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/

Changing rooms, toilets, dorms are separated by sex, so its not outrageous to expected everyone using the facilities to abide by the rules.

Similarly, if a space is separate by age, or disability, or religion is not outrageous to expect everyone using the space to abide by the rules.

A man excluded from female only spaces saying its the same as excluding him because of his religion is talking bollocks, frankly. Its not even an argument.

Leaving traumatised, abused and or religious women out if the equation for a moment, I'm an atheist who has not suffered abuse or trauma. I don't want males, no matter how they identify, in my female single sex spaces. In my opinion, they are intruding where they are not wanted. We know you continuously misinterpret the equality act and have been told that many times. What about my feelings? Why don't they matter?

This feels like it has been discussed in depth with you on another thread. This feels like deja vu because you have tried these arguments before.

Firstly, where is your evidence that Muslim women have "not otherwise [been] considered by gender critical people". What a fuck load of shit that is. I know feminist groups in different countries who have been working with Muslim women, and women of many different countries and religions, for decades.

Not only do you post this falsehood, you then leverage Muslim women to try to prove your extreme point. And in doing so misses a very salient point.

In the UK, female people should not have an expectation of complete privacy from other female people. Otherwise there would never have been the toilet / changing room / shelter configuration that there was in the first place.

As usual, you are here on the feminist board displaying just how little you actually understand about feminism and female people.

You are also missing some very salient points about the funding models of Rape Crisis Centres and how that has been influenced directly by Stonewall and other lobby groups so that now the very spaces set up by women, for women, have been forced to accept male people into female single sex spaces. It is valid for women to point out that this has happened and which centres do and do not so that other women will know what to expect.

"It's entirely possible for a provider to respect the wishes of transphobic people and provide a non-transgender woman"

I rarely use these words that I am about to, but this is truly vile and offensive. And fucking misogynist. You have just framed a woman or girl who wants a female health professional or counsellor as transphobic!

As I know that you have been involved in discussions like this in the past, I now consider that you continue this line of argument for motivations that are not in any way 'good faith'.

@DadJoke 'so your view is that if a person with a religious belief wants to exclude another person from a space who is permitted to be there, their view should take priority? Does this apply to disabled, black and gay people, or just transgender people?'

I don't think I said this. You challenged me on what fundamentalist muslim women would really feel by saying that they would object to women who were not muslim. (You did not evidence this claim). I looked into what is advised on this and also what is advised on trans people. I provided links to evidence.

'The idea that the handful of Muslim women who don't want to get changed in front of trans women would be happy to change with a bearded trans man is just laughable - because that's the other option.'

This is not something I said. I said that fundamentalist muslim women would perhaps (based on traditional interpretations of islam) be MORE concerned about transwomen than bearded men being in their spaces.

You keep on assuming I am somehow being down specifically on transgender people. I am not. But I am now assuming that any women's rights are to be treated (in your view) as rights for women and transwomen (as TWAW).

You are worryingly dismissing the preferences of a 'handful' of muslim women - who have every right to be in the single sex space - but championing a handful of trans people. Can you not see a problem here? I think you are aware that its far more than a handful of women who feel this way.

If you are going to bring up the danger to TW of being in mens toilets/changing rooms then please see my earlier argument that we need to address the issue of MALE behaviour.

And here we get back to the difference between legitimate and illegitimate discrimination. I am pretty sure I posted this to you previously, and I have posted this on this thread already, but I will repeat it as it seems to be useful to some people.

"Does this apply to disabled, black and gay people, or just transgender people?"

The difference is one of legitimate and illegitmate discrimination. And actually equality too.

People who are same sex attracted (or to both sexes) were subject to illegitimate discrimination when people declared they should not access toilets of the same sex. For clarity: male people accessing male toilets if they were a homosexual male. They were not asking for special treatment under any safeguarding principles or indeed, in life. They were asking, and rightfully so, for EQUAL treatment and equal protection.

This is the same argument for race.

Male people demanding access to female single sex spaces are demanding ADDITIONAL accommodations be made because of their gender identity. This is not a demand for EQUALITY.

It was always wrong to deny a person who was homosexual or bisexual access to a facility that matched their sex when that discrimination was based on their sexual orientation.

For instance, one group of male people have no extra rights over other male people in demanding that they have privacy involving being completely separated from other male people in a facility designated as single sex for male people. Again, singling out same sex or both sex attracted people to be excluded, would be illegitimate discrimination.

This is, of course, not the case for excluding all male bodies from female single sex spaces, except for male children under a particular age who would require care from a female person.

It is NOT wrong to exclude male people from a female single sex space because they are male. There is a necessary form of discrimination that is used for calculating safeguarding risks which is based on sexed bodies. The only 'negative' impact it has is to exclude one sex from a space designated as single sex for safety purposes. This discrimination has been the basis of sex segregated spaces since those spaces became available to public life. Despite the deception that some male people used to gain access and this deception being wedge to leverage a false argument that female people 'never had toilets without male people accessing them'.

