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/

That’s up to the trans man and the biological men whose toilets they wish to use. I’d have no problem with them in the women’s, though, being as they’re biologically female.

You might be fine with it, but what about other women who feel uncomfortable or even unsafe sharing that space with someone who appears to them to be male?

Would you feel uncomfortable with it?

“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.”

It seems to end up being a silencing tactic to insist that we cannot change behaviour because it is either not going to stop all occurrences or is too ‘hard / costly / whatever’ to implement. It has that effect even if it wasn’t intentional. What we have seen on this thread is inconsistency after inconsistency that never quite lands as it was intended.

I might be a bit taken aback if I was in what I believed to be a single sex toilet and someone who appeared to be a man was in there, and I might wonder if they’d got confused and gone in the wrong ones, but I wouldn’t feel uncomfortable beyond that. But I’m aware there are other women who do feel very uncomfortable sharing toilets with people they perceive to be male

The appetite of the public is for single sex spaces to be exactly that - no males with or without special identities in female spaces. The EqA allows for this it needs to be properly enforced on providers of these facilities.

What you are in favour of is women sacrificing their privacy, safety and dignity and you seem to think this is compassionate.

No-one has yet come up with any compelling argument or reason why males with special identities cannot use the toilet designed for their sex alongside other members of their sex.

Trans people don't usually pass. I've met a few transmen. Its pretty obvious they're female. We could have ladies and open categories though blokes might object to females being in their space.

Was about to suggest similar

Female trans people have come onto threads on FWR and told us that they understand that the modifications that testosterone have made to their bodies may cause other female people distress. Because testosterone does significantly change a female body and face. They know that they develop some of the cues in their appearance that are associated with male cues.

They find other solutions. some of the ones who have posted won’t use male facilities. They take the time to research where they can access facilities that suit their needs.

That’s interesting that these trans men are so considerate of the impact they might make on women. Seems markedly different to the concerns of many trans women.

terror. Such a big difference indeed.

As long as people are clear about whether or not they think everyone should use the toilets corresponding to their biological sex, or whether some exceptions are considered appropriate or necessary

We are clear that male people should be not being using the facilities provided for people of the female sex. It's up to men to decide what their boundaries are when it comes to their own single sex spaces but women's single sex spaces are off-limits to men. All men.

• male people should not be using

AdamRyan when you ask women how we would recognise trans people as trans, and show them compassion, do you have anyone specific in mind?

Only it appears as though you have someone in mind, who's definitely not predatory, nor a user, but still requires women and their spaces in order to have their needs met.

And you think this should, or could, be confined to toilets but no other spaces?

I mean I disagree, but it does appear as that you have someone really quite specific in mind.

Is that the case?

They must have misread it.

JKR is saying no males in female spaces including toilets.

That’s not the same as pp

Page after page of women saying no. Page after page of reasons. Page after page of a particular poster not accepting no for an answer.

Badgering women who say no.

How telling.

I really have come to think Adam reads something any way they want. It is why they doubled down and scolded women who pointed out that Starmer was not saying anything new and that we didn’t believe he had a new definition of woman from what he said last year. Yet we were lambasted over and over for pointing that out.

There seems to be some really disturbing disconnection of thought and understanding being shown. Under it all seems to be a desperate clinging to something like ‘I am not like you horrible horrible people!’ or ‘I am one of the good ones!’ rather than a deeply considered and evidence led position. Sometimes it now seems to be a willful misrepresentation in some ways. Plus there is this assailable belief that they are righteous in the constant denigration and dismissal. Maybe that is me misreading the situation, but I end up thinking this every thread.

I'm clear that third spaces are the obvious solution for everyone going forward. Some new buildings have already installed ' a gender neutral' toilet , for example, alongside the male and female toilets.

We know that the third way isn't what's wanted because it means there are no natal females in them, validating men's fetishes.

I note that Linda Reilly's British Diversity Awards took place last week - quite a number of Labour MP's in attendance - including, of course, my own MP, Kim Johnson; Dawn Butler; Paulette Hamilton, amongst others. One of the tricks, as used in the U.S, is to intimately associate trans rights with Black Lives - so they seem like natural bedfellows.

'Transactual' was up for an award This is their list of what constitutes transphobia

https://transactual.org.uk/transphobia/#No1

Yes, I understand that - but in the public mind ( which is what will, inevitably, be most important) it seems the obvious solution to meeting everyone's needs for safety and for dignity.

Well according to no 2 on that list, stating there are "competing needs" would likely constitute transphobia!! 👀

Because trabs women have a condition where they don't believe they are men, they believe they are women. So in their world view, that is the space they want to use.
Kind of obvious really

That's why I say the "social contract" isn't enough to keep them out, and it never was.

Bloody hell! that link! a whole lot of hurty feels rhetoric that boils down to everything is transphobic!