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/

Another thread started by the usual suspects who incorrectly state Labours position and smear Starmer.

We need to point out the double standards around the expectations on Labour vs the Conservatives, when posters try to frame the debate ad Labour hate women and children.

Anyone would think they are frightened of the Conservatives losing power.

I would suggest we keep addressing misinformation when we see it.

After all posters seem fascinated by mischaracterising Labour and more than happy to start threads on the topic every day or so.

yes and the worry with that is they’ll go into coalition with the Lib Dem’s who will be champing at the bit to push through self ID/replace sex with gender & other policies that fuck women over

it was the Lib Dem’s going into coalition with the Tories that started so much of this off. We know that Lib Dem’s had very little power in that coalition and they rolled over or were shafted on a number of tnings eg tuition fees, public vote on proportional representation. The Tories did throw them a bone with their work on Trans action plan though no doubt because they thought/were told “oh it’s just a small issue affecting a handful of people”

rexult was this https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/transgender-action-plan

and the rest is history

I don't think they provide a huge amount of gatekeeping do they? IIRC they have been granted to criminals and sex offenders in the past. And the "modernised" process advocated by Labour will presumably be even less stringent.

Even if things like criminal record checks are used there is no way to revoke a GRC so as long as the next Dolatowski remembers to get his certificate before getting arrested for sex crimes they will be legally female and according to Starmer as much of a woman as any other.

‘Smear Starmer’

His statements are all over the place, they are a collection of buzzwords that are designed to obfuscate

They have been for a long period and he can expect women to be interested in his attempts to talk down the importance of the issue.

@AdamRyan ”He also recognises there are people who are male, but legally recognised as women. Therefore "women with a penis".

His position just reflects the facts, you can't penalise someone for stating reality”

Do you think the reality is that some women are male?

How do you think that will go down with the wider electorate, if it’s explained clearly? As in, “male women should have the right to get changed in communal changing rooms with teenage girls and children”. A vote winner?

My suspicion is that voters can punish politicians for stating reality: it happens in elections all the time. But voters can really punish politicians for lying.

A little bit of sick came up when I read this.

When he said women equals adult female and some posters said see a week later they include all the women

’All the women’ is males and females

He can’t speak clearly, he even changes mid statement such as one in op

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

AttaThat - can you not see what a massive problem that is? It's bloody clownworld!

I don't think he would lose swathes of support though. He'd gain support.

But also that doesn't make sense. We are always being told:

"But why does it matter?"
"There are bigger issues!"
"It's not coming up on the doorstep"

If that's the case then he can easily state TWANW and:

It won't matter
There are bigger issues
No one is raising it on the doorstep

He could even state that the unethical experiment on children is a crime and "when I was DPP, I'd have expected this to be a case file on my desk". And he could support calls for a public inquiry.

Because everyone cares about not subjecting children to harm. So he would not lose votes. He would gain them.

Right??

https://twitter.com/okaybiology/status/1770960041534746651?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

Absolutely embarrassing and I hate that little irritated sigh that he always does when this is brought up and that he always frames it from a male/TW pov and ignores any harms to women. Woeful but at least he cannot avoid it in the coming months.

You wish Adam. I am a member and so are many others.

Starmer could explain his stance far more clearly than he does. Its a choice to raise more questions than answers with every statement he (is forced) to make.

He talks about the GRA process, but avoids talking about the the PC of GR, and how men can easily obtain female id. He completely ignores that men are invading womens spaces and opportunities. He talks in a very condescending way, as if its all very simple and ignores legal cases, men being reported as women in courts and in the media. He ignores the abuse labour mp give to women - he could easily stop labour mps calling women anti trans for actually talking about womens rights and safeguarding, but seems to not hear it, or supports it.

Hes not listening to the concerns of women, and after years of this being discussed, thats intentional.

Hes not listening to the concerns of women, and after years of this being discussed, thats intentional

Yes his best bet is to avoid it, ‘no one’s talking about it’ he’s likely briefed this to campaigners too and will instruct to avoid any PMB

That doesn’t actually stop women talking about it, hence these threads

His words are so poor at this stage there’s no excuse

Anyone would think they are frightened of the Conservatives losing power.

Why don’t you read what posters actually write?

Women are frightened of the implications of a Labour government led by a man who thinks men can be women.

