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/

Oh take a damper, Adam. The term 'you're quite happy to use women as sexual props' doesn't imply you would be doing so personally. And I don't think for a second you think it. You're not a man with AGP, are you?!

If you disagree with what I'm saying, clarify it for me.

If the women can't kick the men out on the basis that they think they're AGP, again, what choice do they have?

And for the avoidance of doubt, I don't think any men should be in women only spaces. But there are extra reasons to exclude autogynephiles.

You seem to be saying that unless those men announce it, the women have to put up with it. Again, perhaps you could clarify?

Perhaps you don't realise that it's pretty obvious if a man has AGP. He doesn't have to do anything. If you read Blanchard's typology, you can quite clearly see how he characterises the two different types of transwomen.

It doesn't usually require mind reading.

Are you capable of conceptualising your own suggestions and taking them theoretically to different possible conclusions ? From the last few days, I actually don’t see evidence that you can do this. In fact, I now get the feeling you have used posters on this thread as a resource to do this for you.

Do you seriously not understand what Datun has been saying or are you so caught up in being offended that the meaning of what she is saying sailing past your head?

She is not saying ‘you’ are using women as a sexual prop. She IS saying that the repercussions of what you have been saying IS allowing it. Is her approach direct? Yes! Yes it is. Because you have not shown you have understood much at all about what people have been saying. Hence why I suggested we strip away the emotive language that disguises the material reality of those outcomes.

“I'm not responsible for what men may or may not be thinking. Stop making women responsible for men's actions.”

No. You are not directly responsible and I don’t believe Datun is saying that. i believe that she is talking about the outcome though. And we should take responsibility for understanding the impacts and outcomes that result from our theoretical position.

Your sentence above is quite enlightening actually. While you may not be responsible for what men are thinking, you certainly seem to be incredibly dismissive of women trying to safeguard themselves and other women and then reluctant to accept theoretical responsibility of the result of that action of dismissal.

And a direct example of this is the continued inconsistency between you saying things like that you would support and organisation making use of the EA exceptions and organisations stating that males should not use female toilets, all the while you then constantly dismiss, maybe completely undermine is a better descriptor, your own position with statements like it is too hard to police, it will take too many resources, and so on. We keep pointing out where you are doing it and you don’t seem to be able to see where you do.

“And maybe read what you wrote and think how you might feel if someone said that to you.”

I would first suggest you read this thread back and actually read it. Not just people who word things nice enough that you might deign to read it. Read back your own inconsistencies, your own blanket statements that your declare with more confidence than the reality merits.

Even your fucking attempts to find a way to describe others using derogatory terms that you then try to parse to make more palatable to get others to accept, when it is your OWN need to label people who differ from your own opinion.

From reading your contributions to this thread, I think you post with such a degree of over confidence that is simply not then supported once people ask you to articulate the finer details of your opinion. In other words, your posts reflect a supreme confidence yet you don’t seem to understand the intricacies of where your concepts lead. Maybe others can describe it better, maybe I will wake up and the word will be there. Bluster is not quite what I want but it does convey the superficial confidence that I guess I am describing.

Remember the thread where you over confidently told us that Starmer had shown he had now changed his mind and his definition of woman. And you l told me and others that we were wrong when we pointed out that his words did not show clearly he now only described women as only adult human female. Shall I go back and find your posts? That is the type of behaviour I am trying to describe.

So while you are now on this thread taking umbrage at Datun’s turn of phrase, I suggest that you are the one who starts reading back their own contributions. Rather than assuming it is because this board has gone to shit over the past years, or that it doesn’t allow a diversity of thought, or that it is an echo chamber or whatever bit of derision you wish to throw at us collectively, perhaps it is time to think why so many posters are saying that your posts lack coherency of concept and inconsistency of thought.

Sorry, just realised that there was another page and I have cross posted with Datun.

Agree

And with @Helleofabore and @Datun

They clearly don't think the election will be won or lost on this issue.

I'm actually pleased that he did day this:

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."

I'm voting the tories out personally. And very much hope that's what most people will do.

It doesn't mean we can't still fight this issue.

Agree with you.

I'm voting for education, healthcare, emergency services, social care, anti-racism.

I do not think that the construct of gender is the same as biological sex and I don't think deep down most people think that either.

What I see are most people publicly trying to accommodate the two. Things like the Trans only DV refuge are small steps towards a third space mostly being required. I will watch developments with interest.

But I will always VOTE THE FUCKING TORIES OUT.

Yes this.

That posters still pretend that the Tories brought these acts in is really infuriating.

And look where we’re going due to it

Soon Scotland’s hate bill will come in and who knows what that will do to speech based on biological reality

When you create a falsehood you have to double down to stop rational and logical people pointing that out, and the harm gender ideology causes

We don't have single sex spaces and facilities on the basis of "what is in someone's head". We have them on the basis of their biological sex.

We don't have single sex spaces and facilities on the basis of "what is in someone's head". We have them on the basis of their biological sex

Is the crux of all of this bullshit really isn't it?

