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/

@DadJoke
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.

@Gettingmadderallthetime
Please excuse me jumping in to answer a post directed at you.

[men who claim to be women] are usually permitted in single sex spaces, so what you say does not apply.
My plumber is "usually permitted" to enter my house. That does not mean he has a right to be there.
I hope the phrase usually permitted is going to a gym regularly and not missing out leg day, because it's doing a lot of heavy lifting there.

You don’t want them excluded because of Muslim women but because you don’t want them there.
I want them excluded because of observant Muslim (or Jewish) women AND because I don't want them there. Because they are men.

“Concerns” about safety are unevidenced, nutpicking aside.
So...unevidenced...apart from all the evidence, is what you're saying?
Concerns are well evidenced by the proportion of violent and sexual assaults committed by men, whether they claim to be women or not, compared to the proportion committed by women. (90%:10% and 98%:2%, as I'm sure you know by now.)

But hey, only the odd nutter is a terrorist, so let's not bother with screening at airports! After all, we're not all going to die, right?

Literally that is what people have called me and others who draw similar conclusions. I wasn't commenting on your accusations of smearing though that's not how I read people's comments on your posts. Ultimately that's for MN to decide about not me. My point was that women who say no get a lot of nasty comments back from those who want to over ride their consent and force them to accept tw in women's spaces.

Oh what a surprise.
I now suspect that the poster who is declaring that wasn’t posting on this board ’years ago’.....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.

This is what you wrote. You are hounding and smearing me. Behaving like this to people who don't agree with you is not conducive to a debate.

Whereas just on this thread I've been called an AGP male, someone "involved" with an AGP male

I assume you're not implying that that was me.

Because I specifically said you're not an AGP male, are you? When you chose to infer, or said you inferred, that I called you a perpetrator.

neither have called you 'involved' with anyone.

I asked why you had such a vested interest and was it because you knew someone who was trans.

If anyone, I was assuming a child.

i'm not sure if other people have called you anything tho, because I skimmed a fair bit.

But it is very confusing.

Hampstead
women’s pond thought they’d be acting illegally to exclude men.

Someone has to raise thousands of pounds for a court case they may lose in order to try to have a female, sex-based provision in a rape crisis centre on Brighton.

An NHS trust lost the case over a ‘hot and sweaty’ transwoman in a state of undress in the women’s changing room being told to stop using it.

Some examples.

Hampstead pond - by men I meant transwomen.

Yes that was you. You've raised what my circumstances are more than once on the thread and for someone who claims to know so much about trans widows and fetishes, it's entirely inappropriate and wrong.

You can also now deny what you wrote last night but at best it was extremely clumsy language. I'd have gone with that if you apologised, but no, it was "clarity" to imply what you did about me.

It disgusts me. Old FWR 100% did not treat women this way.

@DadJoke you are moving the goalposts here. This is what I responded to:

'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?'

You talked about a group which was legally permitted to be there being excluded and framed this as a clash of rights. You have now shifted from there being a legal right to

'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.'

You are now talking about transwomen being permitted to be where they are not normally allowed. This is a permission by (for example) the gym chain, or permission by other women who are being kind. It not a legal right,

You know all this already. Which is why my husband points out I should perhaps change my user name to #danceswithtrolls. I feel this is a hint.

To my mind the biggest issue about how women are being treated on FWR is that a lot of women have said no to men in their spaces but people keep badgering them to change their minds. Its a totally fucking shit way to treat an oppressed majority. Sadly, all the time I've been on MN there have been entitled, privileged or otherwise affected people who think that what women wants doesn't matter than much compared to what men want. Same old same old as far as I can tell.

This idea that TW have been "allowed" into women's spaces is just not true. If TW they have used those spaces it is because of a lack of clarity in the law, along with a whole lot of development in trans ideology since the equality act was written - with the new concept of 'transgender identity' and so on.

The law is outdated. It was drafted at a different time and for a different set of conditions. It needs to be rewritten and the category of 'Sex' made plain and clear.

If you're disgusted, Adam, it's because you are misreading posts.

