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/

You are right. We want single sex spaces fully back and for that to be made clear in law. The obvious solution to meeting everyone's needs for safety, comfort and dignity is third spaces, services and categories.

Not sure why you're still going on at Datun @AdamRyan ? You expressed your outrage at her comment, reported yet another post and it was deleted.

I have learnt - and continue to learn from countless amazing women on here. I'm so thankful for their bravery and courage - so many in real life - as they challenge what's happening to children and women. FWR has been and continues to be a place for intelligent women to explore feminism. I regret that some were able to influence MNHQ into separating the board but - so be it. Not my call.

Tbh, I've started to avoid threads when I see the accusations escalate about women on here being right wing, fascist allies, using safeguarding as a cover for transphobia, conspiracy theorists, ultras and more. Especially when the posters who dish out this abuse, often via a deluge of posts, repeatedly report so many others having the temerity to disagree.

We all come at this from different life experiences. I don't always like what I read and occasionally I'm guilty of being snarky / passive aggressive / rude in response to posts I dislike. But (theoretically) if I repeatedly got feedback that my posts were hostile, sarcastic, missing the point, inflammatory, lacking in understanding child safeguarding, I reckon it would be time for some self reflection.

I am smearing you? By telling you that your posts are inconsistent and making your position inconsistent? By pointing out there is disconnection between your posts?

By pointing out the negative generalisations you make about the board, and your attempts to smear posters who disagree with you using derogatory language?

Do you honestly think your own posts are conducive to debate? Because you have had poster after poster on numerous threads tell you that they are not.

And again, I am not doubling down because you don't seem to be able to read posts. And you then don't seek clarification because you assume that your interpretation was the only one. And you then have denigrated me when I ask to clarify your own posts.

Oh come on. MNHQ have a moderation policy and encourage reporting. If people's posts were OK then they would stand. If they get deleted they've crossed the line.

I've had posts deleted - it's just part of being on the board.

I'm not hiding anything - I get bullied and hounded when I post on here. MNHQ advice is to use the report button. So I do. If posters then get deleted, that's their own lookout and they should be more careful about how they phrase things.

You can exclude trans women if it's legitimate and proportionate.

I want starmer to explain the situation where its legitimate and proportionate for a grown man to follow a girl into a public toilet, and why its not appropriate for him to use the mens toilet.

While he's at it, he can explain the difference between a man and a tw.

And do you know what? Your "feedback" only comes from a subset of posters, all of whom post on this board and agree on everything.

That pattern of "feedback" is consistent with bullying, not genuine feedback.

I am smearing you? By telling you that your posts are inconsistent and making your position inconsistent? By pointing out there is disconnection between your posts?

Yes. There have been many excuses on why women can’t have single sex spaces and each one has not stood up to scrutiny

That’s the nature of debate. And the rest of the post too

I have watched and it is not just a subset of posters. And no we don't agree on everything. Some of us don't agree on stuff all the time.

This is another generalisation that you are building here. It fits with your 'echo chamber' comments.

For clarification, I'm not saying you shouldn't report - I occasionally report posts and MNHQ do take it seriously. But they're not personal reports - I rarely fall out with anyone on Mumsnet on any board - I'm reporting posts that break the guidelines, not that I feel are criticising me.
But, it was just an observation having seen you announce that you're reporting people - it just makes me feel I no longer want to post on that thread.

Oh well, that's a shame that you feel that you can not moderate yourself enough to avoid deletion.

I just try to be extra careful when people are annoying me. Temporarily hiding threads helps too.

Yes it's too late.

Minister for Women will probably be a trans women, so Labour can show they are promoting diversity and inclusivity.

😂😂

A perfect example - thank you.

Transwomen are men, so have no business entering women's spaces for no better reason than because they want to.

If you think they are women, you can provide evidence. Except there is no evidence beyond their thoughts.

I'm not "building generalisation".

I see who replies to me and what they say. I am pretty much 100% sure everyone else sees it too. I have no idea why you have appointed yourself arbiter of what makes sense and what is consistent, but that's not how life works.

Posters can make arguments but if they don’t stack up then others will post why not

There seems to be a long list of why women shouldn’t say no and this thread has gone through each one.

If the thread ends with each argued against with reason then I don’t see the issue

Of course they're not women,don't be silly.

That's not quite true. Moderation of the board has eased up significantly in more recent times; at one point it was absolutely hair trigger and it was as if trolls would come onto the board seeking to eliminate as many women as they could - via the "three reports and you're out" rule.

If i were in your position I'd wean myself off the board. Posting when you are a lone voice or in a very small minority inevitably ends up meaning you are going to feel hounded and harassed. I'd be asking myself " What am I hoping to achieve" beyond continually challenging people and then getting snarky or upset when things go the usual way.

@Snowypeaks

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?

Theoretically yes, or rather I don't rule it out. So even the ED example is to me as much about cultural social mores and shame as it is some fundamental innate dignity between different sexes.

However where we are today is so very far away from that theoretical place so it's kind of a moot point. Here and now male population-level behaviour is what it is, so whether or not it could be different in future, here and now women continue to need what they need to mitigate it.

So while there may be a future where we need to work it out I'm very happy to park the point (I don't mean I'm squashing you and I discussing it, I mean park it as unimportant in the current context) on the grounds that if we ever get so close to ridding ourselves of the stuff that's definitely, 100% socialisation that the question of what's innate/desirable to keep starts to matter I'll just be overjoyed at how far we've come.

I guess the main value for me now in working on the basis it could be different in future is it avoids getting pulled into rabbit holes about ideological purity, prejudice or determinism (not suggesting you snowy are doing this, but more broadly) and keeps the focus on today's provisions being practical solutions for practical needs.

Sees what? You've lost me.

I haven't appointed myself as arbiter of what makes sense. Please feel very free to point out how your posts make sense!

As far as I remember on this thread, I have asked you to clarify and to support your claims with either evidence of well thought out detail over and over.

That is not me arbitrating what makes sense. Me saying your posts lack consistency, is me saying your posts don't show a consistency of thought that I can follow. Hence me constantly asking questions.

You choose to not give further details to clarify your position. And that is your choice. It is your freedom to do so. No one is free to post their opinion on MN without it being challenged though. And as others have said, what is not answered or explained it noticed by the wide diversity of readers that we have on this board and reading this thread now.

The debate that people are having includes:- is the law as it stands clear? should it be made clearer that the pc 'sex' in EA2010 refers to biological sex? should some spaces, services, etc be single-sex, and if so should this mean separated by biological sex? TW are male (unless you are arguing otherwise), therefore those people who want clarity, in law, that 'sex' is biologically determined also believe, by extension that TW should not be in female-only spaces. I'm sure you get it really

No problem, I don't feel squashed! I agree that it is a moot point for now but I'm glad we have come to an understanding of each other's viewpoints.

Yep, fair enough.

Yes we're still waiting for a definition of women which includes TW, excludes transmen and doesn't mean loads of actual women no longer are women.