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/

@MrsOvertonsWindow
Yes!

#WomenSayNo

It was interesting reading The Power. I couldn't honestly tell you whether it was a good book or not, in terms of literary merit. I didn't know whether to suggest it to a book club at the time, because I genuinely couldn't tell!

I was so caught up in the premise and what that power would be like, everything else took second place, to the point that I barely noticed it.

Absolutely

Actually I'm always careful not to just focus on safety, or even just safety, dignity and privacy, for exactly the reasons you give.

"Risk" to me is about more than physical damage, it includes all the socialised behaviours by which men's actions (and indeed women's responses) act to cumulatively disadvantage women. I see single sex spaces as more than just physical spaces, I see them as respite we need to be ourselves and build our strengths.

It seems some people don't like having misogynistic tactics pointed out.

I wonder why.

Do you understand what she said to you last night?

@Vebrithien wrote a good poem about NO!

It does look to me like people who want males to be welcomed into women's spaces do a whole lot of name calling 'transphobic, far right' but really don't like honest reflections on the harm their proposals cause. I don't want to be anyone's wank fodder even if they behave 'appropriately'by waiting till their alone to do the wanking. It feels like a violation and yes I know that maybe it's happened in the past, by any random bloke, but making me facilitate it by pretending a Tw who has Agp is a woman is awful.

@FlirtsWithRhinos
"Risk" to me is about more than physical damage, it includes all the socialised behaviours by which men's actions (and indeed women's responses) act to cumulatively disadvantage women. I see single sex spaces as more than just physical spaces, I see them as respite we need to be ourselves and build our strengths.

OK, thanks for clarifying. And I agree with your characterisation of single-sex spaces as a resource.
But going back to my example of a man with ED not wanting a woman doctor or counsellor, women do not broadly speaking disadvantage or harm men by their benign socialised behaviours, yet men are still entitled to be separate from us (if possible) when their dignity would be compromised. And the same goes for women. It doesn't have to be a damage-avoidance principle (even using your broad definition of damage), it can just be about enabling people to be comfortable. However we are socialised, men and women will never be exactly the same. And sometimes that difference will matter.

I suppose I am saying that I cannot envisage a future in which single sex spaces are never required, and perhaps you are saying that there might be such a future?

"Risk" to me is about more than physical damage, it includes all the socialised behaviours by which men's actions (and indeed women's responses) act to cumulatively disadvantage women. I see single sex spaces as more than just physical spaces, I see them as respite we need to be ourselves and build our strengths.

I too think this. I think though we don't discuss it enough because we seem to be forced into the position of defending the safety aspect because it can be evidenced with logic and safeguarding principles.

Privacy and dignity can be explained easily with real life examples.

The other aspects are less tangible and harder to articulate and after we have been through the first two, there should not be any need to defend the other aspects. Not that we should be in the position of defending the others at all anyway.

Yes. You know you're not the one with the power when no simply isn't enough.

OK let's see how open minded you are and whether you are able to apologise

I'm the OP on this thread and had various names before that - had to deregister account because it got compromised

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3153830-Bluestocking-lock-in?flipped=1

Changed my name to something very similar on my new account

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3395118-Dads-having-miscarriages

I'll post below so you can see that its me.

This constant smearing and questioning is bullying and it is not OK.

@Gettingmadderallthetime trans women are usually permitted in single sex spaces, so what you say does not apply. You don’t want them excluded because of Muslim women but because you don’t want them there. “Concerns” about safety are unevidenced, nutpicking aside.

Not sock puppeting - proving a name change

Now let's see if helle is going to double down on the "oh but disingenuous" or apologise
I wonder 🤔

It is fking ridiculous the amount of utter garbage accusations I've had thrown at me just for daring not to follow the group line on this. And proves in itself that the board has changed.

This is clearly untrue because they're not single sex spaces if a TW is in a woman's space. They're, by definition, mixed sex. Quite literally, a TW has never been in a woman's single sex space because the minutebthey go in, they make it mixed sex. I think what you mean is that a lot of providers are lieing by pretending to offer single sex spaces when they don't. They should be honest.

It's ridiculous how often I've been called an extremist, far right transphobe just for wanting to safeguard women and children and address structural inequalities.

Same.

And yes, no should be enough.

I don't want transwomen in female single spaces in the same way I don't want my Dad, my Partner, men I work with and any other man, known to me or not, in them.

Yep

It proves how badly some react to no from women.

Did you understand my post?

I am sorry that you felt you had to prove your existence on this board, however, you don't seem to have read my post or you read it and did not understand it. Please don't post your prior history, I actually don't think it is pertinent to what I said.

My point was about you having discussions about 'gender identity' and the impacts on female people. Hence I said this:

"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 even went on to discuss safeguarding discussions in this paragraph here:
"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."

Did you get involved in safeguarding discussions around male risk and how female single sex spaces were formed? Because if you did, I think that had you been posting the same arguments as you have done this weekend years ago, you would have got the same points discussed with you that you have done this weekend.

"Now let's see if helle is going to double down on the "oh but disingenuous" or apologise"

Really.... perhaps you should read posts. You seem to react without thinking about what they are actually saying. And by the way, this is not me 'doubling down', this is me pointing out that you missed the fucking point of the post!

I never said I doubted you posted on the board. I said I doubted you posted on the board about this topic. ie.... that you were posting about other things ... that is what 'different views' encompasses.

Literally noone has called you that. Whereas just on this thread I've been called an AGP male, someone "involved" with an AGP male (but not an approved trans widow), a member of sisters uncut, a liar, bad faith blah blah.

MNHQ say report personal attacks and I do. But when it's downright bullying and smearing it won't reach the deletion threshold. So my options are call it out for what it is or be hounded off the board.

And we know that if the EA provision in used, that male people can excluded. Legitimate discrimination applies because they are MALE. The EA allows priority to given based on SEX when sex matters. What part of this are you missing?

Transwomen arrogantly assume they can enter single sex spaces and that women will be too polite/intimidated to challenge them. Avoiding eye contact and leaving without properly drying your hands isn't giving them "permission".