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

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's a fallacious framing though. You say "people are saying no males in any womens space ever, no talking about trans at school, its a choice they are making etc." as if these are all part of the same argument, allowing you to frame all those points as (a) "extreme" and (b) "parallels" to historic oppositions to gay rights.

Firstly, as you well know I do not suggest that a trans woman is any more likely to be a threat than any other man - the only reason for increased concern is that the trans women is being welcomed into spaces and protections that other men are not. However since you are looking for parallels, let's remember that at one stage PIE used exactly the same argument you just did. I point this out not to make any parallels between PIE and any other group, but to show you that objections that were totally rejected (and rightly so) when applied to gay rights can be valid and appropriate in a different context. So, my original point stands - the fact that those arguments when made against gay rights were wrong does not mean they are still wrong in a "parallel" but actually totally different context.

Secondly, there is no reason that "no males in women's spaces ever" means "no talking about trans in school" or "being trans is a choice they are making". That is a false framing by you. And given how many times I have made the point that the issue is not supporting trans people, the issue is that the specific shape of the support that is currently being demanded means accepting that a trans identity makes a person in some material way genuinely closer to the opposite sex than their own and that this justifies in some contexts treating them as if they are the opposite sex when they are not. That is a huge, extreme claim and should not be just hand waved in as "oh they must have some compulsion so the only kind thing to to is faciliate it"

Just to repeat.

Homosexual people were demanding EQUAL rights where they could access same sex spaces. And rightfully so, there is no evidence that I have seen that as a group homosexual people have any higher rate of committing sex crime.

Males with trans identities are demanding ADDITIONAL rights that are in conflict with female people's right to single sex spaces. There is no evidence that this group of male people commit sex crime at a rate equal to or lower than female people. Therefore, for safeguarding purposes they should be treated like male people until such time as it is robustly proven that they are a special group that need to be segregated from all other male people, and even then, that does not mean being treated like female people. That would mean being treated like a special sub group of male people needing their own solutions.

Oh dear. No need to shout.

I understand now. It is a black and white issue, there is no such thing as a trans person, just a deluded human that we shouldn't indulge.

In the past I've read lots of GC people being supportive of trans people- like JKR. But clearly she is also not GC. My mistake.

I'm not shouting so no need to patronise. I'm trying to help someone who seems to have problems making sense of what others are saying. What do you think a 'trans person' is? It's just someone who says they're trans, right? So of course there re trans people. Not sure it's helping any discussion to draw unwarranted conclusions rather than trying to actually understand anyone else's view. So let me try and spell it out EVEN MORE.

I am supportive of trans people. They are often distressed people struggling to find a sense of self they feel comfortable with.

That doesn't mean that TW should be in women's spaces. I think JKR and I agree about that.

So, here's an actual conclusion (don't try and draw your own, I don't think you're following the conversation) GC people largely believe trans people exist, they are compassionate to their struggles, they don't think males belong in the ladies.

Sorry flirts that may not be your position but it is the position of others on the board and those are the posters I'm talking about when I say I see parallels.

I'm not about being "kind" either. I'm about supporting people to live their best lives and I think most people feel the same. We all make compromises every day.

All the anecdotes of women being happy or tolerating men in toilets come from men. My grandmothers never talked about welcoming men with gender into the public loos. And one of them talked constantly there was nothing left unsaid.

Given how few passed, and how transvestites were more common than transsexuals, i wonder if 'TW in womens toilets' were really men in womens toilets in specialist clubs, not department stores.

How can the women who can't go out any more because they feel unable to use the mixed sex ladies loos be living their best lives? Who are you choosing not to be compassionate to? how are the women traumatised by seeing TW wanking in the ladies able to live their best lives?

Helles position is pretty mainstream for this board. You have been drawing all sorts of wrong conclusions based on your misundersandings of what people have said so it may be worth re-reading previous posts with a more open mind.

Which posters are posting something that differs from what Flirts has posted please?

There really seems to be a significant disconnect happening.

Have any one of us posted anything different from flirts?

How do you "believe they exist" (in any way other than how any human exists) if you think they are their birth sex and should be treated that way at all times?

That's not a value judgement. It's a genuine question. I cannot understand what "trans" means to you if you think people should be treated as their birth sex at all times

Ooh interesting. I wasn't responding to hell - not sure where you got that from.

It's irrelevant whether there is or isn't such as thing as trans. It's unquantifiable really. What does matter is that people can't change sex. Males don't become females ever.

How have any trans people changed sex so that they should not be treated as their birth sex when sex matters? As in when single sex spaces are needed. And by needed, I mean not arbitrated as whether they are needed or not by you, but by women and girls who have stated they need single sex spaces to remain single sex - even those where some male people used them when they were not ever welcome to but did anyway.

