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/

@AdamRyan - I would have thought this was obvious, but society being wrong about gay people is not an argument to say a completely different group gets its completely different demands waved through without question.

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.

You seem to be under the impression that this type of self ID doesn't exist already. It does, because people who self ID as trans are protected under the Equality Act PC of 'gender reassignment'.

This is distinct from self ID to get a GRC, which is irrelevant for day-to-day social interactions and access to places like women's toilets.

When a man puts on a dress and a wig and wanders into the women's toilet in the shopping centre, we have no idea whether he is a man who identifies as a woman full-time, or a man who crossdresses occasionally, or a pervert who's realised that dressing like this can get him into women-only spaces.

If we call security, we don't know what is going to happen. If he's a well-known perv who's done this before, he may get arrested. If he turns out to be a "genuine transwoman" (with or without a GRC), the woman who complains might get arrested.

Do you understand the problem now?

Edited to add: he might not even be 'dressed as a woman'. If Jamie Wallis was in the women's toilets would you challenge him?

@FlirtsWithRhinos

This needs re-stating because you are spot on

"(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)"

Spot on.

It is not a comparable situation. You are right. Yet we keep seeing this very basic error being made. The difference is one of legitimate and illegitmate discrimination. And actually equality too.

People who are same sex attracted (or to both sexes) were subject to illegitimate discrimination when people declared they should not access toilets of the same sex. For clarity: male people accessing male toilets if they were a homosexual male. They were not asking for special treatment under any safeguarding principles or indeed, in life. They were asking, and rightfully so, for EQUAL treatment and equal protection.

Male people demanding access to female single sex spaces are demanding ADDITIONAL accommodations be made because of their gender identity. This is not a demand for EQUALITY.

It was always wrong to deny a person who was homosexual or bisexual access to a facility that matched their sex when that discrimination was based on their sexual orientation.

For instance, one group of male people have no extra rights over other male people in demanding that they have privacy involving being completely separated from other male people in a facility designated as single sex for male people. Again, singling out same sex or both sex attracted people to be excluded, would be illegitimate discrimination.

This is, of course, not the case for excluding all male bodies from female single sex spaces, except for male children under a particular age who would require care from a female person.

It is NOT wrong to exclude male people from a female single sex space because they are male. There is a necessary form of discrimination that is used for calculating safeguarding risks which is based on sexed bodies. The only 'negative' impact it has is to exclude one sex from a space designated as single sex for safety purposes. This discrimination has been the basis of sex segregated spaces since those spaces became available to public life. Despite the deception that some male people used to gain access and this deception being wedge to leverage a false argument that female people 'never had toilets without male people accessing them'.

Male bodies are excluded from female single sex spaces also on the grounds of privacy and dignity. Not just safety.

Homosexual male people were wrongfully discriminated against based on no statistical evidence at all, just prejudice. This has, rightfully, been prevented with law. Because it was statistically inaccurate.

The fact remains that the comparator should start with 'does one group of male people have a lower risk profile compared to ALL other male people in the UK' ?

The answer for gay male people is 'no' and it was likely always no. Besides, they were not seeking unequal treatment.

If you are arguing that any male person over about 8 should be included in any single sex female space, you should need to provide evidence that the group of male people you are advocating for have not just a lower risk of committing sex crime than all other male people in the UK. You also need to provide evidence that they commit sex crime at the same or lower rate than all female people in the UK.

It is NOT wrong to exclude male people from a female single sex space because they are male. The protected characteristic is SEX not GENDER in this instance.

Brilliant. So clear.

We cant stop men with gender using the womens toilets because 'how would it be policed?'

But we can stop men without gender using the womens toilets because the police can ask to see a GRC?

Why not get the police to tell the men with or without gender to leave the womens toilets?

That's a very fallacious argument. I didn't say it gets "waved through without question" in any way shape or form so that's just overexaggeration. I also only said I saw parallels, not they are the same. The parallels I see are only at the extreme end of the debate where people are saying no males in any womens space ever, no talking about trans at school, its a choice they are making etc.

That isn't actually the position of all GC people. And until recently I would have been with you about the forced teaming etc. But some of the scaremongering is now going way too far and in my opinion can only be motivated by pure prejudice against trans people.

Hmmm. Maybe I'm "unpeaking" if that's a thing.

Yes. Because its not black and white, it's balancing competing needs/wants of two groups

For me, TW in women's toilets is fine. Self ID is not fine. TW in changing rooms is not fine etc etc

I'm not making the rules though. That's why we have politicians.

So, who are you voting for? Reform or SDP?

changing rooms is not fine

And then whatever you accuse others of - around gay, civil liberties, ignoring disabilities applies to you too.

