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/

Apologies ny phone had a blip. What does exist mean to you? if I don't have the same religious faith as someone do I think they don't exist?

I was responding to this:

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.

I didn't bring up whether or not they "exist".

If you are treating people as their birth sex at all times, if you want to call a TW a man and a TM a woman, not be compelled to use their pronouns and all the rest, then in what sense do they "exist" other than being alive?

Because it sounds very much to me like "there's no such thing as trans, just deluded people".

Which is fine and a completely valid opinion but has implications, in much the same way what I'm saying has implications.

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

For me TW in women's toilets is not fine and it isn't fine for the majority of women either as polls consistently show. Many women are excluded from these facilities due to TW being in there, is that fine by you?

You are in favour of self-id by stating that it is fine for TW to be in female toilets because they are self-iding to get in there as you well know.

The trans community, their allies and every politician under the sun can't define what trans is so why women should be expected to I don't know.

Berating women for not believing in something so nebulous that even the people who claim it don't have a solid definition is a tad unreasonable.

what does 'there's no such thing as trans' mean to you. You need to be clearer.

Are there people who believe they're trans? yes.

Are there people born into the wrong body? no.

which do you mean? Confusing the two is not helpful.

He's less use than a bucket of arseholes.

If a woman needs a single sex space for dignity and privacy, the woman.

If the woman just wants a space away from any males then it's context specific. In my opinion.

I would have thought that was obviously going to be my answer, so not sure what you are hoping to achieve

In what sense do they "exist" other than being alive?

Oh my gods...

Well women need ladies loos for privacy, dignity and safety so why are you arguing against them?

please also answer the question about what exists means to you because it's impossible to discuss things If you don't explain key terms which you're using in idiosyncratic ways.

I'm responding to you, so I'd say you need to be clearer. I didn't start talking about trans people existing and needing to be compassionate, but also treating as birth sex at all times.

How do you demonstrate your compassion towards trans people?

I'll answer after you do. What does exist mean to you?

Oh my god its the hamster wheel of doom.

Saying I personally don't care about TW having access to womens toilets because its neither practical or possible to stop them is not me "arguing against single sex spaces". Its called being pragmatic.

If a woman needs a single sex space for dignity and privacy, the woman.

That covers toilets then so your fine with TW in women's toilets falls flat on its face.

Typo- I meant dignity and safety.

Saying I personally don't care about TW having access to womens toilets because its neither practical or possible to stop them

It certainly is practical and possible.

Here's where you introduced the idea of others thinking 'there's no such thing as a trans person' if they don't agree with your more extremist views.

Typo- I meant dignity and safety.

Still covers toilets so your argument for TW in there is still flat on its face.

Go on then. How are you planning to do that? Eastern and I discussed this earlier. I should say before you start that when I say "impossible" I mean that I think there would be no appetite from the public for the amount of privacy that would be sacrificed or the financial costs involved in policing it.

I'm all ears though.

what did you mean by 'there's no such thing as a tran person'?

It is practical. It is possible. It doesn't matter whether you personally are OK with it. Other people's needs count too.

We didn’t agree. You brought up CCTV I didn’t.

And I’m fine with the policing.

I’m with @GailBlancheViola

I mean that when people say that trans is a choice made by entitled men, that said men should never be treated as anything other than men, then to all intents and purposes you are saying trans = birth sex and therefore trans as an identity doesn't exist. It's a delusion that people believe in, not an actual thing.

If that isn't what you think, just say. That's how it reads to me.

I think some people genuinely have gender dysphoria that is relieved by transition. I think some men have the acronym that must not be mentioned. Because of this I think "reasonable adjustment on the basis of disability" is a good approach. You disagree. That's fine. Doesn't make either of us wrong or right.

Of course it's practical and possible. Go back to all men not welcome in the women's toilets, no matter how the man sees himself, And give women and girls back the ability to ask any man they see in the women's toilets what the fuck he thinks he's playing at.

We were able to do that until the GRA created a special group that could ignore the no men allowed rule based on their internal feelings.

At the moment because some men can come in a lot of women and girls are too scared to kick up a fuss if they see what is obviously a man in the women's toilets.

I’m truly baffled as to why you’re so fixated on this notion of your own that CCTV is the only possible way this could be enforced. It isn’t. A law stating only biological females can be in certain spaces, regardless of how anybody identities, would mean it could become self-policing again.

There are still some women who will police the spaces if they’re violated. I have done so. At 50, I am out of fucks to give about what people might think about me. If I’m identified as a ‘terf’ and despised, so be it. I’m only interested in doing the right thing.

A woman challenged DH when he tried to take our 8 year old DD into some women’s loos in a shopping centre recently (the eejit - he thought it was the right thing to do for her, not realising it wasn’t right for the other female users of the space). A woman quite rightly challenged him and he left and found a single cubicle loo elsewhere. I’m very thankful to that woman and so is he, now he understands the full picture. Like me, she was an older woman. We need to make things clear again so all women feel confident doing this.

I'm just C&Ping JKR because she's far more eloquent than me and I agree with her 100%

I want to be very clear here: I know transition will be a solution for some gender dysphoric people, although I’m also aware through extensive research that studies have consistently shown that between 60-90% of gender dysphoric teens will grow out of their dysphoria. Again and again I’ve been told to ‘just meet some trans people.’ I have: in addition to a few younger people, who were all adorable, I happen to know a self-described transsexual woman who’s older than I am and wonderful. Although she’s open about her past as a gay man, I’ve always found it hard to think of her as anything other than a woman, and I believe (and certainly hope) she’s completely happy to have transitioned.

I believe the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable for all the reasons I’ve outlined. Trans people need and deserve protection. Like women, they’re most likely to be killed by sexual partners. Trans women who work in the sex industry, particularly trans women of colour, are at particular risk. Like every other domestic abuse and sexual assault survivor I know, I feel nothing but empathy and solidarity with trans women who’ve been abused by men.
So I want trans women to be safe. At the same time, I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe. When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth.^