It’s all rather obvious. It’s precisely because we don’t know what’s going on inside someone’s head. Otherwise we could just let all the ‘good men’ in

It is a 'shut the door after the horse has bolted' approach. First we let the tw behave inappropriately then we chuck them out, leaving the women to deal with potential trauma. Women deserve better tbh. We have a better approach which is more protective. **

From a safeguarding point of view, yes. We also need single sex spaces like loos, changing rooms and hospital wards for privacy, decency and dignity. Obviously safeguarding is the most important but the other needs are important too. Women matter. And of course men also need privacy .

It wasn’t the reference to AGP I was suggesting was emotive, it was the reference to women being used as sexual props. This makes it sound like we are talking about flashing, or upskirting, or voyeurism, not a person sitting fully clothed knitting and chatting with other fully clothed knitting people. An AGP person isn’t getting off on the other women, they are exciting by the idea of themselves as a woman. As long as all they’re doing is sitting there knitting, and they don’t have an obvious erection, I can’t see any reason to object. Even if you do object, saying that the other women are being used as sexual props is alarmist emotive nonsense.

I have privacy if I have a space in which no one else can see me. If I’m in a communal space, whether I’m sharing it with women or with men, I don’t have privacy.

An AGP person isn’t getting off on the other women, they are exciting by the idea of themselves as a woman.

So presumably they would sometimes join a group of men in their womanly persona and get off on being treated as a woman by the men. Does this ever happen or is it only women who get treated as props in their fetish?

I dont think one can ban people on the basis of what's in their head.

In that case, we shouldn't include people on the basis of what's in their head either.

So people should never be included in something just on the basis of what they say is their "gender identity".

Lots of the arguments around the idea that if they are only sexuality excited in their own heads its not a problem are missing the points about risk and acceleration of abuse.

We know that transgenderism is a process of steps and we know that there can be a sexual element to it. The clothes hiden around the house or stolen from family members arent primark puffer jackets they are underwear.

The man getting excited, but not flashing or atempting to touch a woman or girl, can decide that the knitting is not enough, so may start talking in a sexual way, or wearing inappropriate clothes.

Its unfair to put women at risk of this escalation or having to deal with the inappropriate behaviour after it has occured.

Safeguarding is recognising the risk of abuse, not dealing with it after the event.

WaterWeasel · Today 07:17

That posters still pretend that the Tories brought these acts in is really infuriating.

Yes, it's been done to death, time and time again.

I don’t know how many of us have carefully repeated and pointed out in so many different ways that all male people have been excluded from female toilets and single sex spaces because of the risk they present. And for privacy and dignity too.

We have repeated this and explained how ALL males have been excluded historically and why.

They reply was the ridiculous deflection of ‘a few males were allowed in’ and ‘the toilets were never just female’. As if a few deceptive males who some misogynist male doctors wrongly gave permission to enter changes the fact that they were supposed to be only ever for female people.

Didn’t we also have a deflection about gay men too?

Didn't we also have then a snide remark about ‘demands for evidence’ ?

We then have the running inconsistency of ‘I would like to see the EA clauses enacted’ but ‘[insert reason here]’?

These last few days has been a live demonstration into disconnected thinking. Maybe even disordered thinking.

Because also just about everyday is the reminder of how crap this board is compared to before. How the current board posters are now somehow worthy of having the ‘is this me unpeaking’ comment thrown out as another example.

I now suspect that the poster who is declaring that wasn’t posting on this board ’years ago’. Or if they were they were posting different views. Because if they were, the arguments posed over the past few days would not have been posted if they were tested out years ago. Because those issues would have already been raised, tested and understood to be flawed and why, by posters using the same talking points as we have been doing.

I remember safeguarding being discussed and I learned so much from now banned posters. I doubt those posters would have given different responses collectively as we have done over the past few days. Happy to be shown to be wrong in that though.

It has been another inconsistency that has been at the back of my mind for months now. I couldn’t work out how to track it before this weekend. Now I have significant doubts and think the constant derision of ‘this board isn’t what it used to be’ type comment is complete fuckwittery.

Men with AGP are excited by the idea of being "a woman" with all the other women, doing knitting which is what women do (as they would see it). A cardinal sign of AGP, Blanchard said, was being aroused by things which were not overtly sexual, but which were gendered feminine. An example he gave of an arousing activity was buying or putting on eye shadow.

That is how women are being used as sexual props.

I don't get the cocking about TBH. Either some things should be single-sex or they shouldn't. Once it's been decided something is female-only, then sex is the determinant of access. We don't need to know what's going on inside everyone's pretty head, or establish that everyone wants the same level of privacy, or whatever other distraction is going to get lobbed into the pot. The decision has already been made.

You don't have total privacy if you are in a communal space with other women. But you are free from the male gaze.
It's less embarrassing to take off your skirt and rinse out a period stain at the sink, or remove your thermal vest because you've once again underestimated how hot the Tube is, if you are in the company of other women. Because you know the same will have happened to some of them in the first case and they won't stare at your boobs in the second.

In communal changing rooms and toilets, we trade total privacy for safety.