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/

So a man can have a GRC but people can photograph them in single sex spaces such as the gym example?

The answer to the problem is shame

I’d prefer the legal route and clarity. Why on earth not? What’s so great about a public shaming on SM as the solution

The level of avoidance wrt a legal change is madness

There is no benefit. It's a failed law with many bad and harmful consequences.

Repeal the GRA, and replace it with legislation that forbids the concealment of natal sex.

The idea that men can be born in the wrong sex and need a government certificate to falsifying their sex is not a middle of the road position. Its not a moderate view.

Its sold to us as a compromise - the extremists want sex to be removed as a legal category so not giving them that, but allowing an unspecified number of men the chance to falsifying their sex is seen as 'moderate'.

Its avoiding the two questions - why are governments even entertaining the idea of born the wrong sex and why are they compromising with safeguarding?

Its not just starmer, but starmer is going to be the next prime minister and is disregarding all of the discussion that have been going on for years now. Added with the likelihood of 'hate speech' and conversion therapy laws, we are heading for safeguarding failures and the inability for the public to speak out about it.

We know the ordinary public are the ones who will be damaged more from these luxury beliefs, and starmer is introducing policy to removed our ability to speak about it.

As far as I can see, I see no worthwhile benefit in GRCs at all. I'd like to see Starmer (and other pols) justify their existence, especially in regard to the problem of criminal records etc. If people want to 'live as the opposite sex' {rolls eyes], they can fill their boots. How does possession a document nobody can ask to see help? Same-sex marriage is now legal. If that was the justification, it no longer exists. So the point of them is what? As a tool to strengthen the hand of natal males who wish to invade women's spaces? I'm struggling to see another purpose. Sir Keir? Annaliese?

Ângela raynor in todays guardian

When I ask how Labour will handle the accusation from Tories that “Keir doesn’t know what a woman is”, she says, without acknowledging any shift, “Yeah, sure. We have biological women and we have trans women. And they’re both women: one is a biological woman through sex, and one is a trans woman who has transitioned. Most of the public can get that.”

yeah nah Angela. One lot are women and one lot are men so no they’re not both women

FFS. No!

I imagine that most of the public get that a person with cock and balls is a fucking man, actually. If they don't, there's no fucking hope for humanity.

We know the poor legislation Labour created Rayner, we can also see the problems it’s created for women and children

Numpty. And a gaslighting one at that.

bottom line Labour still think some men are women and the effect of that is that single sex spaces will be screwed under Labour without even getting into how it skews census data, programmes to support and encourage women, tje recognition of issues that affect women more than men, medical research

they are fucking clowns!!

looks like my ballot paper is going to be “none of the above!”

This. Men are not women. Ever.

If this is what they are spouting now, it's going to be a fucking shitshow when they get in. As most of us have predicted.

Fucking clowns indeed.

What was that woman = adult female line Labour supporters touted on here?

They’re all over the bloody shop

😖

They could at least get their own party's message fucking straight!

I have no doubt that Labour couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery. God help us if they win the election.

He added that there is a "very small number" of people who identify as a different gender to the one they were born with

any politician who spouts crap like this shouldn't be in charge of anything.

No one is born into a gender. And if he means sex, no baby is born identifying as a different sex.

And 'identifying as a different sex' means I want to be the other sex.

If he means gender, then eunuch gender is a thing and he can explain how someone can be born into that. And why the world's leading health authority on 'trans treatment' links to paedophilia and porn on the back of it.

The time is absolutely up for this turgid, dense, refusal to actually address the issues. As is using made up, ideological language that has no basis in reality, and that no one can agree on.

If you ask five people to define gender, you'll get five different answers.

And If he's going to spout crap using the word gender, he's absolutely going to be asked to define it.

He's going to try achieve the impossible whilst using the indefinable in order to extricate himself from the indefensible 🙄

Exactly! perhaps Angela can explain what I have in common with a TW that I don't have in common with a man?

That response from Rayner is bleak, goes to show no progress has been made; Labour seem a lost cause.

On, why have GRCs anyway, the thought struck me that it was to enable a female name on passports etc (and I'm far from convinced this is either desirable or necessary), but in fact, I don't think a GRC is even required to change a passport, is it?

Politicians have created a law that makes it possible for a man to 'become' a woman, and then are claiming that most people agree.

Or that everyone understands the difference between gender and sex. And that men can be given the gender of woman and single sex services maintained.

So why when men are placed in a womans prison, enter a womans race or undresses in the female changing room are the public disgusted with this?

If everyone is behind men becoming women, no one would be outraged with men in womens prisions, if single sex services can be maintained, why are men in womens prisions in the first place?

Are we to believe that rayner, starmer and a long list of MPs are just more informed than the public? That they fully understand the issues, the risks and the concept that its possible to be born in the wrong sex? That when they dismisses concerns its from a place of knowledged but somehow are incapable of articulating exactly why? Is it just a coincidence that they will make it harder for parents, wives and women having to use services with men, to speak up about it?

Theressa May and other tories were absolute idiot disregarding the dangers of tra on women and children, but at least the conservatives made it possible for women to speak up on behalf of themselves and children. Labour are removing that.

Datun · Today 12:25
“He added that there is a "very small number" of people who identify as a different gender to the one they were born with”
……………………………..

As he has already said that there is sex and there is gender,

why is he here saying someone can be born a gender?

It can only be a dishonest use of commonly muddled and conflated words in order to mislead the general public.

Re imy previous post. From the Guardian article, this is where he says there is a difference:

Sir Keir said: "We set out our position very clearly..."

He added: "Everybody knows there is a difference between sex and gender

There's tons of legislation that arguably doesn't "benefit society". How does gay marriage benefit society? How does gatekeeping abortion benefit society? How do tax breaks for married couples benefit society?

I think that some people have severe gender dysphoria that is relieved by transition and I think we should be supporting these people and protecting them from discrimination. So a GRC is necessary to show they are legally trans. The "benefit" is it supports those people to participate in society free from discrimination as far possible.

The law says there isn't a difference. It's in the GRA that sex and gender are the same.

He can't claim ignorance of the law. He's a barrister.

That line is infuriating

Why is he using it when he should know the law?

Were you not talking about the market fixing the problem earlier?

Photographing men in gyms and share price plummeting

@AdamRyan you know trans people without a GRC are still protected from discrimination right?

Benefits to society, or subsets of society, should be weighed up so that a benefit for one section of society doesn't unduly disadvantage others.

Gay marriage benefits society because it benefits those gay people who want to marry, but doesn't harm anyone else.

Tax breaks for married couples benefit society because those couples who need this tax break can benefit and it doesn't harm anyone else.

A GRC doesn't make someone 'legally trans'. They are 'legally trans' as soon as they claim to be transitioning, using the PC of gender reassignment in the EA. The GRA makes them legally the opposite sex. How does being legally recognised as the opposite sex stop discrimination?

What about the effects on the rest of society? Men (most of whom have full male anatomy) being legally recognised as women impacts any woman who is forced to share a female-only space with them.

As for people with severe gender dysphoria, I agree that they should be supported with appropriate mental health support. We shouldn't be participating in their erroneous belief that they have been 'born in the wrong body' or that they are actually the opposite sex.