Male bodies are excluded from female single sex spaces also on the grounds of privacy and dignity. Not just safety.

Homosexual male people were wrongfully discriminated against based on no statistical evidence at all, just prejudice. This has, rightfully, been prevented with law. Because it was statistically inaccurate.

The fact remains that the comparator should start with 'does one group of male people have a lower risk profile compared to ALL other male people in the UK' ?

The answer for gay male people is 'no' and it was likely always no. Besides, they were not seeking unequal treatment.

If you are arguing that any male person over about 8 should be included in any single sex female space, you should need to provide evidence that the group of male people you are advocating for have not just a lower risk of committing sex crime than all other male people in the UK. You also need to provide evidence that they commit sex crime at the same or lower rate than all female people in the UK.

People with disabilities rightfully need additional accommodations. They are asking for equality of opportunity rather than direct equal treatment. It can be argued that people who do not have a disability should not be using a disabled toilet though. That is a provision, unless signage indicates otherwise, for a specific group of people.

It is NOT wrong to exclude male people from a female single sex space because they are male. The protected characteristic is SEX not GENDER in this instance.

Aye,it's the taking part that counts though I guess.

An AGP man is using the women. It's precisely because it's a woman's only place that it is their focus. The presence of women in the space is crucial. We all know this, otherwise third spaces would be entirely acceptable.

Grayson Perry, a self-confessed fetishist, said he wore wide A line skirts in order to hide his erection. And certainly in public. He didn't have to 'do' anything to be aroused. And yes, like most paraphilias, it escalates. Perry claimed he had to push more and more boundaries as people became more familiar with his public persona and stopped being shocked.

Men with AGP will say that being called by a female name, female pronouns, wearing female clothes, being called madam, are all arousing.

And knitting is one of the feminine 'performances' that AGP men are attracted to.

That IS AGP.

I mean it's not as tho all this is a secret. There are reams about it on the Internet.

One man even wrote his stories in the guardian, I think it was. Concluding a shopping trip in the ladies department with a smug smile at the young female shop assistant, writing that he knew he was making her uncomfortable, but he was enjoying himself immensely.

You may not be able to prevent this happening in public, or men writing about it in our mainstream newspapers, but you sure as shit should be able to prevent it in a woman only place.

I'm actually quite shocked at this

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.

You don't think women either unwittingly, or against their consent being used by AGP men is something to object to? Is that just confined to men who are trans?

Why would you bring male cleaners into a discussion about transwomen unless you accept that transwomen are indeed male?

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.

Yes, I think that's a fairly noticeable pattern. I believe Adam painted themselves into a corner with the 'women can't object to AGP men in their space'.

Because then there was the but, but should we even allow women only knitting groups, followed by the inference that I claimed Adam was a perpetrator, and culminating in an implosion of what I believe is faux outrage.

And I bet a pound to a penny, that I still won't get an answer to my question which was what choice did the women have in that case?

Please share the proof that trans women are less dangerous than other males (or other men, using the sex-based meaning that was the commonly understood meaning when these women-only resources were created).

Unless trans women can be shown to have behaviour and risk profiles that align to female people (or women, using the sex-based meaning that was the commonly understood meaning when these women-only resources were created), there is no justification to include trans women in female spaces that does not apply equally well to men who do not identity as women.

TL;DR: Until TW can be shown not just anecdotally but at the population level to behave in line with female social norms with respect to sexuality, aggression, conversation, social interactions etc rather than male, there is no justification to treat them "as women" in the context of woman-only provisions that only exist in the first place to give women respite from male pattern sexuality, aggression, conversation and social interactions.

Your point is not a comparable situation though so it is irrelevant. It was just as irrelevant the first time you mentioned it. I remember you mentioning cleaners over the years. It seems to be your 'go-to'.

A male cleaner is sign posted. They are NOT just walking into the toilets and they are not using the toilets. There is special provisions made so they can be there. Women are warned that they are in that toilet area.

Some male cleaners may be dangerous, because the statistics show that even with DBS checks it is likely to be some who are. The point is that female people can choose to be in that space with them or not. They can go to another premise if they need to.

It is not 'demonising' people to say that male people should not be accessing female single sex spaces. Framing it as demonising is a misogynist action.

thanks Flirts.
Until TW can be shown not just anecdotally but at the population level to behave in line with female social norms with respect to sexuality, aggression, conversation, social interactions etc rather than male, there is no justification to treat them "as women" in the context of woman-only provisions that only exist in the first place to give women respite from male pattern sexuality, aggression, conversation and social interactions.

=

Please post the evidence that a male person at any stage of transition is considered a lower risk than any other male in the UK of committing a sex crime (actually any violent crime too) so that they should not be treated as any other male person in the UK. If they are to be treated as a female person for assessing safeguarding risk, please provide the evidence that this sub group of male people at any stage of transition is considered the same or lower risk than any female person in the UK.

