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/

I think that the fuckwittery of this post is really pretty clear.

I find it pretty fucking rude to have rape bought up as a "gotcha" and the effective decriminalisation denied.

In fact I'd go further and say I find it shocking and disgusting minimisation to just say "well rape is criminal".

I'm actually very angry about that and not posting more on it because I don't want to get banned.

So you do seem to be saying let's officially decriminalised rape. let's let men just do what they want in all regards?

Your boats dig is beneath contempt and a personal attack. I've reported your post.

You cycle through various excuses to allow men access. We do the whole gamut from gay to it’s always happened - although maybe the share price and disability are new ones.

Each time pp show logic fails and misreading in this case of JkR

That is engaging. Pp are showing why the arguments fall down.

And twist, and pivot and here is another denigration and another misrepresentation to emotionally manipulate. And twist and pivot.

People are props in adult males sexual fantasies all day long. The only way women can avoid that would be full sex segregation at all times, like the Taliban.

You can't police what's happening in someone's head.

So stop campaiging for social moves which facilitate rape. Start taking women and the harm assault does seriously. Stop concerted ignoring crime stats and using hyperbolic dismissive language. it's not a gotcha its a request for you to explain your logic. You're saying if you can't police tw in ladies loss then you just have to let people do what they want but you're refusing to outline why that's the case in regards to one risk but not in relation to another. You introduced the idea of we can't police it so they can do what they want. Expecting women not to draw parallels is pretty silly.

I can keep them out of my space where I’m more vulnerable though. Or I should be able to via the law.

If only we didn’t have legislators and supporters prioritising men. Why would you do that anyway?

A pertinent post - it's so simple - the social contract that glues society together. Except of course if you're one of those depressing individuals determined that women may not have boundaries if a male requires access to them.

I'm not sure how that's a personal attack. I have no idea what your views are on small boats. It's because I was just reading an article about the government focusing on 30,000 small boats whilst allowing 1.2 million legal immigrants. It seems like the same logic.

Apologies for offending you.

Adam you brought rape up as a gotcha. You. You did that. Like literal says, stop campaigning for moves that make rape easier. Like making confined spaces that women need for their safety and dignity, open to men with "disordered thinking about womanhood", as flirts put it.

we've been consistently clear in what we mean.

Males are never women.
Males are a risk to women. All males Inc TW.
So adult Males should never be in women's spaces. TW should get psychological help to accept reality.

That's it. What more clarity do you need?

All I can say is thank you to you and pp for posting with such clarity

It’s a frustrating to see so many excuses pile up

I see the ‘it is now so common, why bother giving women some privacy and space for themselves’ tactic has been used.

We are seeing all the trope and tactics on this thread!!!

It certainly seemed like it. And just another attempt to portray those disagreeing as being bigots, being illinformed, as being regressive.

And if it wasn’t intended… well like many of the posts this weekend, if it wasn’t intended that way then the meaning of the post was incoherent and it relied on emotional manipulation to try to distract from the lack of coherency. Slipping in the usual denigration was supposed to deter posters from challenging it. So, a silencing tactic.

I don't even think that is true. The vast majority of Trans Identified men know full well they are still male. Debbie Hayton has revealed that fact in a national media interview just a few weeks ago, and some time ago a transsexual posted on this forum that:

"The term transsexual was defined as a medical one and was what appeared in all my early medical files when I was sent from doctor to doctor, hospital to hospital and into psychiatric units.

By the time I got to the point of surgery - always the end of the process and after several years of other therapy first back then - something had shifted. As you were asked to sign a waiver before they consented to do the surgery that you understood that it was not changing sex but reassigning gender.

I was told by the psychiatrist about to pass me onto the surgeon that this was a legal requirement because the law would not recognise any change of sex and he was sure never would as he had just gone to court to give evidence to help annul a transsexual's marriage to a man as illegal on those grounds.

So gender was introduced into the nomenclature not for any reason other than to give a separation from sex.

