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/

To be honest Datun I have and will exclude people from groups I run for inappropriate behaviour. Both men and women. (Although the woman was not sexually inappropriate).

Someone saying they've joined a group "because it turns them on" would get an instant ban.

Yep. 'In the toilets & the knitting group you're a woman, in the changing rooms you're not', seems a much more 'unkind' position than 'you are a man, now let's work from there'. Not to mention ridiculously inconsistent

Yes how does that work?

Are they he at the changing room door when turned away and she elsewhere?

FWIW, women only social groups and professional or practical support groups are as much an issue for me as physical spaces.

It's not because I think all, or even mostt trans women have a sexual motive to be there.

It's because (NAMALT, speaking in generalistions over the population as a whole, etc) men (in the original sex based meaning) are so often socialised to believe their place in a group of women is to lead, or at least take centre stage, while women (same caveats) are socialised to let them. One man can change the dynamic of the whole group.

So where I cone to is this.

If it's a group / event / opportunity / space that tends to attract/appeal to women more than men but isn't explicitly structured as Women Only no issue whatsoever with trans women taking part and manifesting whatever social identity they want.

If it's a group / event / opportunity / space that has been explicitly structured as Women Only to provide an atmosphere, protection or opportunity that male presence inhibits, trans women are not going to be included because to do so would negate the purpose of it being women only.

If it's a group / event / opportunity / space that has been explicitly structured as Women Only but it's not specifically to provide an atmosphere, protection or opportunity that male presence inhibits, it shouldn't be Women only in the first place, just open it up to everyone.

He supports the status quo - the GRA and the EqA. He's not going to increase transgender rights, nor is he going to remove them. He has shifted quite far from Labour (and Tory) support for self-ID and increased transgender rights, but he will not produce Republican-style bathroom bills and genital inspections.

He wants the issue to go away, and doesn't want to play into the Tories' stated approach of fighting a culture war with transgender people as scapegoats. This is barely an issue for most people, and he'd rather fight the election on Tory economic incompetence.

The removal of sex based rights and protections for women is an issue for most people whether they're aware of it or not. I think you mean they're not talking about it rather than its not an issue.

Of course he wants it to go away, he can’t use words other than meaningless waffle.

It doesn’t mean it will. From either side. I doubt TRAs will stop lobbying.

If there’s any shift in the legal position up for grabs at the GE then people can vote and be responsible for the outcome either way

Transgender aren’t ‘scapegoats’ btw. It’s women on FWR speaking up for their sex class and children. Transgender people aren’t central to our discussion, women are.

Thankfully there has been a shift on puberty blockers recently. Tg. Something to lower harm to dc. So it does shift, albeit slowly.

i've never seen such hedge betting, to be honest.

You seem to be implying that they'd have to say it out loud.

Instead of, as you say, acknowledging that the entire cohort will constitute men who have this fetish and that accessing knitting groups is something that has those specific men readily admit to as a goal.

Saying "I dont want to see trans women banned from womens knitting groups.", would appear to be a rather specific instance of disagreeing that women should have boundaries around the strong likelihood of the infiltration of sexual fetishists.

But I'm sure you'll say you didn't mean it like that, it's just your opinion, and anyway what about uh, something else entirely...

Oh... now I see that we have accusations of 'over analysing'?

Mmmm... why would posters shy away from robust analysis of their posts which seem to counter safeguarding measures being strengthened for any reason?

This really has been a thread where all the tropes have been used.

Thankfully there has been a shift on puberty blockers recently. Tg. Something to lower harm to dc. So it does shift, albeit slowly.

A shift that is unlikely to have happened if, predominantly, women had listened to 'no-one cares, no-one's talking about it, you're transphobic'

Yes. The inconsistency is harmful in my opinion. I remember saying this a year or so ago. Leaving them in limbo not having clear guidance is unhealthy surely.

Yes, in my opinion they have to say it out loud. You cannot police what people think. And you cannot with any certainty know whether all TW are joining a women's knitting group to get a boner, or because they just like knitting.

