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/

Go on then. How are you planning to do that?

How do people stop XL Bully breeding, fox hunting, driving without seat belts, workplace sex discrimination. upskirting or drink driving?

Imperfectly at first, but in a democracy we can change the rules when something is no longer deemed safe or acceptable. We don't make ridiculous demands about the rule being enforced perfectly and the practice never happening again as a precondition of banning it.

This is very muddled. Of course trans ‘can’t be a thing’ if it involves changing sex, as this is an impossibility, as you know.

If being trans involves a gender, then you can have a male sex and a female gender. In which case you go in the space for your sex, not your gender. It’s very simple.

Yeah but no one said trans is a choice made by entitled men did they? The rest of what you say is muddled and hard to follow. People don't change sex. Sp pf course trana equals birth sex. You're confusing biology with identity. It's not just two people disagreeing. One proposal damages women. A lot. Consistently.Men have the power. We shouldn't give them more.

In terms of how I have compassion for ttans people, I believe they need psychological help and should get it. Challenging gender stereotypes is good for everyone but especially I think for trans people who seem highly constrained by them. I do not believe trans people should be discriminated against for being trans ( e.g. not allowed to stay in a hotel, as an example from real life homophobic actions) but that doesn't mean that TW should be in female spaces because that demonstrates a massive lack of compassion for women.

Adam can I ask how you show compassion for women?

You said you would enforce in the same way as harassment on the tube. I assumed you knew that meant CCTV and that before CCTV harassment on the tube was a huge huge problem. That was obviously an assumption too far.

Yeah no one is disagreeing with that (other tha I won't call a male she) and she seems to disagree with you about males in female bathrooms.

This

None of these have the requirement of CCTV to work yet we still have the laws

It’s not hard. The amount of cycling around various avenues on this thread is mad. At one point a pp said photographing men and share price plummeting was the answer

We have a legal system. Just use that.

Hmm. Oh look it was you. Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by "decision taken by an entitled male"?

Can you explain what you meant then?

Apparently not Beetle. Because some of us have already mentioned this would be a good starting place and were ignored. And told over and over that it was too hard, too many resources were needed, it infringed civil liberties and then that wanting all males to be excluded (other than children) was parallel to homophobia and now that wanting it seems to be declaring those people don't exist.

It is remarkable.

Clarity, legal basis and most are law abiding. It would shift the situation for women so their dignity and privacy mattered.

I already did in a later post you don't seem to have read or understood. We were discussing their using female loos. That's the choice. I really don't think anyone else misunderstood that.

She’s not saying biological men should be allowed in women’s single sex spaces.

You can have compassion for trans people without agreeing to let them use the spaces of the opposite sex.

Agreed.

Do you really believe that? Labour are 30 points up in the polls.

Here's where I had to break it down for you Adam

Stopping any crime requires detection, prevention and enforcement. Making it a crime might contribute to prevention but its going to do diddly squat for detection and enforcement. Enforcement will cost money. And detection means some form of surveillance to prove that it happened.

Those are facts and apply to all the examples listed above.

I'm saying I don't believe this is enough of a problem for people to want to 1) give up privacy to enable detection and 2) pay for the extra policing to enforce it.

I might be wrong. But as I said upthread, I suspect I'm right and our politicians know this which is why no party wants to commit to criminalising males in womens spaces. (Apart from ones who stand no chance of having to run the country).

Rape is hard to detect, prevent and enforce. Should that be legal? if not why? what's the difference?

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.^

How do you agree with her 100%?

She is stating you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside

Something that is not wanted as it makes natal girls and women less safe

It doesn't need to be a crime to be socially unacceptable. Why are women's toilets not full of men? According to you it's impossible to stop men using women's spaces, and yet most men stay out.

If it's also socially unacceptable for men with special gender identities to use women's spaces, why can't they be kept out in the same way as all other men are kept out?

I dunno they all seem gung ho for spending a boat load of resources policing wrongthink. Perhaps they could redirect some of those funds.

I could be wrong but I'm not certain you necessarily need to "criminalise" males in women's spaces, at least initially.

I would guess the easier first step would be to clarify the EA so that services described as single sex are actually that. It should give service providers the authority and legal clarity to properly exclude men, and require them to label mixed sex spaces as such.

Then if that didn't change behaviours would I think about more drastic measures.

Theres are loads of posts on reddit of men with gender being excluded from womens toilets.

How is this different from what many of us are saying?

Please point out where she has stated that a sub group of male people should have access to any female single sex space?

Please point out where she has stated that was also the only option open to society?

So, have we found out why a sign on the door of a toilet or any single sex space that states that this is a single sex space, using the exception under the EA as we have been assured is already available to us is too hard and too difficult to implement?

“In which case you go in the space for your sex, not your gender.”

unless you’re a trans man who passes, in which case you use the toilets according to your gender?