There is no need to ‘balance’ the ‘needs’ of two groups here. The TW do not have a need, they have a want. There is no obligation for women to give up their safety to accommodate it. Men - however they identify - do not and never will belong or have a right to be in women’s single sex spaces.

Single sex spaces are the default and have been the norm for centuries. If some men now decide they want in on that, they are the ones asking for extra rights they are not entitled to. It is not the women. And women are not chattels of men (any longer), such that they should be forced to give up their spaces and safety and dignity, just because some men wish it.

Let me explain it to you with an analogy. I am a homeowner. Not everybody is. If somebody who doesn’t own a home decides they want to live in mine with me, should I be obliged to let them?

Starmer is pathetic . Remember this about self ID https://twitter.com/i/status/1402586773499244549
and the other video (I can't find it now but someone may have the link ) of Starmer, Rayner et al saying I believe in Self ID blah blah blah.

They U turned on the basis that 'you have to take the public along with you' . So how can he 'strongly believe' one minute and then not believe the next. Do they think we are stupid.

I believe that people who identify as trans exist.

I don't believe that anyone is literally born in the wrong body and in some way "should" have been born in the opposite sex body, so in that respect I don't believe that people who are objectively trans exist.

Until we have an objective test for whether someone is genuinely trans, and a clear definition of exactly what makes someone trans, believing that 'trans people exist' is a faith-based position not a reality-based objective fact.

I believe that people should be treated as their birth sex because their birth sex is their sex and people can't change sex. Men being treated as women and having access to women-only spaces impacts on the women who need to use those spaces. Those men's desire to be 'treated as' women does not override women's rights to single-sex spaces.

This is the strangest thing I’ve ever read from someone purporting to be GC.

Trans people exist because there are people who for one reason or another believe they would feel more comfortable ‘being’’ (even though this isn’t possible), the other sex.

These people exist. It doesn’t mean they literally become the other sex, no matter what lengths they go to. They cannot possibly do that. Therefore they cannot be given the rights of the sex they wish to become but never can be. And that is because doing this causes grave risk for the members of the sex they wish to be.

What is so difficult for you to understand?

Do they think we are stupid.

Yes. Yes they do.

They think we’re thick enough not to notice the ‘all the women’ shit and that they’re clever enough to pull it off. Idiots.

I'm about supporting people to live their best lives and I think most people feel the same.

Well I'm not a support human for men with "disordered thinking around womanhood", as flirts so eloquently put it. She nailed it, in fact.

You don't get to consent on my behalf.

The needs for safety of male people who declare they are unsafe in male spaces does not mean that they should be accommodated by their use of female spaces. That is being presented as a false 'only solution'. And that is the issue here.

There ARE other solutions available. And we know that they are also used by trans people because they and their friends tell us. Both male and female people with trans identities have told us directly on MN that they find other solutions because they respect the need of female people to not want male or people who have changed their body with testosterone in their single sex spaces. So there is this false narrowing of options to only be 'let male people into female single sex spaces', maybe under the guise of 'they have somehow become less male for safeguarding principles to apply' or something along those lines.

In addition, there seems to be this constant narrative that toilets are not included in the concept of single sex spaces. This gets pushed out using several tactics, some we have seen here tonight.

But the reality is, some people feel that it is unreasonable to exclude some male people from female toilets. And it seems like those who think it is reasonable, and that it is vital, are being framed as being extreme and being just like homophobic people who sought to exclude homosexual people by some people.

This

and agree with this

You don't get to consent on my behalf. to earlier pp who sound keen to

Supporting which people to live their best lives? Validating the belief that some men are more like women than they are other men because of something in their minds, and opening up the resources intended to mitigate the impact of a sexist society on female people to those men to help them live their best lives might be great for them but it's really bad for female people, not just because of the loss of safe physical spaces but because it condones the sexist and reductive idea that we have different types of mind to men, and because it diverts resources that could be supporting female people in the service of male.

Trans women are not women, they are not men who are somehow mentally more like women than other men, they are just men projecting something onto womanhood. While this might be someting they sincerely believ to be true it's not reasonable to accomodate that belief on its own terms. We need to find a better way, one that exists separately to sex-specific langauge and resources not appropriating them.

I'm about supporting people to live their best lives and I think most people feel the same.

Do you believe in supporting women to live their best lives or only men with gender identities?

When there is a conflict between women who need a single-sex space and men who want to access it, who do you support?

Because I don't subscribe to a hyperbolic manipulative view of what exists means. They exist because they are people who believe they are trans. Being people gives them full human rights. WhaWhat

It's just a bleeding typo. not that interesting really.