Did Keir Starmer just say

[Helpuschoose]

To Nick Ferrari on LBC that transwomen with a GRC will not be allowed in female single-sex spaces? It sounded like it. Is this a clear move or does it still leave wriggle-room? I’m not sure.

'It’s just the kind of semantic chicanery that a particularly slippery lawyer might do. Funny, that'

Yes. Maybe that's why we've all been poring over his words so carefully to try and work out what he really means. Because it's not honest or clear, it's all calculated very carefully.

To win an argument, not to get to the truth of the matter and oh my word that takes me back instantly to arguing with a narcissist.

I suppose that is his metier. It may work well in court, where nimble linguistic one-upmanship scores points. It really does not work well outside of court, where we are not all on trial or defending. It ends up looking like petty, dishonest semantics, or manipulative. Sly, underhand, and infuriating.

And here we have it. When Labour say “safe spaces” for women they mean spaces that are inclusive of men who “have gone through a process” of transition. This is why they refuse to use the term single-sex spaces.

https://x.com/TimesRadio/status/1805352140275147000/mediaViewer?currentTweet=1805352140275147000&currentTweetUser=TimesRadio

She really didn't want to say it, did she? Labour will allow and encourage the erosion of single sex spaces. Long, drawn out process, my arse.

I was not able to open that. Please would you copy it?

I will try give me a mo.

I thought Dodds had actually said 'we will protect single-sex spaces for biological women'. Did I dream it? Was she thinking 'only in special circumstances' (which is law already)? Or does she think 'legal' women are biological women?

Does this link work ScrollingLeaves? If not I’ll transcribe it later it’s only short.

https://twitter.com/TimesRadio/status/1805352140275147000

Suzanne Moore in the Telegraph

www.telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2024/06/25/sir-keir-labour-womens-rights-general-election-2024/

https://archive.ph/GtVlv jump the paywall to see MN get a mention!

Oh FFS. They're lying liars.

So there we have it. Labour will consider any man who has a lady certificate, not just a woman but female and would expect them to use female spaces.

They are hiding behind weasel words like 'gone through a process' as if that means fuck all. There is no process that turns male to female. Fancy certificate or not.

Also worth remembering that Labour want to make the GRC application easier and nicer for the men because reasons.

The process she claims is 'extensive', that Labour are proposing, is waiting for two years. Took me much, much longer to become a woman and I don't need a piece of paper to tell the world that's what I am. Of course, I was observed to be female from birth.

Labour seem to be attempting to tell women that two years somehow makes a big difference to us. Whether it's two years or two days the outcome is the same for us - we end up with male people in our female spaces that we didn't consent to.

They also seem to be implying that patient men = safe men. Hence the safe spaces nonsense. If a man can wait a whole two years to gain access to female spaces he wasn't allowed in before then he must be a good un. This seems to be their ridiculous thinking.

Since we don't have the right to know if an individual man has a grc or not it will be open season and no man can be kept out. This is going to cause a lot of harm and will be hard to reverse

Sorry but this was obvious that this was their view. That is why they never talk about biological sex, they just use safe spaces.

When Labour say 'woman' everyone needs to get it in their heads that they mean anyone who says they are a woman. WE unfortunately are going to have to use very specific language ie putting 'biological' in front of 'sex' and 'woman'

It's also important to shoot down this 'they go through an extensive process' - no they don't they just say how they feel and are magically a woman, no need to change anything.

Thank you that worked.

Labour has talked about how there is no need to update the Equality Act to make it clear that sex in the act means biological sex [even with a GRC] because it is already clear; and Labour believes in the exemptions for women’s sex based provision - worryingly sometimes called women’s safe spaces.

That worry was well founded wasn’t it? What kind of women did he mean?

Now it is clear Labour are saying that having a GRC does entitle a man to go to a women’s supposedly sex based space such as a toilet.

Bridget Phillipson says it’s only right as they’ll have gone through a ‘formal process of recognition’, said by her in a tone suggesting the process really is magically transformative.

It is clear that very process, which they have said they will make easier, is what gives men this magic ticket.

In seems, when it comes down to it, that the only sex based spaces they are willing to uphold as being sex based exemptions in the Equality Act, are women’s refuges and rape crisis centres, and possibly hospital wards, though KS the lawyer never mentioned Annex B which has precluded that in the past. They do not say how they would actually protect these spaces or reinstate them though.

So Kier Starmer was suppressing the truth and fiddling with words all along just as everyone thought.

Brigid Phillipson, to her credit, gives honest answers when pressed.

Her answers reveal that Labour,
will most likely teach the concept of gender identity in schools; and that GRCs, which they plan to make easier get, do licence men to go into women’s spaces as though they really have changed sex.

Will a GRC then also give men these rights?

1. to give supposedly sex based care?
2. to search a woman if the searcher is a GRC policewoman but really a man?
3. to be housed in women’s prison’s?
4. to be recorded as a woman in police statistics when they commit a crime even rape and murder?)
5. to be a girl guide leader?
6. to change in the female changing room in a gym, swimming pool, NHS staff training where they will be allowed to tell women there how hot and sweaty they are feeling?

NB For anyone new reading here, there is absolutely no requirement for a person applying for a Gender Recognition Certificate to undergo body modifications through hormones or surgery. Most transwomen (born male) have not had surgery. Swedish research shows that even males who have been physically transformed retain male patterns of criminal behaviour.

Will single sex facilitates still be lawful after Labour change the laws?

Don't forget the 'undergoing gender reassignment' bit which legally already exist though.

So 'gone through the process' means having a GRC? But as nobody can ask to see one, the difference is moot, surely? It's good to have this distinction between 'safe spaces' and 'single-sex spaces' finally teased out. And it is indeed as Mumsnetters have always suspected.

You can tell she's lying, because three times she couldn't come up to the bloody point. She's trying to make it sound better.

Firstly, there is no huge process to go through. Helen webberley will diagnose you over the bloody phone.

Secondly, she's not explaining how this works. Is she really going to tell transwomen they have to flash a birth certificate, or a GRC, before they can enter a woman's toilet??

And if that is the case, (I'm snorting with derision here), does she not think that other men, primarily predators, are just going to go ahead and get one!

Honestly. They Haven't. Bloody. Listened.

Their arguments are like Swiss cheese. It's like Transactivism 101.

though KS the lawyer never mentioned Annex B which has precluded that in the past. They do not say how they would actually protect these spaces or reinstate them though.

Yes if KS genuinely wants single-sex accommodation in hospitals he will need to deal with Annex B and I imagine the chances of him doing this are next to Zero.

Phillipson did say one true and useful thing, that we don't (can't) police toilets. No, we can't ask to see a grc and we don't want to see their genitals. But there's one check that's always worked - male puberty = big strong body type, 99.9% likely male genitals: potential danger! Female puberty = different, vulnerable body type: danger level low. We can do this with our naked eyes. She is living in lala land and the other two people in that interview looked understandably gobsmacked. Kafkaesque.

The guy sat between them, his face was a picture.

Not to mention that lots of providers have already made everything unisex, to save money, get trans-inclusive cred, and avoid legal action/death threats.

Will we ever go back to how things were, though? Aren't unisex toilets commonplace in many city-centre pubs and bars these day's?

I don't think there's any going back now. I wasn't expecting a comfortable old age with only a State pension, but I'm actually scared of how things are going to pan out.