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.

Keir agrees with Tony Blair that men have a penis, women have a vagina.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/starmer-blair-is-right-that-a-woman-has-a-vagina-and-a-man-has-a-penis/ar-BB1oryFO

Funny how it used to be “not right” in Keir’s eyes to say that only women have a cervix. Could it be because a silly little WOMAN made such a controversial assertion? Now a man Keir truly respects - the lovely warmongering grinning Tone - says the same thing as a Rosie Duffield, more or less, and is praised for his clarity.

I've been watching various hustings Q&As and when questions are asked in relating to women's rights to single-sex provision Labour and Lib Dem candidates often seem to be answering the question using the term "safe spaces" in lieu of single-sex. They then go on to say that TW should also be entitled to use those "safe spaces".

So KS's terminology of "safe spaces" is definitely catching on and when he promises to support "safe spaces" for women he does so knowing that his party understand this as being inclusive of TW and that it is not the same thing as promising to support "single-sex" spaces.

https://www.youtube.com/live/M3GazKZqc7E?si=DlCdQ3YgfFZcJYoh&t=4729

Isn't it about time someone nailed him on this? It's been remarked on for some that KS uses the formulation 'safe spaces' rather than 'single-sex spaces'. So, why is that, Sir Keir?

Someone is bound to ask, as soon as they get wind of the fudging.

if he is genuinely avoiding it, what the hell is that conversation going to look like?

Yes I said safe not single sex because...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/starmer-blair-is-right-that-a-woman-has-a-vagina-and-a-man-has-a-penis/ar-BB1oryFO#comments

He's almost come out and said that women don't have penises. Almost. Come on, Keir, you can do it!

Yes. He really needs to explain. Why would a lawyer use the meaningless term “safe spaces” when the exceptions in the EA are to allow for “single-sex” provision?

Ok just been in the pub with two people who have stood for parliament before (two different parties).
Neither know who to vote for. Neither have watched parliamentary debates.
Both expressed concern about the hard left and the Labour domestic bust up that's not been resolved yet.

Absolutely fascinating and I really do think this is a issue / concern that's 'out there' - certainly in particular constituencies and it's going to have at least a marginal effect on the ultimate result.

“But when asked whether Sir Tony was right, Sir Keir told The Telegraph: “Yes, Tony’s right about that. He put it very well. I saw it reported, I’m not quite sure where he said it. But I agree with him on that.”

He is doing what Rishi did in 2022 after Johnson told MPs that “we must recognise when people want to make a transition in their lives that they should be treated with the maximum possible generosity and respect” but added “when it comes to distinguishing between man and woman, the basic facts of biology remain overwhelmingly important” ……..

when Rishi was asked what he thought, he did not dare say, so he just kept saying he agreed with the Prime Minister.

This is KS hiding behind Tony Blair to my mind, and I don’t like it.

But it is still a good thing he said what he did about “That”.

That thing with no name.

That thing with no name

There must be a gif for that! A sort of shudder of distaste, like you just swallowed something bitter. 😀

Like this?

Definitely a point. And yes I agree.

Pub Conversation was very interesting.

Neither of the two former candidates would stand for election again - because they disliked politicians - through having stood for election before 😅. Both thought it all bullshit. They cared enough to stand for election, but wouldn't repeat it. Neither are still members of a party. Both are in their 40s. The disillusionment was palapable.

One has heard stuff from a source within Labour about a plan wanting to get in Starmer and then kick him out and replace with Rayner. This of course could be a load of bollocks or over stating the power within Labour HOWEVER, i do trust this person and they have no motivation to be just saying this for any other party's benefit. They don't think it will happen but do this that its reflective of internal disquiet about Starmer. And it does tally with public fears of this - so it could be reflective of this fear even if its a pile of bullshit. If it is true, it speaks of the shit yet to come and it would explain mealy mouthed stuff from Starmer as he's under more pressure than he would like to admit.

Either way, concern and rumblings.

This is not normal.

And yes I do talk to completely random people in the pub regularly!

It is often very enlightening.

It’s still waffle with a side order of stop talking about it - the “stopping culture wars” part from another thread

I thought the manifesto was meant to clear up which spaces would be single sex and how men with GRC would be kept out

Did he decide yet?

I can't find reference to this.

Thing is they dare not drop the hackneyed Ming vase by admitting that humans can't change sex, because that would cause a tantrum on Twitter.

But if they honestly admitted that they are going to enable self-ID and told people the full consequences of that, that poll lead could shrink fast.

Personally, I have resigned myself to getting rid of the Tories and starting over with the fight against TRA/MRA. I think it is quite likely that a lot of this stuff will be on the back burner while they tackle the economic problems and the dire state of public services. I can only hope that the media will be all over it once they do start to move it forward, and I think there may be some room for optimism. The era of no debate is over and there are enough journalists that won't pull their punches that it will be far harder to slip anything through quietly. I hope so anyway.

The reference is modernise, simplify and reform’ Gender Recognition Act.

One GP, not two, no expert panel, no spousal protection kept. Much easier to get would mean many more given out. The outrageous, virtually covert, GR Act ( allowing a lie to have legal weight) was only passed on the basis that there would be so very few that it wouldn’t make any difference to anyone.

The Labour Women’s declaration has written well on the spousal clause.

There have been quite a few discussions on threads/posts here about this apparently benign simplification.

The LP are also committed to the Ban Conversion Therapy
Bill with T included, though there is no clarity about what conversion therapy for trans actually is or where it is happening; transing itself can be conversion ‘therapy’ of potentially gay people; and not simply affirming or offering any psychological guidance and exploration ( re, autism, homosexuality, being taken into care, sexual abuse, trauma) could possibly leave a counsellor or parents open to accusations of conversion. Meanwhile evidence is that affirmation without question is wrong.

I don’t think there is any definite manifesto.

Thanks. I couldn't see reference to it in the manifesto.

@blackcherryconserve Though not about making GRCs easier to get, if you have not yet seen it, have a look at this thread and the document from The Gay Men’s network posted there in the OP.

GMN Labour Manifesto response
DennisNoelKavanaghOffTwitter · Today 18:34

So many points are brilliantly, concisely and measuredly explained, by the writer who is a lawyer.

Someone's let Brendan off his leash again <happy sigh>

https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/06/19/why-we-must-never-forget-or-forgive-starmers-trans-lunacy/

Well said Brendan:
"What kind of man is so morally weak he can be marshalled to the maddest of causes? It is surely a testament to Starmer’s opportunism, to his unanchoring from both political principle and moral decency, that he became ensnared by an ideology of pure untruth. Fine, he’s come to his senses, but that begs the question – when might he lose them again?"

Starmer is stumbling into a problem of his own making. How is he going to justify his 'modernisation' of the GRA?

If women don't have a cock, why is he making it easier/less bureaucratic/ for cock owners to get female id? What is the purpose?

Quite the way with words he has 😂

I used to (and occasionally still do) find Brendan irritating but I find myself being pushed more and more into the heterodox box by IDPol adherents so I have a better understanding as to why (contrarian) voices like O’Neill’s are a useful thing to have in a functioning democracy.

Same here, but you can't find much to argue with in that piece. His behaviour has been spineless and frankly insulting to women.

Would these side rooms be on the women's ward though?!