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/

OK so you've linked a blog saying the majority do know, but then discounted your own source as incorrect and are claiming "there is this constant claim to the majority that really is not quite as solid as the poster would like it to be".

Nice try at finding evidence from a transparent source, now you just need to integrate that evidence into your argument.

But the status quo makes it easier. Which is why it needs to be changed.

I don't think you understand the law.

I'm not very interested in categorising people based on their biology

So how are you providing single sex changing rooms, hospitals and prisons?

If you don’t then men have access everywhere. How is that good for women?

Ooh, and also we need some consistency in argument. As Eastern said, a lot has happened since 2020 and the debate is now much more high profile. I'd expect more people to be clear about trans identities today.

@AdamRyan

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.

As soon as you accept that some men have a right to be in woman only spaces or to woman only resources you have made it easier for them to be there.

Black and white is sex. Anything that blurs that line is less black and white.

There's nothing wrong and a lot right with categorising people based on their biology. What is wrong is attaching greater value to the male people compared to the female people. Nobody will stop being male or female if there are no words for sex.

However, a GRC in combination with the EA, due to the latter not referring specifically to biological sex, is a problem (or loophole). Hence the need for amendment.

Do we also stop categorising people by age?

Also s biological reality

Or are we let 56 year old male in 9 year old changing room territory

'Not having words for things' is not a good thing, though. Wasn't one of the main features of Newspeak that it had a very small vocabulary, much less than normal English. So many words had been done away with.

But the EA does specifically say that GRC-holders can be excluded from women-only spaces - including toilets, rape crisis centres, etc, etc. So whether sex means bio sex or certificated sex doesn't matter.
The Haldane judgement problem comes up for things like book clubs.

Edited for clarification.

Easier than what? I'm talking about today and recent history. The status quo is the baseline. We can make it easier for predatory males to attack women by moving to self ID. But my opinion is we can't make it that much harder for predatory males to attack women by changing the law, as we don't have the police time or resources to enforce that change.

I'm guessing political parties know this, which is why none the main contenders have a policy to make that change. The smaller parties (SDP/Reform) can because they know they will never win a majority and then have to implement their policy.

And I keep pointing out to you that recent messaging has now removed women and girls' ability to report 'creeps' ( your words by the way). I am saying that THIS status quo is unworkable.

You are not 'pretty black and white' at all. I think you think you are , but you are actually all over the place. You think that some male people should be allowed into female toilets. You think the current status quo of some male people, who are ones taking liberties given by historic misogyny, should continue because you claim it is too hard to police it. Have I got that right? That is what you believe, yes? That is not 'black and white' in my opinion at all. That is in the realms of allowing 'shades of grey'.

You have also called women who disagree with you 'extreme'.

Historic safeguarding was about keeping ALL male people out. A social contract was broken by some male people telling other male people that they should use the female toilets and some female people went along with it. Now, the majority of UK women, as per polls reject any male with a penis being in that space. They don't want them there. I don't believe they ever did.

Shall I post the poll? Did you miss it?

There is probably not much real difference in your status quo, and a version where those male people currently using the space being told through media, through signage and a slew of other communications that they now should never use those female spaces that are signed as 'female only' again. That the law has changed and if you see a sign saying you are excluded, you stay out. If some venue wants to make there toilets 'inclusive' they put in gender neutral and not declare them to be 'female' toilets.

You seem to put up false barriers by saying 'it cannot be policed'.

Well, yes, it can. Give women and girls the power to again report ANY male over about 8, and to tell those male people to leave, or to leave without feeling they are hateful doing so, and there is a start. Allow women to police the space or to tell other women about to enter there is a male in there, wait out and all the things we used to do which are now considered transphobic.

There is a great start.

What is difference in policing in your version and mine?

Why fight this? It’s bizarre.

It’s helping males not women

You can't limit to biological sex with the EA though as per Lady Haldane's judgment that sex in the EA means legal sex, not biological.

The legislation contradicts and ties itself in knots.

No. The baseline is not current law. The baseline is what used to be. The status quo makes is easier than the previous baseline.

MBM commissioned the poll.

https://murrayblackburnmackenzie.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Survation-full-data-June-2023-1.xlsx

How have I discounted my own source?

There has never been a time when "all male people were kept out". You are harking back to a golden time that never existed.

The current messaging hasn't broken the status quo, in fact women (rightly) are far more empowered to speak up than they were 5 years ago. Men are more aware of the trans debate. So I'd argue the social contract is stronger than it was. Kinda fruitless though as impossible to prove either way.

I'm not saying "it cannot be policed", I'm saying that policing it will take a large amount of resources and infringe on civil liberties so I don't believe there would be an appetite for it. And that's an opinion not a barrier. If a party wanted to campaign on that basis and won a majority I'd happily admit my opinion was wrong.

to tell other women about to enter there is a male in there, wait out and all the things we used to do which are now considered transphobic. Noone is stopping anyone doing what they always did, this is a complete red herring. Under selfID this could have been a possibility, but not now, today. This is scaremongering and I don't know why you are spreading it.

"We can make it easier for predatory males to attack women by moving to self ID."

Genuinely, how?

My point is that her judgement says that legal sex is conflated with bio sex except where it is specifically, in terms, not conflated. She thinks "sex" within the EA means legal sex + bio sex sometimes and bio sex at other times. (IANAL, but this is my understanding from reading Michael Foran's article about the Haldane judgement.) Whether she is right or wrong, the lawful exclusion of GRC-holders from certain kinds of women-only spaces is provided for by the Act. That's why the existence of a GRC doesn't matter in the circumstances we are talking about. But everybody has been led to think it does and that it is unlawful to exclude male GRC-holders. Third spaces provided for anybody with the PC of GR will always be lawful.

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

It reads as "research says this but I don't believe it and think there is a bigger problem". Strange.

Of course people can't so easily warn others that there's a bloke in the ladies now. Have you not idea of the harassment which SOME TW and their accolades dish out to anyone who refuses to pretend a bloke is a woman? have you no idea how intimidating, even terrifying it would be to be on the receiving end of that? where have you been? who are you just not listening to?

Really. It never existed? You really need to tell us exactly why this is so?

Or are you saying that just because some males came in for whatever reason, to attack, to clean, to just go in or a mistake, that this meant 'not all males were kept out'?

or are you saying that just because Jan Morris went in, that 'the golden time never existed'.

Please explain this?

No. I am referring to your constant saying that 'most'. I am saying that I don't consider MBM's findings of 60-65% to match your 'most' blanket declaration.

I believe that MBM's findings are showing that a majority do, but up to 40% do not.

And I believe that 40% is a rather too large chunk of the population that don't know that you are dismissing with your blanket 'most'.

I would also genuinely want to know, since we cannot ask for a GRC , just how this supposed 'status quo' is working somehow better in comparison to a self ID model.

What is the difference?

I’d like to know too

Does Eddie Izzard have a GRC?

Who knows but if he doesn’t it doesn’t stop access

How would it? No one can check