It's not 'extreme' to say no males in female spaces. It's extreme to say adult males have any place in any women's spaces. It's extreme to have a go at women who won't back down and erode their boundaries because of the psychological issues of some males. The choice which I have talked about, as I believe you well know, is not to BE trans identified. I accept that may feel to people like it's not a choice. However, being trans does NOT ever mean you HAVE to invade the spaces reserved for the opposite sex. That's a CHOICE. My position is not extremist, yours is. It is also actually, I believe the position of most GC people because otherwise, quite frankly they are not GC people. There is absolutely no scaremongering going on and quite frankly I find it revolting when people say that. Women HAVE been hurt because of men in their spaces. That's not fucking scaremongering that's a fucking fact and anyone who tries to pretend otherwise has blood on their hands.

Yes but I don't think the poster wants to address that glaring hole in their 'logic'.

This article from last summer came up when I was reading the Angela Rayner interview (where she says TWAW)

Might be of interest https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/13/keir-starmer-gender-politics-labour

So you want us to set up a world that works for you and fuck everyone who that doesn't work for? Seriously? That's the extent of the argument? Why not let TW into changing rooms then because for some women that will be OK. Why are you deciding where this now arbitrary line is drawn rather than someone else?

It’s a bit of an oversight

It’s the lack of logic that comes up on these threads

And btw when you let males into the ladies loo, you don't balance the rights of 2 groups, you just let male desire piss over women's needs. There is no way anyone can sensibly argue that's a balance. One person's desires fully met, another group excluded, scared and given the message that society doesn't give a shit. That's not balance.

Yes.... we get that you believe that because one or two male people deceptively used the female toilets from the beginning of female toilets ( I mean... really? since the beginning of female toilets you want us to believe your claim that there were male people using them ? ) that female people should have no expectation of it being a single sex space.

And we also get that you seem to think that sex offenders are holding back from entering female toilets because the Police might catch them and ask them to produce a GRC. Or so it seems from your logic. Missing the point that they seem to only need to be planning on getting a GRC and that women and girls now feel they cannot tell any male person to leave the toilet because that is the message now being delivered via multiple streams.

Have we clarified just what civil liberties are going to be infringed in the supposed effort to police toilets to exclude all male people? Was it just CCTV or was there something else that we are all missing? Because, I don't believe that we need CCTV, I believe if we started to be very clear that toilets with clear signage that stated 'female only' and used the exceptions under the EA that we keep being told are available to us, that we can make a great start to telling a group of male people that they are absolutely not welcome in this space. I think the 'how would you police it' is a very weak reason to not make it very clear what is now expected and that a toilet has been designated as single sex.

The 'magnitude' (it will take far too much resource, and it is all too hard) tactic seems to be used in conjunction here with the 'rarity' tactic of 'it was never really a female single sex space'. This is then combined with a claim that 'self ID' will make a difference to what we have now, which is pretty much self ID for toilet usage. I have not seen any coherent explanation about the difference, just claims that seem to not make logical sense. It all seems to be based on setting up inconsistent and weak reasons why women should except some male people being in the toilet.

Yes exactly hence pp stating they dismiss the requirement for safety and dignity for women in toilets

It is black and white. Men are not women regardless of their own paperwork.

And it is not "competing needs". It's men invading women's lives, rights, services, and stopping us taking full part in public life. This is men demanding we give things up. "Competing needs" is a highly questionable term, designed to fool people into believing this is two equal groups. It isn't. We have not achieved equality and even if we had, you can't get round the issue of consent.

We on this board know precisely how much the public was ignored over the GRA. Why the fuck would we roll over and allow more of it?

Your 'parallels' are not consistent either.

Homosexual male people were wrongly discriminated against. There was no evidence for their exclusion.

There is evidence, solid foundation and precedence for excluding ALL males from female single sex spaces. This is legitimate. There is absolutely no evidence that has been presented that shows any group of male people over the age where we would accept a child cared for by a female carer, having the same or lower risk of committing a sex crime as a female person.

That is the correct comparator.

Your parallel is that women are effectively displaying transphobia the same way that male people were homophobic when they demanded homophobic male people were excluded. Yet you seem to have no evidence to back up your assertions. And will now declare how boring / aggressive / whatever it is that people expect you to back up your claim with evidence.

Precisely.

I'm not accusing anyone of anything

Well I think I'm off for the night now. My take home is that the counter argument to protecting women's spaces seems to hinge on 'it's fine for me and I don't care about those who it's not fine for', a false analogy with homophobia (which was about gay people wanting equal rights, not about wanting special privileges), about a disregard for crime stats and some spurious idea that we'd have to put CCTV everywhere or otherwise 'it's so difficult to police we might as well make it legal' (which someone does not apply to domestic violence, rape, bullying in schools - all things also hard to police). Have I missed anything? I am willing to consider other points of view but if this is the best of them then yeah I'm going to carry on thinking women have the right to some self volition and boundaries.

Then your previous post where you appeared to accuse everyone who disagreed with your extremist position of being like homophobes was really badly written - it sounded exactly like an accusation. Please do explain what you meant then.

Your posts on gay, civil liberties and disability apply to you.

I mean I think you’re wrong on all of them but you clearly feel that you are not, so whatever arguments you are using apply to your stance.

Thanks for this

Sums it up well