This is probably why transsexuals have always been realistic about this concept of changing sex. We had to get that before we passed that point. If we didn't then you were not taken further.

I would guess based on how many people today seem not to get this biological reality within the transgender community that it is not part of the treatment path nowadays.

After I was signed off by Charring Cross in the early 80s (they only did two or three years follow up after my final surgery) I was basically left alone and never really asked about the subject again, even by GPs, though, of course, I told them all every time I moved to a new area. I did not even see my notes until 2004 when my GP wanted to check them with me during the application for a GRC and I discovered that they wrongly claimed I had had breast enhancement. I had been offered it on the NHS in 1980 but had turned it down.

All the records still used the term transsexual. I never even heard the term transgender until all the stories started appearing on Digital Spy where I had posted regularly on media matters and the subject had suddenly become something everyone was talking about. But calling it transgender.

That's when I first started searching the net to find out what was going on, joined the only non fanatical forum I could find (Angels) and started catching up on what had been going on over the past decades whilst I was getting on with living.

Whenever I used the word transsexual I was reminded not to, just as I was told to use terms like Cis and Terf. I looked into what these meant as I had no idea and quickly decided they were needless or provocative so I was not going to follow that pattern. But transgender or trans for short seemed a harmless enough word and I thought, as transsexual emphasised the misconception of 'sex change' perhaps it was a sensible modification.

The reclamation independently seeming to happen now appears to be happening partly out of distancing to some degree, but also I think because it emphasises that in our case - whilst the biological reality is understood - it always was about changing as far as possible the sex characteristics of the body. And not about expressing a girly gender identity, or indeed any kind of lifestyle preference or interest in clothes or hobbies.

For some gender expression very much seems to be what it is about. I think for transsexuals it is about the body. Probably why there is very little interest in physical transition by those transgender and it is really more about expressing personality in a way they find more comfortable.

So without presuming different causes or origins as we are still guessing on those with any of us - I think there are two very different focal points of what we seem to be doing about it.

Reclaiming transsexual just seems to have occurred to a few people at the same time as a way to point that out"

We long ago got the point that you don't really think men in female only spaces matters very much.

If there were third spaces, rather than imposing gender neutral/mixed sex on people, then you would not have had the unpleasant encounters with men in toilets that you say you've experienced.

I simply don't get how a woman who calls herself a feminist, or who centres women in her thinking, can care more about the feelings of men who identify 'as' women, than the earned rights and protections afforded to women and girls that respect their integrity, comfort and dignity.

If you are happy to have men in such spaces then you are free to use mixed sex facilities, but you must understand that you don't get to impose your preference on the vast majority of women and girls who want to retain the protections they already have.

Of course we can't - until those delusions or fantasies spill out and start to impinge on the rights and safety of others.

'Gender' is in the head. Male and female facilities and services are predicated on the biological body..

Yes. It's ridiculous but it's how many of us will have come to this board as lurkers so it serves a purpose.

It seems that your logic suggests that there should be no boundaries of any sort; that certain groups ( women and girls); individuals; nations...should have no right to define themselves and what constitutes their own boundary and what is and is not allowed to pass through it?

AdamRyan, do you associate and campaign with the group 'Sister's Uncut'? i've always suspected you do,

What has been insisted on as the only feasible approach is to continue to allow loopholes that allows male people additional opportunities to directly harm women and girls. Without even acknowledging that this loophole advocated by some groups does lower the safeguarding standard for women and children.

Who benefits from these lowered safeguards? Who benefits from others dismissing the discussion about these lowered safeguarding?

That is what the dismissals we have seen on this thread amount to and the outcomes. Intended or not.

I'm not doing any campaigning for "social moves that facilitate rape". That's pretty offensive.

I also didn't bring up rape. literal did. I responded to her parallel. Just not in the way she wanted me to.

Here you go resister.
I was answering a question. Kind of the point of a discussion board.