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/

This "culture war" idea is bizarre. No one accuses parties of waging an economy war, a transport war or an education war, and if they did its not especially clear why any of these should be anything to be ashamed of.

(Yes I know you aren't talking to me so I'm quoting to add a point to the debate rather than replying to you. Feel free to scroll past and pretend you have a bl9ck button)

From my position Starmer is clear. He thinks there are a group of people with gender dysphoria who need medical support and should be allowed to legally transition to be recognised as the opposite sex. He thinks that's a very small group (0.01%) and most people have a legal gender that's based on their sex.

It's really a very boring middle of the road view. If one disagrees, that's OK but those who do are sitting at the edges of a debate (either trans people are the sex they identify and must be legally treated in that way at all times, or trans people are the sex they were born and must be legally treated in that way at all times).

Neither of those positions represent a majority view so in my opinion Starmer is right to 1) reflect the majority and 2) stay out of polarisation.

Blair had Murdoch in 97. Does Starmer have Murdoch?

It's cyclical though, isn't it? It's Labour's turn, in theory!

‘Culture war’ is the attempt at silencing women

The media, politicians, and supporters use it because the they cannot deal with direct questions

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

Have you seen what's happened to Planet Fitness share price recently? That's what going to keep males out of women's spaces, not whether or not a GRC is signed off by one or two doctors. 🙄

Add ‘edges of the debate’ to the nonsense terms aiming to keep women from speaking up

Yes very much this - it is a not very subtle way of labelling us far right bigots without actually using those words.

it’s a fabricated nonsense term to hide behind

The GRA is a poor piece of legislation and anyone using ridiculous language to hide the issues are not helping women or children

https://ukandeu.ac.uk/who-cares-about-the-culture-war/

an original definition of a culture war issue, which considers both what the issue itself is about, and the divisions it creates:

1. A ‘culture war’ issue is a primarily non-economic issue, that attempts to entrench a moral worldview in one part of society with the hope this will filter through to wider society.
2. This is done by trying to change the rules, social norms or symbols of an area democratically elected politicians do not traditionally directly control (such as popular culture, universities or in the day-to-day interactions between people).
3. Division is between ‘progressives’ (more liberal individuals) and ‘orthodox’ voters (with more conservative attitudes).
4. Debate around this issue involves mutual hostility between activists.

This article is interesting and his definition definitely applies to the gender debate. Particularly point 4.

One thing genderists can’t do is use clear language

Whatever happened to the Plain English campaign?

The words uses by those who are pro gender are inaccessible

The clipped section I saw started with him being categorical about the difference between sex and gender (along the lines of, 'look, we all know there is a difference between sex and gender'). He then went on to talk about, 'the very small number of people born in to the wrong gender'.

I am hearing this more and more haven't once heard an interview/reporter ask how, exactly, someone is born 'in a gender'. I have no fucking clue what someone, who sees sex and gender as different, has in mind when thinking about being 'born in to a gender'. I've always assumed this take occurs when conflating sex and gender.

Can anyone explain what Keir and others like him have in mind when they say this?

Is it:

GRC provides gate keeping

Or is it:

Have you seen what's happened to Planet Fitness share price recently? That's what going to keep males out of women's spaces, not whether or not a GRC is signed off by one or two doctors. 🙄

?

Current system is fine, or let's let the private sector dictate the system?

This is done by trying to change the rules, social norms or symbols of an area democratically elected politicians do not traditionally directly control

This is an area directly controlled by politicians. They make the laws around GRAs, self-ID and who can be legally recognised as the opposite sex. This isn't a "culture war", it's a political issue.

Very good point

Starmer is definitely looking like he would prefer to be a bystander who cannot legally resolve this, I can see why he, genderists and his supporters use the term so often.

It means things politicians don't control.

Like Planet Fitnesses changing room policy

M&S changing room policy

WI entry rules

All of those kinds of things.

Putting sanitary bins in the gents is an example of a "symbol". Or putting up a sign in a train station that says "woman = adult human female"

I don't think he has a clue what he's talking about.

And if he really thinks 'everyone knows' that there's a difference between sex and gender, why does the law conflate the two?

Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman).

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/9

Eh? Both of those are "the current system". It's not an either or.

He clearly doesn't understand the situation still. He can only hear abuse and blocks the rest out. But it sounds like he's making a little progress on sex vs gender

He is clueless

He’s developed a few phrases to get off the topic and will use them wherever

His statement above alone is contradictory

How can he use the ‘everyone knows’ sex and gender line as well as all the women meaning males are included?

The word salad is defunct

"There's a small number of people in this country who are born into a gender they don't identify with"
I think that Starmer should be called out on his 'small number / 99.9%' concept because it is spectacularly missing the point.
Very few people are murderers, terrorists, etc. Do we ignore them because they are 'small numbers'? Or do we treat them as a very serious problem because of the profound effect of their actions?

The question is not 'how many'. It's 'what they do to society'.

So let's recap. I said:

"Is it:

GRC provides gate keeping

Or is it:

Have you seen what's happened to Planet Fitness share price recently? That's what going to keep males out of women's spaces, not whether or not a GRC is signed off by one or two doctors. 🙄

?

Current system is fine, or let's let the private sector dictate the system?"

@AdamRyan said

"Eh? Both of those are "the current system". It's not an either or."

The current system:

www.gov.uk/apply-gender-recognition-certificate/what-documents-you-need

"You need 2 reports written by either:
• 2 different medical doctors registered in the UK
• a medical doctor and a clinical psychologist, both registered in the UK
Neither of the reports can be written by a nurse practitioner."
(It goes on and on from there)

So the number of doctors is relevant. Planet Fitness, (or indeed any other business) does not get to have a say.

If we want the private sector to dictate systems, why is anyone on this thread, Adam especially, worried about what a politician says? After all, apparently gyms are telling everyone how it goes.

Or maybe that's just a steaming pile of shite.

Surely all those things are a direct result of the GRA and/or the protected characteristic of gender reassignment in the Equality Act.

I think most people realise the free market and social forces can effect change, sometimes to a greater extent than laws. Legal frameworks often have to play "catch up"

In my opinion (which is obviously very different to yours) we need the GRC to provide a legal basis for transition. Social and market forces are how we keep males out of women's spaces. Like many people say, there is never going to be someone on the door checking GRCs. But when it starts hitting a businesses bottom line, they will do what they need to, to keep men out.

But when it starts hitting a businesses bottom line, they will do what they need to.
Which is why Labour losing Women is so important. Now is not the time to let them off the hook!

In my opinion (which is obviously very different to yours) we need the GRC to provide a legal basis for transition.

Why? What is the benefit to society of allowing some men to be legally recognised as women and some women as men?