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/

What is this argument?

Now we have to have males in our spaces because we might lose out if we are able to have single sex?

We seem to be going to odder places with the reasons

No. My argument is that legislating to allow for single sex groups in any circumstances where people want them for any reason will damage women by enabling men to go back to excluding them from power, influence and decision making.

It has unintended consequences which are predictable if you apply a feminist lens to the proposed solution.

The only way round that would to be to allow women to have single sex groups whenever they wanted, but not men. Given how badly men react to other EDI initiatives that impact on them, I think we can guess how that will go down.

This doesn’t stack up

Alos Labour is going to have to deal with and confront the total madness of Scottish politics - Scottish Labour, the SNP and the Scottish Greens on this issue.

In my opinion, anyone who thinks exclusion of males from female spaces should only be done on the basis of dignity and safety has at very best a slim grasp on how males dominate discourse and conversations. There are many legitimate reasons why women want and need single sex spaces.

So it is an argument against single-sex groups rather than an argument about TW’s inclusion in single-sex groups. Thank you for clarifying

Not really.

A female only group can be said to have therapeutic benefit being female only. A comparative group could be said to be a men's shed or another hobby group.

A male group where business deals and influential decisions are being made is not likely to fall under such a need. It could quite rightly be challenged by female people who are excluded.

I believe that all groups are open to being challenged in court (as per nobody's post - groups above a certain number of members) and if they cannot show cause as to why they should remain single sex then that is then taken out of their hands.

The original people in the group have the freedom to leave the group and form one where they can then exclude male people.

If there's two sexes in it, it's not a single sex space. That's not ideological purity, that's just the way words work.

If you want a space that includes men That's fine, plenty of ways to do that.

If you want a place that is single sex I'm with the EA - there should be a good reason for it. I think there are many good reasons for single sex female. Not as many for single sex male but absolutely some there as well.

If you want a space that explicitly includes "female people plus trans women" well that's just a bit weird... what's the purpose? Are you policing by character? If so, why link it to "women" (plus some men of womanly character) at all? Why not call it "friendly knitting club" or "pink wool knitting club" or "nonagressive knitting club" or "sexy kitty knitting club" or whatever the underlying thing that the knitters really believe they have in common is? And if it's not by character then what is it? (FWIW, a good answer here is "by experience", and that is where the "identifies as a woman or non binary" catch all actually makes genuine sense...people who experience being outside society's default masculine male. No issues at all with there being events/spaces for that group as long as it's not used to replace single sex female support and resources).

In short it's not about ideological purity, it's about looking at the purpose of a thing not the labels. First principles always.

I mean, I think we agree I already said I think its up to the group owner and they can do what they want.

I was literally trying to explore datuns point about excluding TW because of their AGP. She didn't mean that. She meant excluding because they are men. Fine.

Good grief. Women have a right to socialize together
Equality Act says345. …. defines an association as a body with 25 or more members where access to membership is controlled by rules and involves a genuine selection process based on personal criteria.
Example included
A book club run by a group of friends which has no formal rules governing admittance or whose membership is less than 25 is not an association for the purposes of this Part and it is not subject to equality legislation.

This would apply to most knitting groups and other informal groups. If they're set up as women only they can exclude men. The only point of contention is the position of transwomen with a GRA. This is why the guidance needs clarifying.It applies to Lesbian groups as well - they can exclude heterosexual women.

Tg

Thanks for the facts

Thank you! That is what I remembered as well.

I requalify my 'any group' to groups with certain membership numbers.

I think I said this already but I'm going to say it again for clarity.

I don't want anything in particular. I'm happy with the status quo - or I would be if people applied single sex exemptions properly. I'm not advocating any change. That's why I support Labour. I think their position is sensible.

One mistake I make is answering questions as it seems to just make posters annoyed. And another is to post to try to pick through the implications of the changes other people are advocating. The "no male people in womens spaces - it's not that hard" statements. Because I think actually that is quite hard.

It's a public Internet board and I'm as entitled as anyone else to post here.

It's an argument against all affirmative action. I don't agree with that stance. The world is not a level playing field for many groups of people, including women.

Yes.

I'd go further and say its an argument about when single sex provision is important and when it isn't.

I believe that line is probably different for lots of people which is why we have so much difficulty agreeing.

The only reasons 'no males in women's spaces' is 'hard' is because entitled males don't like that statement. No one has presented any valid reason why we should override women's consent to protect the feeling of those men - at the expense of the feelings and actual safety of the women. It's not hard at all.

Oh Adam.
Back up the board you said you agreed with my suggestion of locking SSS into the GRC procedure.
You say 'That's why I support Labour. I think their position is sensible.' What exactly do you think they are proposing to do.

@AdamRyan

I don't want anything in particular. I'm happy with the status quo

Yeah I was meaning "you" as in "one". I'm sorry if you feel attacked.

That's the pronoun I really think English lacks by the way, a rhetorical other.

I will say though that "happy with the status quo" does mean you are happy with "female people plus trans women", which to me makes the least sense. Not because a bunch of people who feel they have something in common shouldn't get together around it, but because the label "woman" is so meaningless as soon as it's stretched to "sex plus gender" that making that the label for "the common thing" feels like it's missing the real common thing altogether.

yep

Why is it so important to override women exactly?

Trans would have as much meaning as it does now. Trans is about the person's identity. It's nothing to do with sex. What meaning do you think trans has now that it would cease to have if people proeprtly treated TW like the males they are? Those tw could still dress how they want, do what hobbies they want. It changes nothing other than stopping trying to force a disenfranchised group to lie about reality and disadvantage themselves. I think we need good rationales for single sex groups but don't call them single sex then maked them mixed sex. That's dishonest.

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.

The GRA and the EqA were Labour Acts of which to this day they say they are proud of despite the consequences of both pieces of legislation being pointed out to them repeatedly. They were warned at the time the GRA was going through Parliament what the consequences of it would be and they just hand waved them away.

You think Starmer wants these Acts that he is so proud of to unravel on his watch? You are in cloud cuckoo land.

The 'status quo' is confusing law, women meaning whatever anyone wants it to be, women having to take expensive, time consuming legal action and men doing exactly what they want.

Who, in their right mind, wants to keep the status quo?

Why would any politican run on that manifesto?

Not quite the subject of your post but I do want to comment on one thing you wrote.

You know men don't actually need men only groups in order to exclude women from power influence and decision making don't you? It's not a case of them going back to those times, they still exist.

And pretending that men are now women really isn't bloody helping things.

Can't get enough women in your 100 Top women of XX industry that is usually male dominated, that's easily solved, we'll shove the men in there who have womanly internal feelings.I

I'd actually like for women to get on an equal footing with men before we hand over what little headway we've made in my lifetime to a bunch of men.

I suppose it would have been clearer if you’d said ‘of course TW should be allowed to join women-only knitting groups, any man should’ but I then I guess you’d have been asked whether the same applies to women’s toilets…

I think they are proposing to do what's in their policy update the GRA and ensure it allows provision for spaces where necessary on the basis of biological sex.

I'm not sure why you are acting like I've changed my mind - I haven't.