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/

If a women only group is women only by 'accident' it is highly likely that it is because the women have not thought that they would a group targeted by male people seeking to join them, as a validation exercise or for any reason.

The question always has been, why was that group only women? That is likely to be because stereotypes, but that it very much suited the women there that it was women only.

I have watched female only groups change completely once a male joins. Others have also said this already on the thread. There is a very good reason to not have male people who have the socialisation of the oppressing sex class in a group.

This: "If you ban AGP TW from single sex knitting groups, they are still going to go to other knitting groups to perform feminity." is yet another weak point that you are trying to then shore up with your personal belief that exclusion is transphobic.

Just because that male people may just go and join another women only knitting group is NO reason for a group of female people to allow that male to join. This argument is just like the "it is too hard to police" or the falsehood "they were never really female single sex anyway". Neither of those points were strong or even a valid reason to not make moves to exclude male people from female toilets. It is actually rather bizarre that someone who seems to pride themselves on rationality thinks this way.

So. No. Excluding male people from a knitting group is legitimate if that female group wishes to keep the group as female only. If that male goes off and finds a group that accepts them, fine. That male should just go there. There is no onus on any female group to 'accept a male person just because that male person will go and find another group and make it mixed sex'.

There is also no reasonable expectation that business discussions would be held there. Something which you have now also tried to leverage in.

It really does feel like you are throwing out poorly formulated and poorly thought out reasons to see which ones stick.

We all know the difference between a group thats coincidentally women only, and a womens group thats focused around a particular subject.

In the same way we can get our heads round a group that has, by chance only over 70 years old attending, and a group set up for pensioners.

It was a study conducted by the KCL policy unit and Ipsos called "Culture war divisions and politics"

I didn't mean to cut the question off. The question is self-explantory: "Which of the following, if any, will be the main issues that you think will determine your vote at the next UK general election?"

"Sex-based spaces" "biological men" and so on are barely coded references to the transgender debate, as that's almost the entire context in which they are used. It's quite easily summarised as "keep trans women out of women's spaces."

https://www.kcl.ac.uk/policy-institute/assets/woke-vs-anti-woke-culture-war-divisions-and-politics.pdf

OK. I'm actually trying to unpick the motivation for excluding trans women. Because I keep getting told its about safety, and including them puts women and children at risk.

Whereas the example of the knitting group shows its more than that, it is literally "no TW in womens spaces because they are men". Because there is no safety aspect to that beyond the "performing fetish" one and the "performing fetish" one would apply to mixed and single sex spaces.

So then, yes I think there needs to be a conversation about what an acceptable single sex space is. And it's not going to be as easy as "all womens spaces".

Thank you - useful to check the logic

Of course it’s different and I wouldn’t have any expectation that such a group would be women only.

It is entirely relevant if your baseline is a TW is a man.

Did you read my post were I explained exactly this, and why it is about more than (physical) safety, it's about psychological safety, space to grow, speak, share commonalities and learn without deferring to or being spoken over by male socialised people (people who have grown up with the experiences afforded to the male bodied).

You don't need to "unpick" (aka impose your own interpretation) on it, I literally wrote it out for you, and I'm more than happy to discuss in more detail.

Do you know what, some of what you say is really interesting until you make a little strawman in the middle and then it's just annoying.

yet another weak point that you are trying to then shore up with your personal belief that exclusion is transphobic.

That is in no way my personal belief. My "personal belief" as you put it is that exclusion needs to be proportionate to a risk to safety and dignity. And thanks to flirts actually, you know, being polite in conversation I now have also solidified that my personal opinion is that hobby groups shouldn't be single sex in law, but it should be at the discretion of the group organiser and up to them to police.

If you exclude all TW on the basis "they are men" then trans ceases to have any meaning and so you are basically arguing for which spaces by law must always be single sex. I wouldn't want hobby groups to be single sex as it will damage womens interests too much to give men the chance to exclude women.

And you are also missing my point, which is that originally datun said that TW should be excluded because being there turns them on. Whereas it turns out what she meant was they should be excluded because they are men and the AGP is a red herring. I understand that now which is good.

The problem for Starmer and the Labour Party/Lib Dems/Greens is that this issue is not going to be going away. In fact, the consequences of gender ideology in practice are going to become ever more clear and apparent to the general public, as more and more people will be impacted, and will become aware of what has been going on in the name of 'trans rights'.

Step by step the whole shebang will unravel; this will only accelerate as time goes on.....as Labour continues to turns a blind eye.More and more detransitioners telling of their time in the trans community; more and more court cases; more and more crimes being committed by men who identify as women; more people impacted by the consequences of trans ideology on their children and in their children's schools and so on. At some point the Muslim community and other religious and ethnic communities will become more vocal about their disapproval.

And it will continue to unravel on Starmer's watch......yet he's fully unprepared and seemingly oblivious.

