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/

majority of voters are not basing their decision on the issue of how KS defines a woman.

I've just been out. Whilst out I spoke to five people. 40% of who were trans.

One transwoman and one transman. And it was bloody obvious that the transwoman was a man and the transman was a woman!

KS's waffle on this subject makes him look as shifty as fuck and his inability to state what everyone else can see with their bloody eyes will impact who I end up voting for in the general election.

The problem for all politicians now is that they cant claim trans is a very obscure medical condition.

They also cant claim that we can call some men she, and it has no effect on womens rights.

So they either have to say, of course a woman doesn't have a penis and hope the next question isnt about government issued id, or they say some women have a penis and sound bonkers.

I have no sympathy for any of them because it was politicians who wrote the laws. Its their decisions that are now biting them on their arses.

They are lucky the media arent asking them why they made up the concept of a trans child.

Yep

Every time he uses that phrase then is all over the place

all the women is telling in there

Anneliese Dodds probably. That’s her shadow brief at the moment.

Thanks for whoever posted this reply early on in the thread.

Has she changed her position since this?

Labour will lead on reform of transgender rights – and we won’t take lectures from the divisive Tories - Anneliese Dodds
We will modernise, simplify and reform gender recognition law. Our policies won’t please everyone but we will do what’s right
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/24/labour-will-lead-on-reform-of-transgender-rights-and-we-wont-take-lectures-from-the-divisive-tories

Our policies won’t please everyone...

Won't please most people.

...but we will do what’s right...

We are convinced of our moral rectitude, so yah, boo, sucks, TERFdom!

(3 months later)
We will deliver where the Conservatives have failed by bringing in a full, no-loopholes, trans-inclusive ban on conversion therapy.
And we will modernise the gender recognition law to a new process, while continuing to support the implementation of the Equality Act that protects everyone.
https://labour.org.uk/updates/press-releases/anneliese-dodds-speech-at-labour-party-conference/

Found this summary by Joan Smith from February 2024

It speaks volumes about the state of Labour that these are the people — reality-deniers and lobby groups who try to silence gender-critical MPs — that leading figures want to impress. It’s not unheard of for politicians to tailor their policies to their audience, but the pattern is clear. Each apparent lurch towards reality by Labour frontbenchers is followed by a capitulation to trans activism.
https://unherd.com/newsroom/keir-starmer-bows-to-trans-activists-over-conversion-therapy/

The interviewer wasn't very good. He kept moving on too soon instead of demanding an answer to the current question.

Probably not, but no overall control wouldn't surprise me. Especially with the fragmentation of both Labour and Tory votes with other parties gaining ground, plus more serious independents standing. With the PO disclosures, I'm not convinced it will be the Lib dems picking up votes, unless they ditch Ed Davey. If there's a POW candidate in my constituency I'll vote for them.

@IwantToRetire it was me. No, she hasn’t. This was the article that was supposedly setting out Labour’s stall on self id and single sex spaces last summer. However, as I’ve written to my Labour MP, she and Starmer are still flip flopping. Dodds spoke up at Russell Lloyd moyle whatsit’s private member’s bill on gender conversion therapy, which is unusual. Cabinet members don’t normally speak at PMB debates, though the Tory minister spoke too (I’ll need to check who).

And what does the £15million donated to the Conservatives by racist Frank Hester say about them?

Or the £48m that similarly racist Paul Marshall has been happy to lose in employing Conservative politicians to promote righ wing propaganda on GBnews?

How about the millions Michelle Mone has managed to extract on PPE?

Or the millions Sunak's wife and her family have made from Conservative government policy?

The Conservatives brought in the £5 charge, I don't think you can use that against Starmer

Outstanding whataboutery

Outstanding whataboutery

I'm not sure why you interpreted what I posted as suggesting you are a "Tory supporter", I was responding to you asking me if I trust him. Yes I do. And in a two party system I personally am far more worried about a Conservative party led by TWAW Penny Mordaunt. I'm talking about myself not you.

If you think "coercion" is someone responding to a question you asked with an answer you don't like, then I'd respectfully suggest you have had a very lucky life!

Party of Women have gone very quiet - I keep looking out for news.
I don't know about KJK. She seems to find it hard to keep people working with her. I'm wondering if she's a bit of a grifter. A GC version of Jack Monroe.

All reprehensible, but what has it to do with the trans issue and what does any of it tell us about how the Tories will protect the rights of women and children?

Not really. Parties get donations, that's how it works. Although £477,000 seems like a lot to most people, in context it really isn't. That's why I posted the money being spent influencing the Conservatives- for context.

I have no idea who Anthony Watson is, and that poster doesn't say so it's a "dog whistle" to people in the know rather than an actual concern.

💯 agree with every word here.

Which is why I will not be voting Labour.

I can only speculate based on recent news reports and the amount of focus GB news puts on reporting trans issues.

An influential Christian hedge fund manager who sits on the board of HTB’s Church Revitalisation Trust has been accused of supporting extremists on social media by campaigners who question his suitability for British media ownership.
www.premierchristianity.com/news-analysis/the-christian-faith-of-billionaire-media-mogul-sir-paul-marshall/17299.article

Marshall also retweeted a message that elided homosexuality with Satan worshipping and “corrupting children”, referring to LGBTQ+ people and allies as “demons”. He also liked a post from another far right account praising Viktor Orbán as a “true leader” for his anti-refugee and anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric and policies.
https://brokenbottleboy.substack.com/p/the-paul-marshall-plan

Just a small, possibly insignificant question. why do you need anyone, whether they may be the next Prime minister or not, to define you? I'm me. Me happens to have a certain set of genitals that society has defined as "woman". So what?

I understand the arguments for safe women only spaces. But I don't understand why I need or
want anyone to define me. If the abolition of safe places for people with genital like mine and who has reason to be frightened of people with different genitial, was proposed, I'd object to it. But that doesn't seem to me that is was he said. Not even close.

I'll don my hard hat now.

I've no idea but it doesn't matter. Every vote for POW tells the traditional parties not only that a voter wasn't satisfied with their offerings, but the reason WHY they weren't satisfied. Exactly what you want for a protest vote.
Unless the issue really takes off, POW aren't likely to win any seats. Although you never know. Keir Starmer has gone beyond underwhelming now. Some of his statements on women I've found both upsetting and offensive.

I think some of the expectation here is ridiculous. Yes, of course he’s sitting on the fence, he wants to win the election and he’s attempting not to alienate too many people.

Right now, this is a side issue, it’s not one that’s going to decide the election. He knows that neither the core TRAs or core GC will be happy with what he’s said and he’s banking on that being a small group. It seems obvious to me that his strategy is to keep it a side issue. If he said TW are not W, can you imagine the hate campaign that would be held against him? If he actually defined women accurately, then it would be front and centre, stonewall and pink news would explode and he would lose a huge swathe of the left wing.