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/

I do get frustrated reading threads like this.

So many people have been sold on the use of 'spin' phrases which make no sense and have probably been created by anti feminists.

Examples:

LGBT community. No such thing - Bs and Ts are in no way part of the same community.

Biological sex - tortology - what other definition of sex is there? Non-biological sex. No that adjective is just for washing powders.

Gender critical - aka people who believe in science

Trans rights - what many/most people are talking about is women's/children's rights. I believe most people think trans individuals can have whatever rights are reasonable and protect them - up to the point where they impinge on women's rights.

Society has been largely brainwashed - partly by language - over recent years and these are just some examples.

This post Datun? In answer to Gail? Is this the post you are referring to?

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

This is where false advertising comes in.

Its not practical for the definition of women to mean different things to different people at different times.

Its not fair for women to seek out a womens only group, only to find it includes men because the person running the group doesnt think a women only group is needed, yet is advertising their group as for women only.

Similarly, its not fair to men with gender to not know which women only groups they are allowed in. They would have to ask everytime.

Groups dont have to be single sex, but if they are advertised as such, they should be.

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.

Not even if the people attending want it that way? I mean look at the WI inclusion of TW and surprise, surprise the TW is feted and gets a seat on the Executive Committee.

I'm not a big fan of sex segregated socialising anyway.

And that is your prerogative, some people are you want to override their wishes and impose your preferences on them.

Language is a key part of this

Gender ideology exists because it can mangle language

I'm quoting my own post. Because you see a knitting group as a social situation, not an opportunity for AGP men to enact a sexual fetish.

A knitting group is actually one of those highly specific female spaces that are attractive to AGP men.

It's fine if you didn't know that, though.

The point with groups like the WI is that many women - the people the group is meant for will self exclude if they start attending and find out they have to listen to mansplaining about womanhood with no recourse to complain.

That's an awful thing to say. It's not a women's knitting group if males are welcomed. What possible legal or moral justification is there for letting some males in but continuing to exclude others?

It is.

I read it and thought what, wait...

Well, I look forward to the explanation then.

Also, I don't really care that much if the odd woman like Adam spouts this inconsistent bollocks.

What I do care about is people understanding exactly why many men want access.

(and for the avoidance of doubt I'm not calling Adam 'odd).

I get that, but I do think that some people feel the party has shifted - kudos to LWD for keeping on it - and would like to know exactly what, for example, 'protect single-sex spaces' means in practice. Arguably the 2024 LP isn't ideologically wedded to much, except maybe winning an election, which could be good news for more GC voters. But we'll see, and many women won't take the risk.

Isn't the problem that @AdamRyan doesn't believe that social groups should be single-sex ever, but bundled that in with pronouns & preferred names. If Adam had just said 'TW should be in the all-women knitting group because it shouldn't be all women - any fella should be able to join' that might have saved several pages of thread

Edit: although obviously the knitting group took the focus away from the whole toilets vs changing rooms clusterfuck

Just to reassure you literal, what you said was quite clear in the context.

Yes, it would've avoided a lot. And yes, I believe it was a deflection.

It's inconsistent.

And if applying who gets access is inconsistent, then there has to be, at some point, a reason why.

And that's when we get down to some nitty-gritty.

What man is considered okay, and where?

Because sure as shit none of this is about what women say or want.

Gender ideology exists because it can mangle language

Yes agree EasternStandsrd.

That's why TRAs should more accurately be called LMAs - Language Mangling Activists.

Gender Ideology exists to further male supremacy.

Look how a certain poster on here is absolutely determined and will brook no opposition to men being in women's spaces, counselling woman who have been raped, examining women who have been raped, etc., etc.

One could wonder about the motivations at play.

Just to put this in perspective, we are talking about the reasons in general why you think trans women should be excluded from women only groups like knitting groups (just in case they are AGP and mine gain sexual pleasure from doing so) - not about whether or not a particular individual should be allowed to join where it is known they are an AGP and want to join because it will give them sexual pleasure.

If a trans woman wants to join a women only knitting group, first of all, I don’t think the research into AGP is anywhere near solid enough to suggest you should regard it as likely that they are an AGP (unless there is evidence to suggest otherwise suggest as inappropriately sexual dress or behaviour). So we are talking about a possibility that this person who wants to join the group might be someone who will get some sort of sexual arousal or fulfilment from being included in the group, by virtue of how it makes them feel about themselves (rather than anything particular about the other women in the group - eg it’s not about being turned on by what the other women are wearing or about their bodies).

I don’t think that slight risk of something that might or might not be going on in the person’s head outweighs the upset likely to be caused to them by being excluded.

I realise you’ll probably say something like “so you think men’s hurty feels are more important than women’s boundaries then?” but again, enough of the emotive language. It’s not about men’s or women’s feelings being more important (a ridiculous notion in itself) but about rationally weighing the risk of harm on either side.

And to preempt the question, no, I can’t see why there need to be female only knitting groups at all, and if a man wanted to join I think he should be allowed to. But that isn’t what you all were arguing about.

This.

Plain and simple.

“LGBT community. No such thing - Bs and Ts are in no way part of the same community.”

what about Ls and Gs?

How lovely for you that you can't possibly see why females want female-only company. It must be lovely there in me-land.

If I want to sit with other women in a knitting group why can't I?

I join a female-only knitting group because I want to talk to other women with similar likes, views and experiences as myself. If I want to speak about my awful peri-menopause and the heavy, painful periods I had and there's a man present I can't.

Even if I'm happy to talk about these things in front of a man the other women might not be.

That leaves me being mindful of what I say for some of the other women's comfort.

Unlike the man joining who has total disregard for how any of the women in the women-only group feel.

I've dealt with male entitlement all my life. My sex has ensured I've been unable to join clubs attached to my sports and interests. I've been directly asked to leave as well as cold-shouldered out because I'm female.

Those are some of the reasons I can see the need for female-only groups.

It’s not a legal right where an exception applies, is it?

Ah, then we're going to disagree. I think if a man, who identifies as a woman, wants to join a women only knitting group there's a high chance he's AGP. There's an even higher chance that he views the women only aspect as validation for his personal self image.

It’s not about men’s or women’s feelings being more important (a ridiculous notion in itself) but about rationally weighing the risk of harm on either side.

What possible harm would there be to a man who is excluded from a woman only knitting group?

Just to put this in perspective, we are talking about the reasons in general why you think trans women should be excluded from women only groups like knitting groups (just in case they are AGP and mine gain sexual pleasure from doing so)

No, I don't think any men should be allowed to join spaces for women only. AGP or not.

The reason the knitting group came up was because Adam was specific about the women in a knitting group not being allowed to ban men.

I was pointing out the reasons why knitting groups are particularly appealing to some men.

.