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 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.

With respect, AdamRyan, nobody expects Aldi or the bus to be a single sex space. Women's SSs are catnip to AGPs. So not a red herring.

I think that this is another attempt to convince women to focus their attention elsewhere and not bother by the looks of it. It is deflection.

The point remains, doesn't it, why should society lower the quality of safeguarding in the single sex spaces we have and create weaker safeguarding for female people?

Why would any women's rights campaigner ignore this lowered safeguarding and not attempt to strengthen it along with campaigning with other issues?

Exactly and if I sit next to an AGP TW on the bus, I am not actively participating in their fantasy because I don't think of them as a woman and won't be doing anything which could make them think that.

I try to steelman(?) the idea why some men should be treated as women in some situations and if it is actual possible. But i cant get beyond 'because men want it' and it can only be possible if the men actually recognise that they aren't women. That is, it has to be made explicitly clear that they arent, othewise the agreed upon limits will always be tested by the men. We cannot be in position where we treat men as women, but at the same time acknowledge that they are men.

Id love for someone to come up with better reasons and assurances. Not bonkers therories like sex is spectrum, or if you squint a bit, the law says its so, but actual engaging reasons.

I think thats where the tension is, posters arent coming up with engaging reasons, so the conversations go round in circles.

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.

Yes. We know. That’s not a gotcha AdamRyam. This is precisely why many women do not want men in our spaces or groups. Be cause we don’t want to be unwilling/ unwitting participants in their sexual fantasies whether they are AGP based or ‘straight male’ based.

The difference is that you know that the AGPs are definitely engaging in sexual behaviour, whereas as some random bloke might, by coincidence, be the only male in an ordinarily mixed sex hobby group and be having no sexual thoughts whatsoever. It’s grim and somewhat degrading to think one is unwillingly providing titillation and wank fodder for men, but it’s worse to know it for certain, especially when AGP so often involves sissification and beliefs that are fundamentally degrading to women.

Leaving aside physical risks, the only way to have some mental respite from the barrage of objectification women so often experience, including from AGP men on buses, is for us to have women only spaces so we can be however we like and talk about whatever we like knowing we are not providing wank fodder for men. That’s what it means to not be a prop and for women to gain/regain some dignity. The law allows us to have this dignity and thank fuck so many women are standing up and fighting for it.

It would take a very strange set of characteristics to infer that when I said leaving women with no choice in a situation where they are confined with an AGP man, means that you are the AGP man.

It didn't come out wrong. And I'm not sorry.

I might feel for you, since you feel badgered. But I maintain that what I said was perfectly correct.

You have expressly said women in a women only knitting group should not ban transwomen. Not on the bus, not in a restaurant. In a woman only group.

My surprise was that, given you understand that these men are very likely to be AGP, you still felt you should say that.

I still have no idea why you did!

And in terms of diffusing tension. I might well do that with someone who is new to this. But you're not.

Oh. So when they are in a "womens space" you might think they are a woman. And when they are in public you don't.

And when they are performing femininity in a "women's space" its a risk and inappropriate, and when they are performing femininity in public its something else.

Clear as mud

I enjoy this part of the forum and I am very supportive of safe places for women.
However I genuinely don't understand why people will say I will vote Tory on the basis that they know what a woman is when labour don't or won't say.

We have been under Tory government for over a decade and they have not stopped this stampeding over women's rights, they have not prevented men invading women's spaces, including in public services. It is still not always safe to be gender critical without facing a battle. Was it not the Tory government who proposed self identification?

Can someone explain to me as to why a Tory government will be better for women. They hardly have a good track record on human rights or employment rights and the benefit system has regulations that penalise women.

It's because Labour and the other parties will be positively dangerous for women.

No Adam! The woman only knitting group provides the validation. The bus doesn't.

I'm just going to butt in. I've been tidying up my saved articles etc and just wanted to share this from ReSister United (not sure of the date)
Hope it works.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1255872834875916289.html

In what way. I keep reading this, however it feels more like a mantra than a discussion.

When a male is in a situation where there is no expectation that they are being treated as a female person, someone sitting beside them is not treating them as a female person through the act of sitting there in itself. If a person sat beside a male person and used female language while talking to them, it could be said (although again, not necessarily) that they were treating them as a female person.

If a male person is in a female only space, and this includes a female only group, then they are by nature of being in that space being treated as a female person. It doesn't matter what an individual person in that female only group does in that instance, just that male being present is them being treated as a female person.

Yeah, that.

