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/

Anti women articles are much more common than actual anti trans articles and the aex based rights of more than 50% of the population is an issue even if some people, perhaps including those unwilling to give up their privilege wish it weren't.

At the moment we are in headline policy terms, not details.

The Conservatives have no policy on this at all so Labour are a bit further forward in that regard. Anyway I'm not going back on the hamster wheel. We'll see exactly what's being proposed by all the parties at manifesto time.

And yet Starmer is all too aware of the political hit this can have and has stopped promoting self ID and is pathetic when it comes up

All that no one cares does actually work

If a man came to a women’s group (not knitting) that I go to, I’d just walk out and stop going. It makes no difference to me whether a man thinks he’s a woman, is pretending to, gets turned on by going to the group, or whatever. I go to the group because it’s for women - as soon as there’s a man there it’s no longer a women’s group and therefore the reason I go no longer exists.

Ive seen previous all women groups fall apart because men have been include. Women just excluded themselves.

What if a trans woman came to a social group that was only women until that point, but didn't explicitly say women only? Would you still leave or is that different?

The article you linked to is 7 months old. That interview was today.
She gave no indication how she would protect single sex spaces. (We won't please everybody) She talked at length about transpeople.
We need to know what she is actually going to do before the election not trust they've got an acceptable solution up their sleeves.

I'm arguing we need to have concrete proposals to put forward to force them to tell us what they intend to do. Why don't you do this ‐ OK where's your better solution?

he'd rather fight the election on Tory economic incompetence.

Is that what he's planning to do? This is quite poor from someone who aspires to be Prime Minister. I'd rather see Labour set out what they intend to do, not just slag off the Tories for "incompetence".

If all they can do is criticise the Tories, it doesn't give me hope that they'd do any better.

AdamRyan · Today 13:57
At the moment we are in headline policy terms, not details.

The Conservatives have no policy on this at all so Labour are a bit further forward in that regard

Some people in the Conservative Party at least understand the issues -legal and other - and they also understand some complications in law. The Labour Party have shown little sign of this.

” We will make sure” means nothing when the devil is in the detail. Like Boris saying he would get Brexit done. He never really did except as a mess.

@illinivich

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.

100% this. Why the fuck are we even entertaining the idea that something in the way a man thinks makes him in any practical material sense more like a woman than he is other men? How exactly did we (some of us) go through decades of feminism only to come out nodding along with a movement that claims the fundamental difference between men and women isn't our bodies, it's that we think differently? And that a male person who thinks like that is just as much a woman in need of woman's rights and protections as the class of people who were historically literally legally defined as property and who live with the deeply ingrained social echoes of that belief even now?

There's a psychological effect called "anchoring". Basically if people are asked to guess an amount, once a number is said other responses tend to relate to that. If it's given deliberately too high to be sensible other responses, while lower, will still be higher than responses given without that artificially high starting point. It's like to first statement sets a psychological reference point regardless of its own accuracy.

I see the same mechanism in the gender conversation. TRAs started by making an unwarranted assertion that TWAW/TMAM and "had" to be seen as their aquired gender at all times. That has set the terms of the debate as "how far is it reasonable to accomodate a man as a woman , or vice versa?".

Society, even GC people, have been anchored into focusing only on the scenario TRAs want us to consider.

But that's a false anchor. There are many other ways to understand identity vs sex, many ways to accomodate and support people. Not least being to see sex as gender as totally unconnected things.

It doesn't even have to be a one size fits all answer. In fact given that there are many different drivers behind trans gender identities (another thing TRAs don't want discussed) one size fits all solutions are exactly what we don't need.

My thoughts are that it's not a bloody game Adam, for spot of intellectual relish.

My thoughts are that as knitting groups are on the list of fetishist goals for men who say they're women, if a man joins one and the women are uncomfortable, they have every right to ban him.

Any group that is deemed specifically female is on that list.

You don't seem to grasp that it's not about knitting.

It's about claiming you're woman and are granted access on that basis. Not on the basis that you can bloody knit!

Oh for goodness sake this man wants to be in the position of leader of this Country and he can't/won't engage in and defend his view on a topic that is of importance to the people he wants to vote for his Party to ensure he gets into power?