You have made me wonder though. If there is a knitting group that's open to all but mainly women because it's mainly women who join knitting groups, and a TW joins because it turns them on to be seen as a woman doing womanly things, is that OK just because the group policy is open to all?

Are the women in that group less "harmed" by the TW because they should know that person is performing a fetish and therefore they've accepted it? I think most women don't know about AGP.

What are your thoughts? How would you safeguard women in those circumstances?

Yes I assume that’s what they were after when attacking in that way - continued use of puberty blockers for children

Just seen this clip of Annelise Dodds
https://twitter.com/Jonnywsbell/status/1772011561286029756?t=7wUrg8g-WSNkVnE445RKWA&s=19

Labour seems to be clinging to protecting single sex spaces but no explanation of how.
Feel we need to put forward concrete suggestions and hold their feet to the fire. Would this work?

The Equality Act allows SSS and clearly states this does not include people [men] with a GRC.

Part of the GRC process should spell this out and require acceptance and understanding of this before issuing a certificate.

This would mean everyone understands.
Therefore:
Women can complain with confidence.
Shops etc couldn't be sued for refusing access to trans women. But they could be sued by women for not enforcing rules.
Predators, chancers and anyone without a GRC would no longer have camouflage.

It would be ideal if there was some penalty as in signing a statutory declaration but not sure if that would be necessary/poss. TRAs have assured us of the power of this in preventing exploitation by predators.

We could then focus on gender neutral facilities as meeting everyone's needs.

Possibly introduce a charge of anti social behaviour if necessary. This isn't really a proposal but we need to return to the original social contract which gender identity is trying to dismantle.

Did the Haldane judgement, that a GRC actually means someone has changed to the opposite sex (not gender) legally, nevertheless still allow for single sex spaces?

I assume Labour realise that and that's what they mean by "updating the GRA".
I think that's the best outcome really - especially if they also update it so people have declare whether or not they have a GRC. We'll see though.

That’s not what they’ve ever said they mean.

No they haven't. You’re right

Angela Rayner was pretty clear the other day too

I mean, it's not an issue. The Tories want it to be an issue, which isn't the same thing. People are certainly talking about it. Anti-trans articles are a regular feature in the right-wing press.

"We will make sure that nothing in our modernised gender recognition process would override the single-sex exemptions in the Equality Act. Put simply, this means that there will always be places where it is reasonable for biological women only to have access"

Pretty clear in my opinion. We'll see when they get elected.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/24/labour-will-lead-on-reform-of-transgender-rights-and-we-wont-take-lectures-from-the-divisive-tories

Politicans cant force an issue to go away. They can choose to ignore it, but they will then appear out of touch or unable to deal with it.

When another scandal occurs, Starmer is going to look a fool bacause its happened too often for it to shock anyone and hes the one thats reassured everyone that some women have a penis and thats not a problem.

This again

Define ‘reasonable’, which spaces and how will they keep males with GRC out legally?

The opposite of clear. But since you can see it could you say where and how?

They have not said how ‘they will make sure’.

At the moment single sex spaces are not protected.

If they were keen on ‘making sure’ they would perhaps have spoken up more about clarifying the meaning of sex in the Equality Act.

@DadJoke interesting graph. Who conducted the research and how/when/where/(with)who. It looks very much like it was a multi choice list that people selected from. It does not look as though single sex spaces, biological men in women's sort or any of the other issues debated on this board were part of the choices. (Without seeing the questions its also impossible to know whether they were asked to choose 1, 2, 3 or all of the items that they felt important. In fact there is no question asked on here. So more context please so we know what you are showing and whether its proof of anything.

Personally, I’d prefer not to have transmen in male spaces, particularly changing rooms and spaces with urinals. It would be extremely embarrassing if I knew the transman personally. But I wouldn’t be particularly frightened if I could tell or suspected that a woman was using a male space where I would have expectations of privacy. So a matter of dignity rather than safety, in my view.