources to deal with this. Given how they don't prioritise flashing/peeping Tom's at the moment I can't imagine there would be much appetite for it.

Plus, this is in effect "virtual bouncers" which a poster upthread objected to.

This is why I just don't think its practical.

They agree on this she just wades in and he avoids with lawyerly bluff

Same outcome for women.

Women includes men - or ‘all the women’ is Starmer’s version

I’m happy to use police with or without CCTV

Crimes still exist outside their remit. And the law doesn’t end where they do.

Oh let me be clear flirts.
By hardline I mean posters who think no males in any female spaces under any circumstances ever. Not "sex exists and has material impacts especially for women so if we want to recognise feelings of gender as well this needs to be done in addition to sex not overrwrite it." I agree with that.

People with the former view have been asked not to be called "ultra" so I'm trying to respect that. But there are a range of GC positions and some of them I disagree with.

Are people suggesting that if a camera doesn’t cover an area it’s lawless?

Seems extreme to me.

By hardline I mean posters who think no males in any female spaces under any circumstances ever.

As far as I can tell your main difference is men in women’s toilets because for some reason safety and dignity is only a concern in changing rooms and other. Allowing access to males becomes less of an issue for some reason.

It’s not logical whichever title it gets

As for @Floisme 's requirements from Labour, it's looking increasingly like "Dump Annaliese Dodds the hell out of the Shadow Cabinet" should be included. Not that I've got any faith in Rayner or Starmer.

Honestly you do confuse the hell out of me sometimes. I was responding to what you wrote. On the tube they deal with sexual harassment using CCTV. Noone is suggesting areas without cameras are lawless.

I agree, using the police to deal with men breaking the law would be necessary to enforce single sex spaces. At the moment the police don't even have enough resources to deal with the men viewing CSEA material, or people shoplifting, or minor thefts, or in some places burglaries. So there would probably be a considerable cost implication, unless you were going to prioritise men in public spaces over other kinds of crime. I think it would be a very brave politician to put that in their manifesto but let's see if any of them do.