Do you not think that it suits him to let it unravel on his watch (or even unravel it himself)? The Tories bought all this in. I think it will make him look good to clear it up a bit.

Yes this is not going away

Look at the gym stuff elsewhere, it’s not even just the U.K.

It will unravel and until the law actually protects companies and people from gender ideology we’ll keep seeing financial and political hits.

Of course they didn’t the GRA underpins this as similar legislation does in other countries

Starmer can’t even talk about it in case it looks bad. How on earth will he do much if he keeps hiding from it

Of course I understand the ideas behind it - I'm a feminist. But at some point the idea needs to be turned into a practicality.

Women need single sex spaces. But single sex spaces also come at a cost because they allow men to exclude women from decision making amd influence. So there is a balance to be had that isn't as simple as "no men in womens spaces".

Ideological purity rarely works in practice.

So, you didn't say this on the previous page then:

"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."

Or are you now going to try to pivot to declare that 'signalling an anti-trans sentiment' is not you saying 'transphobic'? I mean, you even emphasised 'me' (as in YOU. YOUR personal opinion)?

It’s a hard task this stuff keeping up with changing arguments

And everyone "imposes their own interpretation" on things. That's how brains work! What an odd statement that was. Especially when I'm saying thank you for helping me gain clarity on my perspective.

It is already very clear that the most necessary single sex spaces are predicated on situations in which the sexed -biological body is an issue or a factor in the need for privacy; as well as spaces in which women and girls are seeking to be shielded from their experiences of harm around male sexual/violence; and in prisons; in hospitals, and of course in sports.

This is when and why we have single sex spaces. Nothing has changed.

Because there is no safety aspect to that beyond the "performing fetish" one and the "performing fetish" one would apply to mixed and single sex spaces.

You like parallels... here's one.

If someone who was not born Italian or lived in Italy felt compelled to dress as "an Italian" and adopt an "Italian accent" would it be reasonable for Italian people to find that annoying and possibly insulting?

Would it be reasonable to tell him he doesn't qualify to join the local Italian ex-pats club?

A lot of the local Italian ex pats go to the pub when an Italian football match is on. Mr Fake Italian always turns up and performs his "Italianness". Are the ex pats unreasonable in still finding Mr Fake Italian offensive even though it's not an Italian-only space?

It actually sounds as if your vision is of there being no real differences ( or having to deny any differences) between the sexes and is the foundation for your ideological purity.

We have singles sex spaces because there are some obvious differences - and in certain situations women and girls are more vulnerable on account of them.

Your argument was that banning TW from all women social groups ‘sets a precedent’ that allows the existence of all male groups. Thats an argument for the abolition of ALL female-only social groups, as any such group would ‘set a precedent’. Unless you’re arguing that all-female social groups should exist, but only if they don’t ban TW as otherwise they set a precedent etc, which seems to 1) acknowledge TW are men and 2) beg the question why them and not other men?

If I meant transphobic I'd say transphobic.

Someone transphobic to me is someone who hates trans people and wants to harm them. I don't see any of that on here.

Anti trans sentiment - as in people expressing the only way to view people is by their sex. There is a lot of smokescreen about safeguarding/harm to women etc but what it boils down to is not that, its about not recognising trans identities, only sex. Which is fine, but just say that rather than all this "you want to harm women and girls/they are performing fetish" bit. It's not necessary.

I stand by what I wrote. And it is not calling anyone transphobic.

Actually, I am getting to the point that if AdamRyan cannot formuate their thoughts on topics, yet doubles down with the derision and the derogation that comes with many of their posts, that maybe they need to go and think about what they say a whole lot more before posting.

So many of us explain, and then reexplain and ask for clarification and then explain again because of the lack of coherence, then we get these constant posts with something like this:

"So that's why the board has become an echo chamber. Because its now impossible to debate any position other than "transwomen are deluded men and I pity their delusion, but am not going to accommodate it"."

The very fact that we are now being told that their opinion is now being 'solidified' yet, the constant doubling down we have seen this weekend about how we are wrong about women's toilets without any actual engagement beyond inconsistent points being repeated is really something to see in action. There really is something very disconnected happening here. But thank you Flirts because maybe you will cut through that disconnect.

You literally just posted your own personal definition of transphobic.

I don't think he's thought it out that much; he's too busy hoping it will go away - whilst making ludicrous and disingenuous scripted statements. Whatever the argy bargy of party politics -it will continue to unravel on his watch and people will be making very clear how inconsistent and lacking in seriousness he has been. How unaccountable.

It is not just about Starmer, anyway - he may not even last a full first term. It is the whole party machine. It is MPs like my own , who still has the Mermaids logo at the top of her twitter account; it is people like Lloysd Russel moyle with his unhinged rants and intimidating behaviour; it is people like Iain anderson who crossed the chamber in order to effect Labour party policy....and so on.

Lisa Nandy, Angela Raynor, Dawn Butler, Nadia whittome, Michael Cashman, Angela Eagle and so on......