Time and again on these threads women have written that they won’t vote Labour, due to this single issue. Acknowledged that the Conservatives are offering pretty thin gruel on it themselves. Said that they’re not Conservative supporters. Expressed anger and sadness that the party they’ve voted for all their lives is no longer an option for them.

It’s not hard to understand.

Or they just won't win, if the papers sow enough seeds of doubt during the campaign.

Do we think the Tories have lost the Murdoch press? If they have, it's likely game over. If they haven't, then this is the type of topic which will be front and centre.

Given the swing Labour need (and I'm not sure we can extrapolate low-turnout by-election results to a GE), any voter-scaring (on this, or any other issue), could mean they don't win.

Why don’t you read what posters actually write?

Because it doesn't suit the narrative that they'd prefer, as they'd prefer the (six, and their socks) GC posters to be Tories / shy Tories rather than frustrated, worried, upset and angry ex-Labour members / voters.

I thought The Times had gone pretty soft. But they have had a fair few articles about the horror of puberty blockers, and Janice T is today saying the EDI industry is causing division so who knows.

I suspect an internal battle at The Times probably, with those more pro-Labour possibly now finding there are still serious issues that readers (and maybe fellow journalists?) won't let go. Plus they'll have seen the rejection of " respect pronouns for the individuals I have selected as alright and you should follow suit" schtick. That was a near-unequivocal rejection IIRC, with tiny numbers of readers buying that!

There's also a column today saying Reeves isn't saying much ("shapeless word fest"). And the Times comment follows others, saying they can't carry on just not committing to much in the way of policy.

That sort of brings you back here. Why don't they commit to other "bigger things" yet when it comes to the evidenced and thoughtful concerns of women - about women and children - they keep giving it "too much heat" "abuse!!" and lawyerly word play? Why is this the ONE policy where they won't see it's wildly unpopular?

It rather leads you to conclude the obvious. They take women for granted and ignore us. To that: I say no.

I saw this yesterday by Naomi Cunningham when discussing reporting of people with trans identities who hold GRCs.

I’m interested in donations to the Labour Party from Anthony Watson and anyone else who has used their money to buy a political policy from Labour that will be detrimental to the rights of women and children. It speaks to why Labour are pushing stubbornly on here (while trying to pull the wool over our eyes) in the face of very obvious harms to women and children.

It’s helpful to know that Keir and Labour can be bought for thirty pieces of silver, just as Rishi and the Tories can, when thinking of strategy to end this bullshit.

As a pp pointed out, actually acknowledging who we are doesn't fit their narrative. Easier to say that we are all far right bigoted fascists than admit that the LP are failing women on this and that we are largely left wing voters who would love to vote Labour.

Starmer looks more and more shifty and foolish every time this topic is raised so of course if will be raised over and over. It won't affect those who think that he can do no wrong but it will open many people's eyes as so many people do not understand yet. I look forward to much more sunlight.

Good. That's unequivocal.

As for the GRC providing gatekeeping. There's no relevant gatekeeping to be had.

The only relevant gatekeeping is to stop men entering.

Providing the means by which any man can enter isn't gatekeeping.

Another word that has entirely lost its meaning due to this fuckery.

To say the GRA provides gatekeeping, is to missuse 'gatekeeping' in this context. The GRA process can only gatekeep the number of men issued with a female birth certificate, it cannot vet the men in womens spaces in any meaningful way.

The gatekeeping is around the perspective of the individuals wanting a GRC - is it the best option for them? Those diagnosing gender dysphoria and the panel ensuring that there is proof that the aquired identity has been used for two years are not in a position to 'gatekeep' in a way that we would use on this board.

I also hope that journalists start to ask Starmer about the gender recognition certificate and how you're not allowed to ask to see it.

So what's the point of it?

I want him to tell the world that the point of it is to enable any man to change his birth certificate. (Or woman.)

i'm pretty certain the general public have no idea that people can go around changing the sex they were born on their birth certificate.

Quite.

When you are providing men with a piss easy way to access the space in question, it's the opposite of gate keeping.

If Eddie Izzard can change access based on how they feel what do pp think women can do about any male?

If Scarlett Blake had felt so inclined what can women do about it?

The only stop was prison, not a GRC or not - a certificate no one sees

Surely it’s not hard to see that there is no gatekeeping