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/

Yes. They are saying the same thing. There are biological women and males who have transitioned to be "legal" women. And I agree with her. Most people do know what a woman and a trans woman are.

That’s still not a reason to not change the law.

Alm these excuses are pretty feeble. They don’t stack up

Share price, CCTV, resources or other

Whatever it is it makes sense to give women safety and dignity in toilets as well as changing rooms and other.

Looking forward to wading through the misogyny on the other thread. Not opened it yet though, maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised. But having seen Caroline Lucas called the C word on here I doubt it.

And in turn you could be right. But my take on them both is that her position is ideological and unlikely to change, whereas he's more pragmatic about it, which could turn out to be helpful or very harmful, who knows. But, if I have to take one of them as leader, I prefer him and what's more, I fully expect her to stab him in the back if he doesn't win a decent majority.

I'd love a party to clarify the Equality Act. The problem is none of them are planning to, so its not a voting issue.

I still highly doubt the police will enforce it, and so there is a question about the value in spending legislative time and money on a law we know won't be enforced.

She says she believes that TWAW. Do you agree with that? If so, where do you draw the line between TW and men?

And the latter NEVER belong in single sex (sex being natal sex) spaces. Including toilets.

The social contract is broken, as before all this nonsense men just stayed the fuck out of women's spaces. Now, because you're not allowed to check if a bloke has a GRC, ALL men are able to go into women's single sex spaces carte blanche. It's self ID by the back door.

Which is why the EA needs amendment to refer to biological sex and any man, those with GRC included, is prohibited from entering single sex spaces.

Many people are law abiding.

People can do all sorts of things and get away with it. Most don’t because they understand and care about the law and social mores.

A minority don’t and for those men women will actually have recourse.

There is no excuse for not changing the situation so it’s better for women and their safety and dignity

No they didn't!
I was assaulted by a man in a "woman's space" almost 40 years ago. I've seen the odd trans woman using womens toilets for as long as I can remember. The "social contract" never kept trans women out. It kept non-trans males out to some extent. And I don't think those men have started using the ladies in greater numbers in the last few years.

All the women stop complaining makes us less safe

Stop colluding with males and change the law. Why on earth not?

OK, I shall rephrase, it kept decent men out.

You aren't understanding though, or don't appear to be...with GRCs, which you can't ask for, any man can go in unchallenged. You aren't then allowed to ask them to leave.

Back before all of this, men could be challenged and turfed out. This can't happen now due to the idiotic laws in place.

I maintain that transwomen absolutely DO NOT belong in women's single sex spaces.

Why are you so willing to throw women under a bus? That is no kind of feminism I've ever heard of.

Exactly this.

I've no idea why this is such a difficult concept to understand. Clue: it's not, PP just pretend it is.

Transwomen may have used the women's toilets for as long as you can remember, but forty, thirty, twenty years ago we also had the ability to ask them what the fuck they thought they were playing at and that they could get the fuck out of the women's toilets.

We've lost that now and it doesn't matter if the man in the women's toilets has a GRC or not as no one can tell the bloody difference

Adam do you think that transwomen are women?

Fair

You can disagree with various GC positions without having to label them with value judgements like hardline or ultra simply by stating what they are, with the added bonus that it's very clear what specifically you disagree with.

"No males in female spaces" is not hardline. It's the default, the baseline. The clue is in the name. Single sex resources and spaces were envisioned as single sex, that's why they have the names of the sexes then the word "only".

Moving away from that means accepting a definition of "woman" and "fenale" that is basically "some men are more like women than they are other men in a meaningful material way because of how they think." THAT is a massively extreme position.

A reasonable, moderate solution starts with an honest conversation about why some men feel they are more like women than they are other men and/or deserve access to female-only spaces and then, assuming there is a reasonable need there (NOT a reasonable expectation to be treated as if their sex were not what it is, or as if sex was not significant to women's physical and social outcomes, but a reasonable need to be treated as different to OTHER MEN), looks for a way to support these men without redefining the basis on which all women - all humans - understand themselves and without destroying the single sex resources and protections that exist to mitigate sex-specific challenges.

I'm sorry @AdamRyan , I get that you self identify as a reasonable moderate person and that your default is to assume whenever two parties disagree the reasonable place must be somewhere between them, but in this case you are wrong. The reasonable place is not "trans people are somewhere between men and women", it's "trans people have a disordered narrative around sex so may need services and supports that are not sex based"

The social contract did keep males with trans identities out. And to some extent, it still does.

We are constantly assured by many posters on MN that their lovely male trans friends don't use female toilets. They find other solutions. We do know there are male trans people who do use the male toilets. Fionne Orlander was one.

