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/

Nothing could be further from the truth. I'm a boring white 40 year old mum from the south west. My real life activities involve supporting inclusion of women in tech, and a bit of campaigning at election time for whoever I want to win. Currently Labour but previously an independent and before that lib dems.

My real life friends and family think I'm a GC rad fem and I'm too "transphobic" for then.

I know you'd love it if I was some kind of super woke socialist TRA but really that says more about where your political viewpoint is on the spectrum of the geberal public than it does about me.

Oh, and I suspect many of my RL friends who post on MN recognise me because I'm not very covert in hiding my views in any space.

Sisters Uncut. That's hilarious.

Hardly. But we will see what MNHQ think

What AdamRyan keeps calling an "echo chamber" is in fact the only space there has been for many years for women, and men, who outright reject gender ideology - to come and discuss the issues that concern them; share information; liase; follow court cases, and so on.

Over the years many good women have been banned from mumsnet - due to the continued trolling, malicious reporting and bad faith arguments of those who seek to disrupt or who assume that the people here have not thought through their own position. Many seem to have very litttle awareness of what 'gender critical' thinking is in the first place. There is so much misinformation and confusion.

When it comes down to it - the counter arguments we keep getting presented with just don't stack up; and they also tend to start from a position of embracing gender ideology and unquestioningly accepting its precepts. When people hold to this position they tend to be dismissive of women's sex based rights and protections.

I'm not sure what the point is - you either accept gender ideology and slavishly adhere to its tenets, or you don't. People can believe what they like in their own mind and can identify however they like in the privacy of their own space - but when you try to impose a radical ideological construct onto the material world of actual reality it has consequences for all of us that live in that world.

You do seem to prioritise many of the same issues.

Random. OK then. I'm not sure a derail into Sisters Uncut is needed on this thread. Maybe start another one?

The continual misrepresentation as ‘extreme’ is bizarre.

As you say we use reason and logic and reject gender ideology

It’s not extreme. It is unashamedly pro women over pro men though.

Some won’t like that. Some will use every argument under the sun showing they don’t like that.

It’s interesting to see JKR so thoroughly misread though, that could give pause to reflect on all of the excuses tbf

Stop putting words in my mouth. That's not what I'm saying at all.

Honestly, to get back on topic, I can see completely why Starmer has gone down the route of not engaging. As soon as one does, it's strawman, accusations of "word salad", projection of "what one really means" and overanalysing, and all sorts to avoid an actual debate. It's a lose/lose strategy for him. He is much better keeping out of it.

You keep insinuating that people are far right wing Tory voters. Which I'm not, and never have been. When you do that, you are automatically positioning yourself in a diametrically opposite way to that which you 'accuse' others of.
What "I'd love", is if you gave it a rest - it is very tedious.

BTW -this is real life........not virtual reality. It matters.

That’s because it is a word salad designed to avoid

And you don’t have to continue but Starmer will need to provide clarity at some point.

It’s a funny take though that he should just avoid it all. Perhaps he can just stay home and talk to no one.

You are giving him far too much credit. He's never engaged because on this issue he has surrendered his critical analysis and common sense to Stonewall and his office juniors - or whoever it is that writes his script. It never varies and is utterly disingenuous.

Nah. He's 22 points ahead in the polls. He has more to lose by "providing clarity" than by sticking to his current approach.

Really why is that?

Is the clarity going to be particularly bad for women?

You can stop them joining your knitting group when they tell you it turns them on!

I think it's more that he doesn't have a principled stance on this. You can criticise the Caroline Lucas letter that's elsewhere on here, but at least you come away clear about what she thinks

Or your changing rooms, toilets and prisons…

Even with an admission men are often part of rape culture there’s an ah it’s ok let them in

"He's got a big lead, but if he tells people what he really believes, he might not!

It requires exactly like that so if you're not meaning to fling around offensive accusations, you might want to express yourself more clearly.

This is why people call it word salad.

You don't have to try and get people to do anything or say anything. Everyone on here is more than happy to say exactly what they think.

You were asking what it would take to feel compassion for a trans person and what it would take to treat them as 'trans.'

It's a ridiculous concept. You might as well say do you have compassion for Librans.

You also said that men should be supplied with the solution to their needs because they genuinely think they're the opposite sex, at the same time as appearing to disagree that it's a delusion.

You claim we cannot police gatekeeping toilets so why bother, but you agree we should be doing it for changing rooms!

That's why I asked if you had a very specific person in mind.

Men with AGP freely admit that a knitting group is a sexual prop. But you don't think women should prevent men from using them in that way.

Can you describe the man who you think should be able to use women as a sexual prop, enter their toilets, but not changing rooms and clarify if they are deluded or not.

When posters claim this is an "echo chamber" they're correctly observing feminists being women centred. Prioritising women's rights and needs over men's demands. If you want to overturn the social contract, to remove the long standing acceptance & recognition of biological sex and the needs of women and children to have levels of protection, then you need to seek democratic approval - be clear, persuade, win hearts and minds.
The fact is, that the the imposition of this belief on an unconsenting public rests solely on threats, intimidation, violence, smears and countless bad faith arguments.
If you want to blow apart society's conventions that safeguard the vulnerable, then use democratic conventions - just as they did in Ireland - where the people spoke very clearly.

I don't get why it's OK, apparently for a man who truly believes he's a woman to be indulged in his mistaken belief in the toilets but be cruelly informed of the fact that it's a mistaken belief when he wants to get changed into a swimsuit.

Surely if his belief has been affirmed every time he's gone to the loo outside of home as that's the kind thing to do (?! Sigh) then if he's not a regular swimmer imagine the mental anguish that would occur when suddenly forced to come back to reality on a rainy Monday afternoon when he's fancies a swim.

That would be even worse for that mans mental health. So much better for him to be under no illusions that whilst he may truly believe he's a woman no one else does and he needs to learn to accept that fact.

By being kind and going along with the pretence they are actually women and allowing them into the women's toilets but not anything else you are giving that man very mixed messages and if you think that's the kind way to go about things that's wrong.

In fact I'd say that pretending you believe them some times but not others is actually the more cruel way to treat them. It's not kind at all.

Have none of them looked in a mirror?

I am describing the effect of your post not your actual words. In any case, If you find that people are constantly misinterpreting your words, doesn’t that signal that your are not getting your message across and might need to spend time to think about what you are trying to say and whether what you wrote says that?

The idea of a third space has been talked about a lot. TRA have a lot of influence in local and nation government and private companies so if anyone could get a third space off the ground, its TRA.

But politicans arent talking about third spaces and opportunities, they are talking about female only spaces where appropriate. And where its not, these female spaces and opportunities should be open to men with gender.

We hear it a lot - toilets arent that important because door, darts tournament arent important because not its not a sport based on strength, knitting clubs are either because reasons.

So politicians, the ones who are influenced disproportionately by TRA are creating a new class of people and spaces to accommodate them. The 'women and men with gender' class. This isnt a natural class, and its one that the politicans - the people who are creating the class, cant articulate why the group is needed.

So politicans and the political motivated are coming up with reasons why women are being unreasonable to ask why they are being forced into a top down manufacturered class. We're bigots, unrealistic, pearl clutching, unkind, a bit stupid and cannot see the nuance.