You seem oblivious to men with AGP and how they operate. Which is something that people who have children or close family members who might be trans identifying, could be forgiven for. Especially if they are not AGP.

A woman with a son or daughter, even if they are grown-up, who are autistic, or same-sex attracted, but identifying as trans, will not have much headspace for middle-aged men with AGP.

It was your surprising disregard for women who would be unable to extricate from an AGP situation, which made me think you were just oblivious to it.

I was actually trying to understand your viewpoint because I cannot reconcile someone who says they're a feminist with the comments you make.

Do I remember correctly that you were one of the posters who directly campaigned to get the board separated?

Women are not hateful or phobic for wanting a female doctor, counsellor, practitioner in certain circumstances. In fact the equality act was written to make sure women had this right.

Whereas just on this thread I've been called an AGP male,

• *Bloody hell.You seem to think that that I thought you were a perpetrator of sexual fetishes, and I said no, because you're not an AGP male are you??

Do you understand that the 'are you' is saying you aren't, it's not bloody well asking you if you really are!!

It wasn't a question.

Honestly, why do you keep posting on a board in which you know you will not be changing anyone's mind, and in which you seem regularly to get upset? What is it you are hoping to achieve?

Well maybe if you want to understand someone's view point, don't use phrases like "you are happy to use women...." to make your point. That's hostile and aggressive.

I don't know in all honesty. Harking back to the time when I learnt all my feminism from the amazing posters on here I guess.

Is everyone on these threads new?

How would anyone know for sure

I’ve been using mn for ages

No males are wanted HTH

No. Its because of the bald accusation you made about what I support last night.

Rather than be a grown up and go "oh shit, that came out wrong, sorry" or reread it and edit it, you've doubled down and made it my problem because "I misunderstood".

That's not how adult debate works.

Maybe that is to do with the fact the board was split into two because some didn't want to have discussions only about the clash of rights between trans stuff and women's rights - whilst for many others, that is why they came to the board. That's why I come. I don't contribute anywhere else on the whole site.
I've been posting for about seven years now - and I can't recall it ever really being that much different.

Yep. I can’t see that you can get the split you’re after in order to avoid sex and gender then get annoyed with posters for using the board for that topic

It's the default and it's a legal right with some exceptions. You can exclude trans women if it's legitimate and proportionate. You want all trans women excluded from all spaces for women. There are other exceptions in the act, it doesn't mean that the legal rights aren't legal rights.

What was that that you said about women's toilets ... "You are harking back to a golden time that never existed.". Maybe your own 'golden time' never really existed either after the boards got separated or even before.

And whoever moved to get the boards separate should take responsibility for the outcomes of that move. If that was you, if I remember correctly, then it also seems hypocritical to remonstrate that this board (THE SEX AND GENDER BOARD NOT THE FEMINIST CHAT BOARD.)

Genuinely, if you find that your posts are not receiving affirming commentary perhaps don't reach for your constant berating stance about the board not being up for 'robust discussion' or intellectual discussion or welcoming of other opinions and think about what you, yourself, are posting.

Did you 'welcome' other opinions on that thread where poster after poster pointed out that Starmer had not clarified his stance really or did you double down and tell us all that we were wrong?

Do you have experience of fetishistic men datun or do you just think you'd from reading the TW threads and the Blanchard article?

Fetishists are everywhere. Unless you are proposing banning trans altogether (I.e. literally making it illegal for a man to present as a woman) then you are not going to stop AGP men presenting as women for kicks. Single sex spaces is a red herring. The AGP man is getting his kicks sitting next to you on the bus. Or doing his shopping in Aldi.

If you are saying you want to make it illegal for people to transition altogether to protect women, then say that.

If you are saying no males in any womens spaces, because of men, then say that.

But don't attack other women and imply they are the ones causing harm for asking questions or having a different opinion.

Honestly I don't know what happened to you. You used to be great at non-judgemental curiosity, I really admired how you could diffuse tension (along with Rufus too). Now you are downright hostile to anyone with a different view and insistent if they don't understand, that must be their fault.