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/

Thank you for putting this so very clearly. This clarity is what I come to FWR for. To help me get to the nub of my own thoughts when they are known but a bit jumbled!

Women ARE speaking up now. And when they do so, they are declared transphobic.

You really seem to have a disconnect here.

Are you saying that current messaging is encouraging women to speak up in public about not wanting male people above about 8 in the toilet ? Please, do show us this current messaging so we can assess just who is releasing this message that then counters the signage that has been appearing.

How it is countering the social media messaging of 'being kind and inclusive'. I would like to see all that messaging that you think is creating an environment or women and girls to state clearly 'I don't want you in my toilet space because you are male' and where those women and girls feel empowered to call the police, security or just to tell others there is a male inside the toilet.

Ok. so you are not saying it cannot be policed. You are saying it will now infringe on civil liberties and take too much in resources.

So, we now should not do it because it will infringe on civil liberties? Is that what you have stated? Can you now be very clear what civil liberties you are referring to?

To me 'no self ID' seems like a weak defence that actually means nothing.

Because currently GRC's most certainly do not seem to be able to provide any additional layer of safeguarding. Can't sex offenders keep their GRC?

And if it is never to be disclosed for the purpose of going to the toilet, the current process is logically no different to Self ID. But 'no self ID' seems to be repeated over and over. Yet, I cannot genuinely understand what the fuck difference it will make in who will access a female toilet or not.

For the purposes of women and girls being able to identify who is in their toilets, it doesn't matter a jot whether a male has self Id'd into that toilet or not. The reasoning doesn't stand up to basic scrutiny.

Can you now be very clear what civil liberties you are referring to?

Yes that would be good

Changing rooms - no impact on ‘civil liberties’

Toilets - impact

Why?

How about the freedom for women to enter single sex spaces knowing the law endorses that position? Why is that consideration lost to some?

The arguments are odd. They don’t stack up

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

This is closest to what I mean.
Trans women, for example Jan Morris, have always used womens spaces. It is part of their condition.

There has never been a golden time where womens single sex spaces were 100% female only.

OK. So you are saying because Morris's doctors told Morris to use the female toilets, that this means the 'golden time' never existed. Even before there was any Jan Morris type male people in the UK. Because you believe that this then negated the concept that these spaces were only ever for female people.

I would think that is quite another over reach on your behalf.

So, because a few male people deceptively used the female toilets, that now means that female people should not be able to say that in the past no male people used female toilets and that we should have no expectation that they should be female only.

Again, please correct me. But is this what you are saying?

Because under self ID any sex offender can on a whim decide to go into a woman's toilet. If challenged he can say he's a woman because he feels like a woman. Under self ID there would be nothing anyone can do because legally he'd be entitled to be there.

Today, if he was hanging around being pervy women could call the police. They could come and remove him for breach of the peace or whatever. He could not claim to be a woman "because he feels like it".

He could claim to have a GRC but he'd have to produce that for the police.

Exactly the same would apply to a man who'd put on a dress to support his perving.

Sex offenders know this, because they are good at exploiting loopholes. So in todays world they might think twice or they'd GTFO when challenged. In a self ID world they wouldn't, because they wouldn't have to.

Now as I've answered your genuine question, I'd appreciate you spending some time considering the answer rather than trying to pick holes in it.

It's not 'part of their condition', it's a decision taken by an entitled male. It is not evidence that we should now let any old male in fgs.

You don't think AGP or gender dysphoria exist? That's a new one on me! I didn't realise they were controversial!

It's very patronising to accuse people pf picking holes in your argument when in reality they just see the glaring inconsistencies and muddled thinking. These conversations will be more fruitful if you treat others with more respect.

A lot of people feel that any surveillance infringes their civil liberties. They are anti CCTV/ANPR/ID cards etc.

I can imagine many people would be deeply uncomfortable with the idea of CCTV coverage on the entrances of public toilets.

She means that women and girls are not a prescribed treatment for whatever ails men.

Oh good god. You are behaving in a ridiculous manner. Of course they bloody well exist. Of course that doesn't mean a male HAS to use the ladies loos which is the actual argument you made.

E.g.
https://bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/

I don’t care either way.

I still want the law in place.

As you already confirmed we don’t exist in some lawless land if there’s no CCTV

Honestly it’s bizarre.

The "actual argument" I made is that they always have done because their condition compels them to, in the same way it compels them to have surgery, wear womens clothes. Not that they "have to" as such. Just that they do and there has never been a time where they didn't, contrary to what hell says.

I don't think AGP and gender dysphoria are "decisions taken by entitled males". If that were the case there would be no trans men.

I think they are psychological conditions and people with psychological conditions don't behave rationally.

OK. Who are you going to vote for then?

Same to you. I'm not calling people ridiculous.

So male compulsions should be accommodated then no questions asked if it can be framed as a psychological issue?

Their condition makes them want to. It does not compel them. They chose to. The decision taken by entitled males is to use women's spaces, not to be have a trans identity or to have AGP. As was very clear in my statement.

In the same way that a traumatised man chooses to hit his parter, or take drugs, an AGP male (sometimes) chooses to invade women's spaces. They can do otherwise, better, if they want. Many do. Pretending they have no choice but to hurt others is rhetoric not reality.

But the main point is that a few entitled males in the past doesn't mean we have to accept a whole wadge of them now.

I apologise if you genuinely had failed to understand what I'd written. It read like you were playing silly games. If you just hadn't processed it properly and your rather irrelevant response was an error, then sorry.

No that's not what I said at all.

This thread of conversation started because a couple of posters referred to a time where there were single sex spaces for women only. I disagree such a time existed. Men with AGP and dysphoria are compelled to access womens spaces, men with AGP and dysphoria have existed for a very long time, so therefore I think this "golden age" of single sex spaces is a mirage.

That is all I'm talking about in this context.

You said tw using female spaces was part of their condition. So that wasn't all you were saying. People are right to pick you up on this. It's a powerful but completely unevidenced statement.