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/

"Happy" is stretching it. "The lesser of all evils" would be a better description.

Yes.

One person’s personal philosophical belief about their identity should not be considered as material reality when material reality is needed to be prioritised.

Let’s cut out the emotive use of the word ‘trans’ and call it what it is. An identity that does not change the sex of a person despite some legal fictions. Therefore when female sex is discussed, gender becomes a lower priority. It truly is not that hard once you cut through the emotive language.

No other philosophical belief changes how we categorise sex. It is harmful to all this one to enact changes too.

It is not ‘anti-trans’. It is used when sex matters and we keep explaining why sex matters.

Using the words ‘anti-trans’ instead of ‘transphobic’ really is just relabeling the same thing but in an attempt to make it more palatable. And it doesn’t matter what the intention is behind that relabelling.

The outcome is the same. Particularly when being used to label legitimate discrimination. And yet, because it is then positioning the discussion of female people’s needs in this way, I consider it misogynistic.

You do realise that by forbidding all terms you are using a TRA tactic don't you?

I'm not prepared to call people on this board transphobic, because it does them a disservice. I can't use the terms ultra, extreme, anti-trans or anything else because it offends you. I can't use the term GC, radical feminist, women's rights because those terms all apply to me too and I'm trying to explore the differences in people's position.

What are the terms you suggest I use?

I may be wrong, Adam, but I don’t think Helle was outlawing the use of those terms. I think she was pointing out that, when you don’t use the emotive language, the argument becomes much clearer. I agree, and will try to remember that.

You think they are proposing to do what is in their policy, which is? All I've heard is that they are making the process of obtaining a GRC even easier to obtain. Nowhere have they ever said how they are going to ensure the provision of spaces based on biological sex. We've had nothing but waffle about 'safe' spaces, no definitions, no details, and they never answer any questions on the subject they immediately deflect to talking about trans people not women.

They have said they will not support clarifying any aspect of the EqA.

I find it fucking laughable that obtaining a GRC is deemed such a difficult process, try getting a Blue Badge which just allows use of a parking space, something which fundamentally changes the relationship between the person and the state which is what a GRC does should not be easy to get.

Coming back to @DadJoke (thank you for the source and the answers). My takeaway from this is a bit different than yours. But it would help to see the question order (actual survey instrument) to be sure. This is my take. KCL/IPSOS ask questions about how people understand the terms woke, cancel culture and culture wars in order to understand whether within different groups. They ask about their views of how politicians and media are stoking differences. They ask about how divided the respondents feel from opposing parties (e.g. are conservative voters more likely that one/two year(s) ago to feel they could agree with labour voters and vice versa). After a load of results that establish that half of the respondents feel that these issues are used as distractions by politicians from the real issues they then ask which issues the election will be fought on and which issues will affect the respondant's voting. I think these must have been the last two questions* the survey asks as if they asked these first it would have made sense (I would have thought) to ask a similar question at the end. After reminding them about how politicians/media manipulate on this issue. They then get asked what issues will be significant to in the election and what they feel are significant. A whole load of choices to choose from about health, immigration, economics. I don't find it suprising that they ticked those boxes as important (they were possibly fed up about thinking about woke things by this stage and there were at least 22 options to choose from - long list). Doe this mean that 'woke' issues such as womens rights, trans rights, environmental issues etc are less important? Not sure you can tell from this. Sharing three screenshots. The one which shows how most people feel that their rights to free speech are more under threat then their being threatened by others' speech. (I may not have interpreted that correctly). One showing that labour voters appear to be far far less anti-woke than conservatives, one showing the full version of the graphic you shared. (NB. this is interesting as there was more confidence in what the politicians would blither on about then what would guide their own vote. There is a lot of indecision.

Why do you need to categorise a group of people who all think differently? Why do you need to label people using terms that are derogatory? And before you then attempt to quibble about "ultra, extreme, anti-trans" being derogatory, of course they are. YOU wishing to declare them not derogatory is irrelevant. They are neither factual nor are they not derogatory.

And no, I am not ‘forbidding’ anything. I am stripping away emotive language so that it stops clouding judgement in discussion.

I've never heard a labour politican actual say how they are going to protect single sex spaces and sevices. Only that (some) support them, or want to protect 'safe' spaces.

That's one issue, but when they then cannot talk about single sex spaces without talking about modernising the GRA, its even more concerning. They obviously link the two in their minds, but refuse to acknowledge how.

Do starmer and dobbs know that having a GRC means a man can get a female birth certificate? That a cross dressing man can get a female passport without any diagnosis? Do they even know the range of female single sex spaces that men with gender feel entitled to use? Do they know how many courts cases have happened because of the confusing acts that they are so proud of?

At this point, im not sure that they do. Starmer had watched all of this unfold, yet the only thing he can say is that some people think women is based on sex, and some other people feel differently. Thats not a policy that just describing what is going on.

Of course the political faithful will either see it as something profound, or see the obvious TRA biased as a good thing, but its bonkers to expect women on a feminist board not to question it.

Great post, well said

So many good posts. I love seeing this thread at the top of the board as it highlights the mess labour are in over this, having hitched their wagon to the intemperate trans extremists and now unable to return to a democratic position where prioritising safeguarding children and acknowledging sex based rights exist in the party.
As others have pointed out upthread, the electorate and the media will continue to challenge them and enjoy their incoherence and irritation at having to explain how 2 + 2 = 5.

Such fools - it's simple to regain the trust of voters over this but while they're stuck on that WSOH, they'll continue to look evasive and untrustworthy.

To my mind the staus quo represents a misappropriation of female single sex categories by males with or without a GRC, along with the idea that this has always been acceptable and/or legal.

