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/

That's one of the articles I saw. You seem to be adding your own interpretation to what he said.

He doesn't actually say that he thinks it's only men with a GRC who can be women.

Yes it’s the opposite. It gives any male access if they like because no one can check

Its fustrating that starmer says that everyone knows that gender and sex are different, but fails to mention that the GRA issues a man with female birth certificate.

Cross dressing men can obtain a female passport without any diagnosis.

If everyone knows sex and gender are different, why isnt he anouncing policies to remove the legal ambiguity? Im not convinced that his aim to 'modernise' the GRA will do that.

A GRC which only requires one doctor to sign a form might as well be self ID.

How hard do you think it would be to send Helen Webberley a few quid to sign it?

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

Absolutely. The comms guidelines for Labour and Keir’s office will be heavily focused on ‘avoiding being sucked into a culture war’ on this. They’ll be doing everything they possibly can to avoid speaking on it.

Because they know that if this blows up and becomes a big issue, they’re in the shit. So we have to make sure it does blow up and become a huge issue for the election.

I don't think that is going to save the Tories or stop a Labour victory.

Electoral Calculus is still predicting a big win for Labour, no coalitions needed.

If you want to see the predictions taking into account the boundary changes for individual constituencies, they are here.

I will donate £50 to KJK if Labour don't win a majority!

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/newseatlookup.html

Interesting response to the question on trans women. More "agrees" than "disagrees". A lot of don't knows too.

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/blogs/ec_heterodox_20240102.html

ETA: the question wording is not clear, but I think it was along the lines of whether transgender women and biological women should sometimes be treated differently.

Agh. Broke the link, I think!

www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/blogs/ec_heterodox_20240102.html

This is an important point.

It is not immediately obvious to most people that gender and sex are different, which has been the cause of much of the confusion.

Accepting that there is utility in differentiating the two, there is a difference between the feminist theory of gender and the queer theory equivalent. In the former, gender follows sex because it is how society treats you because of your sex. The latter is an ID politics category into which one can choose to identify and which supersedes sex.

Does Starmer believe gender is something people can have as an immutable characteristic, or is it imposed on them by society because of sex?

In this sense, it is not at all clear how sex and gender are different.

The public does not support child transition, men in female prisons and in sport. They are far more likely to support the idea of wear whatever you want, and not being sacked for having a gender identity.

No-one needs a certificate to wear clothes or to name change.

There are a number of people - those with luxury beliefs, who want to allow men access to female only spaces and opportunities. They want to teach gender ideology to children. To do all this, they need the legal concept that it is possible to change sex. They are the ones who need the GRA.

When politicians talk in the way starmer is doing, its to appeal to those elites, not the general public.

This is fustrating when any politician talks this way, but its worse when we see how the Labour party, once seen as the party of the working class, ignoring the needs of the majority to appeal to an elite.

There’s gate keeping and gate keeping though isn’t there. Keeping GRCs could be reduced to just self identifying to a form or an official person.

Of course it’s a massive problem! I didn’t say I want him to sit on the fence, I said expecting him to do anything else at this point is ridiculous given the current political and social drivers.

The giveaway words are ‘clearly’ - nothing clear ever

‘Everyone knows’ - Labour doesn’t know how deal with sex and gender, even if they keeping using word salad

And ‘all the women’ - this includes males

It renders all the bluster defunct, males are women

I can’t believe we have to keep hearing this nonsense. It’s gaslighting extreme.

We've been here before with 'Labour are nailed on to win.' It didn't happen.

I agree they're likely to, but given campaigning hasn't actually started yet, the manifestos aren't out, and politicians aren't being questioned robustly on matters, I don't think it's a done thing until the result is in.

GRC provides gate keeping

No it doesn't. Because of what either is, was intended to be, or has been wailed about by MRAs like Stonewall and co, the secrecy clause provides for a means through which to frighten the life out of people. And it's purposely weaponised.

Ask a male if he has one before you provide passage to a women's refuge or changing room? Bigot! Hate crime! Lawsuit!

This has gathered enough behind it to force a situation where it can be argued we already have self-ID.

Again, Kier "I was DPP and did oodles on VAWG dontcha know" Starmer must understand this. He chooses not to. Why? Who is really giving him directions on this topic which is apparently so peripheral it "doesn't come up on the doorstep"?

We should be told. Instead we are stuck with Kiersplaining.

But most of the general public do not actually know what a transgender woman is and many will assume its a woman identifying as a man. So unless terms are clearly explained any poll on this subject is worthless.

It's appalling and is making me so bloody angry.

That is an excellent point. Do the Labour Party represent ordinary working people any more? I'm not convinced.

I have no doubt that Starmer could clarify matters if he chose to so the only question in my mind is, why doesn't he?
We can all draw our own conclusions but mine are that a) he doesn't want to and b) he doesn't think he needs to.

If you mean 1992, the polls then were narrow and a slim Labour victory or a hung parliament was the prediction. The polls now are more like 1997 with a huge Labour lead.

But yes, nothing is guaranteed!

It doesn't suit any party for this to "blow up" asyou put it. Because realistically no party is proposing repealing the GRA, getting rid of GRCs, or putting in place actions to guarantee "no men in womens spaces".

All parties have skin in the game from past policies and their contribution to where we are now.

That's why it's a culture war issue from the right wing, sniping about "what a woman is". Their aim is not protection of women and children - if it were they would have proposals and policy on that. Their aim is solely to smear "the left" and sow distrust.

I have actually voted conservative in the past and would again if they had the right policies. But I cannot tolerate dishonesty and misinformation aimed to cause distrust in democracy. That's how countries end up with dictators imo.

Culture war
Sniping
Right wing

How telling.

That's why it's a culture war issue from the right wing, sniping about "what a woman is". Their aim is not protection of women and children - if it were they would have proposals and policy on that. Their aim is solely to smear "the left" and sow distrust

How many more times do women on here have to tell you that many of us are ex Labour voters? The rights of women and girls are not 'culture'wars' FFs. We are not 'smearing' the Left - I for one would like to vote Labour but cannot because of this very issue. It is infuriating that you keep peddling this myth.

It’s Labour’s line. They won’t deviate.

Fortunately most can read Starmer’s words and formulate clear thoughts

@WaterWeasel yep same here. Reading that bluff again, it’s farcical