If you cannot provide this evidence, why not? And why are you demanding that women and girls have poorer safeguarding to suit the desires of male people?

Men like that already exist. I still wouldn't treat them as if they were women in the context of women-only provision because they are men - they have separate provision for their needs.
It also wouldn't work for the religious and traumatised.

I do have to thank the posters that keep this thread bumped though. I have noticed there are quite a lot of new lurkers reading along with it.

So many great posts clarifying flawed, incoherent and inconsistent arguments too. It pays to remember that even though many of us have done it before, it really is helpful (even for regulars to be reminded) to see the different approaches to explaining and clarifying different points. (I am posting this because I realise that I feel like I am on repeat this past week and I realise that I am not alone in probably feeling this way.)

Why on earth would I want discuss with someone who said what you said to me last night. No thank you.

@Gettingmadderallthetime when you have a situation where rights conflict, and you have one group which wants to exclude another group which is legally permitted to be there, which group do you think should get preference?

If its a woman's space, be definition a male, of any identity is not legally permitted to be there so the question is invalid. If someone is trying to pull a fast (and misogynistic) one by saying its a woman's space but then letting males in, shame on them.

and you have one group which wants to exclude another group which is legally permitted to be there

This is the thing that all politicians, including starmer are ignoring.

TRA are claiming that certain sex segregated spaces are not legally allowed therefore its okay for a man to be in the womens toilet; that because of the PC of GR men are allowed to be in the womens toilet; because of the GRC men are allowed to be in the women toilet; or that companies and institutions can define men as women, advertise toilets as for women, and therefore allow men into the womens toilet.

Is this the situation that politicians want? If it isnt they better stop with their patronising speeches about gender and sex being different, and actually explicitly say what they are going to do about it.

If they do think that they should have the ball to say that girls do not get to go to the toilet without men being present.

Well yes when Starmer waffles about reasonable to ensure biological women only

Which spaces and how?

It will take a legal amendment to work not just lawyerly word salad

@DadJoke 'when you have a situation where rights conflict, and you have one group which wants to exclude another group which is legally permitted to be there, which group do you think should get preference?'

Men are not legally permitted to be in women's single sex spaces. You are arguing that men who ID as trans are a special sort of men (or as you see it a special sort of women), so should not have those rules apply to them.

You are arguing that existing rights for women (put in place for safety, privacy and dignity) should be removed or eroded. You provide no evidenced explanation of why women should agree to/accept this. For example evidence that men are not a threat. That women should not feel threatened when in changing rooms/toilets with men there. That this is not a problem for dignity/privacy for women. That there is no issue of unfairness. (I can provide evidence that none of those arguments hold).

I think that the 'right' you are arguing for on the trans side is for all trans people to be treated and considered in every respect as if they are their chosen sex. This is regardless of how these present or behave. That is the right to self ID and as there is no legal right to self-ID in this country, Therefore there is no legal permission. Women are in these spaces legally and men are not.

Yes, that's why I said at the population level.

The issue is not that there are no nice trans women (or no nice men), the issue is that given that society has agreed the differences at the population level are significant enough to exclude men, to then re-include trans women only makes sense if the population level risk of TW is the same as "other" women ("other" if you subscribe to gender-based meanings, "actual" if you don't) rather than men.

There is no logical basis to re-include trans women based simply on the word woman being applied to them because the purpose of these woman-only resources being woman-only is not some arbitrary allocation to a word, it's because the differences in population level behaviour between men and women create an asymetric risk/cost to women from men and therefore without resources to counteract that women are at a structural disadvantage to men not just in terms of personal safety but in many social outcomes.

Unless TW can be shown at the population level to align with the female profile there is no argument to support extending women-only resources to them.

NO.
No men in women's showers, changing rooms, hospital wards, sports or anywhere else where women gather in single sex spaces.
No.
A word that women use too rarely and certain men see as a challenge to breach. Men who spend so much time on here, frantically posting to try to persuade, coerce, wheedle, intimidate or threaten women that we must accept certain men in women's spaces are wasting their time.
Women the world over are saying no to a misogynistic, patriarchal, tone deaf obliteration of women's identity and child safeguarding.
No.

I did understand what you meant. But I felt you were focusing only on the safety risk, not on dignity and privacy.

To look at it the other way around - at a population level, women are socialised to be kind and considerate. And yet, we would still understand if men with erectile dysfunction or incontinence problems did not want to see a woman doctor, or talk about their issues with a woman counsellor. That's the dignity and privacy aspect, but for men.

This.

I genuinely think some people don't believe that women should have the power to say no. It has to be justified, over and over.

Why on earth would I want discuss with someone who said what you said to me last night. No thank you.

Ach, don't worry, Adam, people tend to notice when someone studiously avoids a question. It will be like buses, someone else will come along and ask it.