To my mind this has arisen not through conscious design, but because there has been a lack of clarity around the meaning of 'sex' as well as the meaning of 'woman'. This, combined with more recent developments in gender ideology.

Back when the bill was first drafted 'gender identity' was not even a thing ( see my post earlier on with the transcript from a transsexual). What we had were transsexuals. The legal fiction of the GRC was meant to allow men to marry other men before gay marriage had been legalised.

The status quo is not "fine". It is vague and confused and desperately requires further clarity. What Labour is proposing, instead, is to muddy the waters even further. I'm not suggesting the Tories have done anything themselves to clarify the matter - though at least Kemi Badenoch has been making the right noises.

@DadJoke '"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."

How about you don't put words into my mouth and I will return the compliment? I think that people have said this to you before, but I will say it again. Men in women's spaces is an issue. That is biological adult (or at least until-puberty) males. Not all spaces are womens' only spaces, not all activities have a women's only-section (sports is one of these, promotion/pension ringfencing is another - see Spanish Legionnaires example.) I don't want any biological men in those for reasons of fairness and safety. Some ethnic minorities and religious groups and others who have fear or men are unable to access those specially protected spaces if men are there. This is a women's rights issue.

Re the knitting example I have run crafts groups in the past. No problem with mixed sex groups, no need to mention gender or appearance of anyone there. But if a prospective attendee (e.g. muslim woman) asked me whether a group I was running had men in it so that she could avoid attending a mixed group, I would tell her if there was a biological male likely to attend or one could attend (whether trans or non binary). I was very struck (not in a good way) by the ERCC Tribunal testimony. Those running that service did not feel that they should/could reassure a potential user about whether there was a male that they might see for counselling. In fact they denied there were any males there.

I don't think TWAW because I don't think that men are women. I enjoy the company of men, I am sure I would be fine with spending time socially with most men, whatever they were wearing. I spend quite a bit of time in women's only groups and its pretty different. I am sure men's only groups are also different in what they talk about and how.

Sorry, what was someone saying about stripping away emotive language….?

I believe Datun has done just that.

Expressed the facts to show the reality of the situation. It makes it very easy to see what the situation is and work out whether sex or gender should be prioritised and why. Or are you querying the discussion of AGP males? Are we to ignore the group of male people who self describe this way? If you think we should not use the term they use for themselves, why do you think that?

Men with AGP are aroused by being viewed as women. Accessing women only groups, including knitting (it appears to be one of their favourites for some reason) forms part of that arousal.

Some people don't know about AGP, in which case men accessing knitting groups might feel like a more neutral act.

Adam isn't one of those women. Adam has said, in this very thread, they acknowledge AGP as a driver for these men.

Adam has said, outright, they would not ban those men. It was they who specified knitting groups, not me.

(It struck me as rather specific, which is why I asked if they had anyone particular in mind.)

I can understand people disagreeing that these men have AGP. But not acknowledging they do, but still agreeing that women should be their sexual props.

If you're finding that emotive, I'm sorry, I don't know how else to say it.

Exactly. Having read the original GRA discussion in Hansard we were promised by Labour that all the things that are happening now would never happen.

I'm going with ' fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me'

My momma didn't raise no stupid children.

why do you need to use the emotive labels at all? what do they add to the conversation? why not just describe things as they are e.g. you think it's alright for lots of males to be in the ladies loos even thought lots of women object. The judgemental labels add nothing to true exploration.

That is disgusting. I am not using women as sexual props. Reported.

I've just watched him do his standard dodge on the Welsh news about a wind farm (I think). I missed the question, just caught the waffle non-answer.

I have yet to see the man give a straight answer on any important-ish question. He does not strike me as a strong leader which does not inspire confidence in today's world climate.

I did not say that.
I said if men or women behaved inappropriately they would be banned. I said I have done exactly that in groups I run in the past.

I also said one can't police people by what's in their head. You aren't a mind reader. You have no idea what is driving any individual to transition if they have not spoken to you about it.

Also, I'd really rather if you stopped this insinuation about "someone specific in mind". There is no-one in my life that is colouring my opinions on this. And I find it extremely inappropriate and intrusive that I should have to say that.

It's amazing how many non-disabled people simply identify in and out of Blue Badge spaces on a whim, too.

I'm not insinuating anything. I've asked out right. I couldn't be more upfront.

In terms of your attitude to women's spaces, your stance is inconsistent.

No men in women's changing rooms, but yes in toilets. Apparently we can police one, but not the other.

Yes, you know there are men with AGP who get aroused by accessing women's groups, no women can't ban them. Unless those men say it out loud!

A scenario, I'm going to hazard a guess, that no AGP man has ever instigated.

If autogynephiles demanding access announced they were getting turned on by presenting as women, we could all pack up and go home.

You have said, outright, that you don't think women should ban transwomen from women only knitting circles. Whilst knowing that the transwomen who demand access are likely to be AGP.

If you don't like the fact it makes those women a sexual prop, then think about what you've said.

if they can't ban them, on the basis that they have identified them as AGP (no the men haven't said it out loud), then what choice do they have, in your scenario?

I said if men or women behaved inappropriately they would be banned.

Men with AGP don't need to be behave in any way at all. They can just sit there and knit.

But you know this.

No. I have not said that at all. I've said I dont think one can ban people on the basis of what's in their head.

I strongly object to the fact you said You're quite happy to use the women in that group as sexual props. No. I'm not. I am not using women myself and I'm not responsible for what men may or may not be thinking. Stop making women responsible for men's actions. And maybe read what you wrote and think how you might feel if someone said that to you. It is absolutely disgusting. How dare you.