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/

We still do not need to undermine the safety and dignity of women via the law

We do not enable and affirm any other psychological disorder in this way.

No chance.

And yet look at the hoops society runs through for this. Look at the damage to women and children

Why females endorse it I have no idea.

You do seem to think that compulsion should be accommodated by women and girls for some men if those men go to enough trouble to prove they really, really want it.

.

He really is a weasel. He's just trying to appeal to all groups by being deliberately evasive. I don't see how women can trust him. He has a wife and a daughter but doesn't know what a woman is.

Yes why this particular compulsion?

And why do women and children have to deal with the outcome of it?

That's a really difficult assertion for me to pick apart. I think its very very difficult to decide if and how to accommodate these conditions.

I guess I do, in some limited circumstances believe women should accommodate treating TW as women. Because I see it along the lines of "reasonable adjustment for disability". Otherwise we are arguing for compounding someone's illness by telling them it's a choice they made and they could just snap out of it. That feels very wrong to me.

I also think what "treating trans women as women" means will vary from person to person. I do think the position "a trans woman is a man, should be called a man, referred to as a man and the law should state this" is a minority position, but also the easiest logical position to end up in because it's so hard to draw a line anywhere else.

No I don't think that is what she's saying.

This is what she said:
We have biological women and we have trans women. And they’re both women

So your interpretation of what she said is something other than what she actually said. She said that transwomen are women.

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?

I'm not really sure what you mean by "recognise someone's trans identity", or why I would need to "recognise someone's trans identity". Can you give an example of a situation in which I might be required to do this?

And this is where I see some parallels with debates around homosexuality. People argued that gay people were predators and paedophiles so they were a risk to be around, biologically sex is to make babies so gayness didn't exist and was a choice we shouldn't teach it in schools to protect children blah blah.

And now we've settled as a society on a scenario where we see it as none of our business who someone else has sex with, and that some gay people might be predators but we aren't going to treat them all like that, and that teaching about it helps people who are gay understand their place in the world.

I would like to get to the same place with trans people and we can't do that in a debate where the position is "it's a choice they make and we are not going to accommodate it".

That's enough of an answer actually so don't worry about it.

I guess we'll have to differ on this because I'm prepared to hurt the feelings of some men who have/believe they have an illness in order for women and girls to have maximum physical protection in their own spaces.

Why don’t you want to allow access to changing rooms?

Your only difference is you want males in toilets

You discount safety and dignity for women there

"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."

I really don't see how a woman or a girl is going to know the difference here. Right now, any sex offender can decide to go into a woman's toilet. Right now he can, and they have, said they feel like a woman.

You are trying to make a case that they can't do this already in some way. You have really not explained with clarity how it is different except after a women or girl has called the police, that the police could demand a GRC.

And you think that this is the magic deterrent?

So, it requires a woman or a girl calling the police if they feel the male is being 'pervy'? What constitutes 'pervy' in your opinion that a woman or girl can be confident will not get them being accused of being transphobic?

I AM considering your answer. I think you will find I am considering just how your logic works and finding that it doesn't.

Completely false analogy. You're not asking people to make reasonable adjustments. You're asking people to throw women and children's safety under a bus. It's nothing like homophobia. That is irrational and has not sensible argument to support it. You're asking women to let in a sub set of males, who are no less dangerous than every other male rather than use other methods to support those males. You're asking women to accept a dangerously sexist view of womanhood and then you're accusing women with boundaries of homiphobia. It's a nonsense argument.

I should add, I'd have respect if you said 'let's make all spaces mixed sex'. I'd disagree but I'd have respect for the argument. The 'let's pretend they're not mixed sex' argument and flinging around accusations of homophobia I think is not worthy of respect.

Thank you for countering these nonsense arguments

Why does the pp not apply all these accusations to anyone who wants single sex changing rooms?

Well said. I'd want those males to get competent therapy too. Not extremist affirmation. Actual competent. We should help them just not by increasing assaults on women and girls. Before anyone deliberately tries to misunderstand that, of course not all TW are abusers but some are and once you let a male in, any male can come in so you don't just have the minority of TW abusers, you have the minority of men abusers in women's spaces.

Good question. Let's hope we get an answer.

"And this is where I see some parallels with debates around homosexuality. People argued that gay people were predators and paedophiles so they were a risk to be around, "

Your argument is much closer to this @AdamRyan than those saying no transwomen in any female-only spaces. You're saying no in the spaces where women are more vulnerable (changing rooms etc) presumably because 'you can't trust 'em'. Others are saying 'no, because they are male', that's all.

The status quo ante was better for women. Before the days of "cubicles" and "cubicles plus urinals" loos in pubs.

I don't have to accept or be accommodating of what is imo quite extreme misogyny for gay men or lesbians to live their lives.

Men quite literally claiming to have a lady brain and all the other ludicrous claims and behaviours that come with that I find incredibly sexist and regressive. Being asked to play along with it is deeply insulting. E.g Dylan Mulvaney's Day's of Girlhood isn't some new frontier of civil rights, it's just misogyny.

He had a 2nd chance, to say something meaningful. He wasted it. Awful.

It’s hard to keep track as there’s many excuses but so far we seem to have had civil liberties, gay mention, disabilities

All of which would apply to the pp who wants single sex changing rooms. Not that I think they’re correct, but it applies to them if they believe in those accusations.

It’s only due to dismissing safety and dignity for women in toilets that they use any of these arguments at all.

Tbh I think some people just want the Labour position to be the 'right' one especially in the run up to the election.

The Labour position is, it would appear, that most women are female but there are a small number of male women who must be accommodated as female because reasons. I think it's party politics more than anything.

It'll probably be a man..

@AdamRyan I am not arguing that there is any increased danger from trans women compared to other men.

The increased risk to women (physical and social) from trans women is simply situational in that they are currently being allowed into the safe spaces (physical and conceptual) that other men are excluded from.

I am saying trans women should not be "accomodated" by creating some sort of "a bit like a woman" status because whatever trans women are experiencing it is not something that makes them empirically closer to being women than other men are in any practical way, so trying to "accomodate" it as if it were is (a) bad for women and girls socially and legally, and (b) not going to work in the long term anyway because it's tackling the wrong problem. It's treating the symptom as if it were the cause.

(I personally consider trans women's disordered thinking around womanhood to be a red flag not because of sexual risk but because it speaks to the thinker having a reductive view of female people, seeing us as cyphers and scenary rather than fully realised humans in our own right, but that's by the by and not necessary for my point).