You're misreading things. I never think a tw is a woman. Ever. I don't have such the old fashioned and sexist view of women needed for that. But being forced, by people who are misusing power, to complete actions which that tw could reasonably think means I think of them as a woman (even though I never would) is not OK.

I actually said its up to the person who runs the group whether or not to include TW. And if it was me, I would include transwomen and only ban them if they did something inappropriate. I have banned people from groups I run for inappropriate behaviour in the past.

That's for because I think there are no grounds to make knitting groups single sex. Or the WI, or social groups like that. Knitting does not involve issues of dignity and safety. Nor does baking.

You originally claimed you think they should be banned because "it turns them on". I am pointing out they get turned on by presenting as a woman anywhere so I think that's a bit flawed. Unless you are proposing Taliban style full sex segregation or banning men presenting as women. Both of which are pretty niche views unlikely to be shared by the mainstream.

Then maybe its because you think "no men in any womens spaces". Which is logical. I personally don't agree when there is no safety or dignity risk, but then I'm not a big fan of sex segregated socialising anyway.

I think we agree that it's up to the person running the group how they manage it.

Not really sure why the non-seqiturs about my circumstances, which I find inappropriately intrusive. Or the accusations that I want to harm women sexually, which are just straight up offensive.

Holding starmer to account is not voting tories, or claiming that the conservative party have being brilliant at protected womens rights.

The Conservatives did try to bring in self id, but, as a result of holding a public consultation, had to acknowledge that self id was neither popular nor compatible with safeguarding.

Despite the public consultation, the labour party still wanted to bring in self id. Starmer acknowledge that it was the mess in scotland, years after the public consultation, that changed his mind, not the already established unpopularity with the public.

This attitude, together with the risk of hate legislation and the threats of including trans in any anti conversion laws, make the feminist position more difficult under starmers labour party.

So would you welcome the TW in and say this is no longer a single sex group, any person can join, or would you gaslight the women and pretend it's still single sex. That's the crux for me. The first is honest and respectful to some degree though I'd want yo be clear that the group functioning as affirmative action had been considered and valued. The second option is abhorrent.

Thank you. This perfectly highlights the dystopia that women and girls have been plunged into.

Why have some posters assumed that 'transitioning' automatically should give male people access to any female single sex space, group or opportunity?

We already know that there are male people with trans identities who respect those spaces, groups and opportunities. Why is it the default position that a male who declares a trans identity is to be allowed this access, yet we know the many (according to some posters on MN who tell us there many trans friends respect female single sex spaces etc) exist without demanding this.

The second then does what Datun has been pointing out.

The second option, continuing to claim it is single sex, makes any male with AGP suspect of using the presence of the female people in the group for their aims.

I would expect declaring it now a mixed sex group, and avoiding any illusion that it is 'single gender', would be a way to counter that. However, that then by changing that dynamic, destroys that group as a single sex group.

It is one of those inconsistencies in the thought processes we see of people who declare that allowing a male into a female group is harmless.

I think the number of people saying 'I will vote Tory because they know what a woman is' is overstated TBH. It's much more common that people don't know who to vote for/feel they can't vote for anyone. Much of the pressure on Starmer & the LP comes from people who would like to vote Labour & are frustrated at what best looks unclear. In Starmer's case, this is an intelligent man who, you'd hope, understands the law as it stands and might have some particular insight into ways in can be improved. The policy forum stuff that's come out so far isn't that clear, and doesn't address the tension between the GRA and the EA.

That's for because I think there are no grounds to make knitting groups single sex. Or the WI, or social groups like that. Knitting does not involve issues of dignity and safety. Nor does baking.

I have no problem with mixed sex knitting groups but that does not prevent or invalidate single sex groups. If all you're saying is you don't care that's fine. But the implication is that you want transwomen to be entitled to attend a single sex group as a right.

Should a transman be entitled to join a gay men's walking group?
Should a translesbian be entitled to attend a Lesbian Book Group?
Certainly the group can decide to include or exclude them but you seem to imply excluding is wrong.

I'm someone who can't vote Labour because of this having voted for them for decades.

It's not the lack of clarity, it's because I believe Labour are demonstrating they will outright reject the needs of reality (things we need because of how the world currently is) if those needs clash with ideology (things they believe we shouldn't need because of how they believe the world should be) and that terrifies me.

I actually said its up to the person who runs the group whether or not to include TW.

No, you said:

"The place where I am happy to treat TW as women is in social situations. I will use pronouns and preferred names. I dont want to see trans women banned from womens knitting groups."