Seriously? This is the standard of leadership the country can expect from him? Ooh no, I can't engage in discussing or debating the war in Ukraine/the situation in Gaza/and definitely not the rights of women because it is a lose/lose strategy for me.

Quite. Absolutely pathetic if it is the case.

Keir Starmer is lawyer. He of all people should be putting forward a meaningful, legal solution to this mess. If he can't do it on this issue I don't trust him on any issue.

I’ve got a feeling ‘we won’t please everybody’ is going to be parroted over and over by Dodds and probably Starmer, Rayner et al, as a way to look decisive, while throwing women and children under the bus. .

But hey, it’s ok as you can’t please everybody therefore we’ll prioritise the wants of men over the needs of women and kids just like the patriarchy always has done.

I think you missed my point.

If a group is all women by accident rather than design, and a TW joins to "validate their identity" is this a problem or not?And why is your answer what it is?

It doesn't have to be knitting, it could be anything. A pottery class. A cake baking group. A woman's literature group. A gardening class. The subject is not important. I'm trying to explore what "womens spaces" means to you.

I think the answer might start to explain why we are at loggerheads about "women only spaces", what they are, what the risks TW pose are and why it's a question that's impossible to find a single answer to. But totally understand if you prefer not to engage. It's hard and probably infuriating to have the logic challenged but it could be an enlightening conversation.

Is this happening in reality? TW seem to want to join explicitly women's spaces because if men are allowed anyway, how will they know that they're welcomed because others actually think they're women.

Isn't your question "if a group is all women by accident rather than design, and a man joins, is that a problem?"

It's not what 'women's spaces' mean to me. It's why men want to access them.

That's the difference.

There are lots of reasons why women have women only spaces. Breastfeeding groups, bookclubs, and knitting groups.

You can turn the conversation is why should women have anything like that, if you like. But that's not my conversation. My conversation is that if it is a woman only group, transwomen cannot gain access on the basis that they say they are women. If they're excluding all men, it means men who say they're women too.

Particularly as it is these women only groups that these men are attracted to.

You said you wouldn't ban transwomen from knitting groups, despite knowing that the cohort of transwomen who are interested in them are those with AGP.

Ridiculous isn’t it

Yes, I said I wouldn't ban them from my knitting group (if I had one). Because I don't think knitting is gender specific. To be honest I doubt I'd have a "women only" knitting group.

If you ban AGP TW from single sex knitting groups, they are still going to go to other knitting groups to perform feminity. So then to me banning them from women only knitting groups is a bit pointless and really only signals an anti-trans sentiment, rather than being motivated by protecting women. Which is one reason why I'm not particularly in favour of banning TW from womens social groups. (To be clear, my actual view is its up to the group owner).

The other reason I don't want to ban TW from social groups is that then it sets a precedent for single sex groups that men can use to consolidate power and influence. Its really not so long ago all the important business was done in "men only" spaces and I don't want to see society go back to that model.

Anyway it is all splitting hairs really.

@AdamRyan

The other reason I don't want to ban TW from social groups is that then it sets a precedent for single sex groups that men can use to consolidate power and influence. Its really not so long ago all the important business was done in "men only" spaces and I don't want to see society go back to that model.

That's an argument for not having single sex groups. It's not an argument for having "single sex plus special men" groups.

Yep good point

@AdamRyan

The other reason I don't want to ban TW from social groups is that then it sets a precedent for single sex groups that men can use to consolidate power and influence. Its really not so long ago all the important business was done in "men only" spaces and I don't want to see society go back to that model.

You seem to be arguing a different thing from 'TW should be in some single-sex groups'. You seem to be arguing 'some groups shouldn't be single-sex'. That's quite different - and would also mean any man could join the notionally female-only knitting group. Which is a position, just not one that's particularly relevant to the specifics of TW's inclusion, or not.

Exactly.

Theres no way that women would have decided without the pressure from men that what is really needed is to be grouped with men who claim to feel feminine/a woman.

Theres never been a group of women who have decided that the only thing they have in common is their feminine thinking.

Women are trying desperately to justify why men with gender should be included with women. But it makes no sense, so they negotiate - only certified men, only sometimes, are women only spaces really needed?