So, the social contract kept some out and some took liberties because, from what I have read, some male doctors initially told their male patients that they were absolutely fine to use the female spaces. And then it went from there. Then it become part of what may have been considered a 'requirement' of living as a woman. Considering what we know about just who fucking wrote the guidelines, I don't believe it was female people, I suspect that no male person ever fucking asked.

Why on earth should something that some male people have taken as their right be continued to be affirmed?

I am sorry that you were assaulted in a woman's space almost 40 years ago. However, unless you can provide that magic badge or whatever that shows who is a good male person vs one we must watch out for, I don't believe your suggestion that the current status quo because some gatekeeping measure you have not detailed will keep out those 'bad' one is at all workable in the current climate.

And no... the poll that shows that people think that a trans woman is actually a female with a trans identity shows that you are again rather wrong. You keep making these blanket statements that don't really represent what polls on the topic are showing to be incorrect.

No I don't think that is what she's saying. She's saying the same as Starmer, that trans women have transitioned to "legal" women.

That's just a fact.

I don't agree that TWAW, or TMAM.

I'm not very interested in categorising people based on their biology, because that's how we ended up with millenia of women being oppressed. I would prefer to see a world where we are just categorised as people.

So do I think a "trans man is a woman"? Biologically yes, and I think where biology is relevant they should be considered as a woman. In other contexts they are a person and I don't actually think its my business to tell them how they can or can't identify.

Now I have a question for you. If you believe a trans man is a woman, and a trans woman is a man, under what circumstances and how would you recognise someone's trans identity?

5% of reported rapes in England and Wales result in a charge and 2% of reported rapes in England and Wales result in a conviction. The law is not really being enforced. Using @AdamRyan 's logic, rape should no longer be an offence.

https://murrayblackburnmackenzie.org/2023/08/07/clarity-matters-how-placating-lobbyists-obscures-public-understanding-of-sex-and-gender/

I think declaring that 60 - 65% is 'most' people know what a trans woman is, is probably an over reach.

In all this discussion, there is this constant claim to the majority that really is not quite as solid as the poster would like it to be.

I don't believe your suggestion that the current status quo because some gatekeeping measure you have not detailed will keep out those 'bad' one is at all workable in the current climate.

Again, my position is the status quo is where we should stay because its not practical or possible to do anything different. It's nothing to do with thinking we can "keep out the bad ones".

If you think it is possible to "keep out the bad ones" 100% of the time, then I suggest you explain how that would work and start campaigning for the necessary resources.

I'm pretty black and white. Males are the problem, but not all of them. There is no way to keep them out of women's spaces 100% of the time, but we don't have to make it easier for them to be there.

Self ID would make it much easier. I don't see a way to make it much harder than the current status quo. So I'm OK with staying with the status quo.

what does 'recognise their trans identity mean'? I'd recognise it all the timein the sense of believing they have this ide ttity which they can trans. It's just not relevant when it comes to single sex spaces because I have nothing in common with TW. The problem for me with refusing to categorrrisse people according to their biology is that oppressors continue to so if protections don't also, you are making the oppressed more oppressed. It's like saying you don't agree with people being racist so you opposed affirmative action.

Brilliant, Flirts. Once again!

Can I also add to the general discussion that as the law stands, whether or not a male has a GRC is not a deciding factor in whether that male can use women's facilities. The use of said facilities is based on equality law, which permits the exclusion of all males, even those with GRCs, from female-only facilities. It's the decision of the provider whether or not to allow males in - and not enough of them are even aware that they could be unlawfully discriminating - against women generally and observant women of faith in particular - by so doing.

Drawing on Naomi Campbell's explanation as to what a GRC does (govern a relationship between the GRC-holder and the state) it seems to be there is no need whatsoever for providers to know or find out whether a male has a GRC when they designate facilities or areas "women-only". They are entitled to be catered for, which might mean separate provision (third spaces). There is no entitlement to use women's facilities. That people think there is, or that the status quo is men claiming to be women should use women's facilities is Stonewall Law. This idea was constructed out of the requirement to "live as a woman"in order to qualify for a GRC. You could see how they might, with a bit of squinting, arrive at that idea. But now that "living as a woman" can just be changing your name on some forms, there is even less justification for it and it needs to be knocked on the head.

I'm not very interested in categorising people based on their biology, because that's how we ended up with millenia of women being oppressed. I would prefer to see a world where we are just categorised as people.

I understand why you think that and I don't totally disagree with the sentiment. However let's say that several centuries back this happened and everyone was just officially categorised as people since then - would women have ceased to be oppressed in any way or would there just be no language for it?

To my mind MVAWG for example would still be a thing but how do you highlight it if everyone is just people? I don't believe inequality stops just because no-one names it anymore.

If we say no tw in women's spaces, we make it harder.