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/

And according to Private Eye, Iain Anderson may be after a peerage:

x.com/simonjedge/status/1767948142811455774?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

And sunak says "a man is a man and a woman is a woman" which is completely tautological. When he says this he makes the point that the words man and woman have a meaning to everyone in the population over 15 years old. Since it is only in the last decade at most that the meaning of these words has not been absolutely clear, apparent, and definitive. If the use of these words to define either of the two sexes is to be challenged then there should be consensus. He makes the point here that there has been no consensus. So it isn't tautological in context. A man is a man. A woman is a woman.

Ah yes, ye olde sex and gender bait and switch.

We MUST be nice to deluded males at the expense of female safety and dignity. Got it, Starmer.

It really takes some doing to look even more incompetent than the current government but slow hand claps

IMO your absolutely correct - he is weak pathetic and stupid.

I don’t follow politics so came on here to try and get a little understanding and already can’t stand him after 3 seconds into reading.

you can’t roll shit in glitter and call it a puppy 🤷‍♀️

This is the bottom line for me. As usual, we have posters d
claiming this is a side issue. It isn't. It directly impacts 51/52% of the population. It undermines safeguarding if some men are also women. If its not the main issue with the general population yet, it will only be because they haven't clocked that dangerous lies have been embedded into all our institutions by, what appears to be, and has been endlessly reported here, quite a significant number of powerful individuals with very dodgy motivations.

I won't vote for ANY party that enforces me to lie and is so willing to take my rights away.

Meh. We still haven't got to the bottom of why Charlotte Tranter Owen is there. And don't get me started on Lebedev and Michelle Mone.

Don't you just know that when a politician says, "We set out our position very clearly..." that they obviously haven't or else people wouldn't still be asking the question.

He carefully chooses weasel words so that he can backtrack and change his stance. He is not trustworthy.

I'd say that's a very generous interpretation.

He's a barrister so knows the importance of subtleties in the words he uses. He has the opportunity to be absolutely clear and still acknowledge that he'd also like to help transpeople.

But instead he stated the distinction between sex and gender then immediately conflated them. Says women need protecting but includes people with penises in that same definition.

He could easily have said:
-Women are a sex category/a gender category (delete as applicable)
-Women have been historically marginalised because of their sex.
-People with DSDs exist but are not relevant to this particular discussion
-Men with a belief that they are women may feel a bit nicer if we allow them to be treated as though they were women for all/some/certain/no purposes (delete as applies to his actual belief
-The sex based exemptions in the EA will/will not (delete as applicable) be extended to the category of men who believe themselves to be women, even with a GRC.

But instead his deliberately obscure waffle belies the fact that he is, in fact, going to destroy the sex categories by allowing "men with penises" to be included in it.

the tories are utterly crap on this

but I will talk about Labour in my post, partly because thats the point of the thread and partly because i think labour will be the new government

and because i think the current tory government is utter utter shite and i am bored of having to caveat my answers to stuff

so….i agree with other posters that with the GRC in place that it will be self ID through the back door

i think Starmer should man the fuck up and say what he believes on this issue because at the moment he is trying to hid behind platitudes….he could obviously say it ‘nicely’

i don’t think him being honest will be a vote loser for him either way….i think more people are talking about this in real life than other posters will admit (no one on this thread…but i have only read page 1) but i think other issues will take precedence, primarily getting the tories out

I know he doesn’t care but i really thought he would be an excellent labour leader

bit disappointed really

i know they are only young but my politics studying 20 year old says his class feel the same ….i am finally down with the youth !

"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."

I am actually really heartened by the above. Of course Kier is fudging a bit on this issue and I don't actually blame him. I think Labour voters are very split on this issue and if he comes down too hard on either side, he's likely to lose a lot of votes and let the Tories in again. The Tories have it a lot easier as their voter base are much less split on the issue.

I care about practicalities ie not bringing in self ID and not medicalising kids. It sounds like he's coming off the fence on the self ID issue at least. This is good enough for me to vote Labour and get the Tories out.

Wow. If you can say, what is it that's disappointing for your 20yo? It would be interesting to hear. Only if possible of course.

I’ll aks him Rex it won’t be for a while cos he’s not out of bed

Ah, those were the days!

It sounds like he's coming off the fence on the self ID issue at least.
No. He's told you what he is not doing and you have galloped on and read all sorts of hopeful outcomes into that. Like you are supposed to.

How about he tells us what he is going to do.

So if he's not going down the road of self ID, he's going to support a ban on all non GRC holding men in women's sports? Tell them they shouldn't be in women's toilets?

Weak is the word.

Plus his stance is, apparently, no to self ID, but any Tom, Dick or Harry can take the route to Official ID.

Who needs self ID when Official ID is merely a fiver away??

I think this flyer I keep hauling out explains a loti. Anthony Watson is an extremely wealthy trans campaigner who has donated thousands to various labour MPs

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...

Either he's being dishonest, or else he's spectacularly uninformed on the subject. Over 5 years ago, I started to take an interest and from the online examples I've seen, it's all one way and it's TRAs abusing and threatening women, as well as actually assaulting them and absolutely not the other way round.

We've all seen examples, not least terfisaslur.com. Signs calling for women to be decapitated and worse. Rabble rousers publicly encouraging their mates to attack women who disagree.

The Police do little or nothing to prevent it.

Tell me again, Keir - if they're so marginalised and abused, how come they are the most highly protected, vicious gobshites?

Come on, square that bloody circle and stop squirming.

I'd start asking if Starmer knew what a dog was, or a carrot, or a telly or something. Because if he doesn't know what a woman is he doesn't know anything so may as well show how stupid he is and have a good laugh.

(Re the boring and competent comment upthread, Starmer is certainly boring but he's definitely not competent, not even if he identifies as being so)

I don't know where you're getting that impression from as for everyone around me it is the most pertinent issue in their day to day lives.

Yes this. Politicians need to be made to discuss the ramifications of the GRA and its effect.

It's all very well saying we won't bring in self ID but that means nothing when as Datun says the piece of paper has virtually no gatekeeping and costs a fiver - that pretty much is self ID.

There's also the issue of whilst the GRA contains the ridiculous privacy clause which means no one can mention or ask to see a GRC then it's all a bit moot because any man can claim to have one anyway.

Encouraging that he won’t go down the road of self identification. Though like the Tories he won't tackle the de facto self-id of Stonewall law.

Weird that he thinks people are born into a gender.

Also weird that he implicitly frames the question as abuse and mockery. Rather than a legitimate concern of women.

@Datun

Who needs self ID when Official ID is merely a fiver away??

Or indeed if you obtain the protections merely by "intending" to undergo the process.

Is it weird, or is it a "tell"?