Starmer tw don't have the right to use women only toilets

[lcakethereforeIam]

It's a headline in the Telegraph. Unfortunately when I archive it it goes to an article about that twat Ashworth refusing to answer. So, I've screenshot the headline

The only thing that is clear is that Starmer is shamelessly grubbing for votes as he has belatedly realised that biological women are a core chunk of his potential voters. While desperately trying not to piss off his special people, who he will mollify on Friday by returning to his usual word soup.

We see you.

Has any politician ever (not just Labour) ever said exactly what it is that a GRC does, and what advantages a man with a GRC has over a man who hasn't got one?

Grubbing for votes is what politicians do the world over. I don't really care why he's doing it. I do care about being able to hold him to whatever he says though, and so I take the points (on the previous page) about how the HOL might view any fresh commitments made after the manifesto.

No. I would like to know the answer to this question.

True, but it's a very last-minute pseudo pivot that screams panic in the ranks and hence completely insincere.

Even if it’s to appease some voters it hasn’t been said how this will happen

There is no legislative change

So is Starmer lying or lacking understanding?

Again I wouldn't care about whether he was being sincere as long as he'd be forced to see through any commitments he might make - and I agree there might be an issue over anything that wasn't in the manifesto. Michael Foot was arguably as sincere and as decent a politician as you could ever hope to find and look how that ended.

But at this stage the commitment has to be to amend the legislation before I will start to listen. I'm not interested in anything else.

Reading these, it would not appear he's lacking in understanding. Not if he's managed the legal achievements set out:

How the young Keir Starmer made his name as a ‘radical’ barrister.

https://www.thetimes.com/article/3cf0e2ab-99b0-458b-a2a9-e42212e2c6b5?shareToken=1a72676a97fc651bbbf8caf5d1fc6c6ee_

How Keir Starmer left Blair’s policy on terror in disarray.

https://www.thetimes.com/article/fc16fab1-bf15-4ca9-8a56-45072ea11df0?shareToken=b744795362dfd6cad8035274efd1eaa00_

Haven't read the full thread and someone may have squashed this theory, but I'm still of the opinion that Starmer is actually being consistent and the headline is just misleading. He didn't mention toilets. Every time I've seen him mention spaces for biological women he has always immediately mentioned refuges as an example. So I think he is just carving up spaces into things like refuges which are still allowed to be female only, but can also include males if the provider chooses, and things like toilets and changing rooms which are still in legal limbo until tested in court, but in his view should not exclude males.

Very good point. But until single sex spaces are mandatory for example as a licensing condition for pubs and clubs, theatres and for workplaces as part of workplace health and safety cowardly firms will make everything mixed sex to avoid activists. Government needs to show strong clear leadership in this and nothing less will mean women and girls are not safe

Maybe it’s a double bluff - the Guardian are getting worried that he’s losing votes so they want to rally the lazier cohort of their troops who may think it’s a done deal.

Or maybe not? Maybe it’s plain honest journalism. It would be nice.

This proves he is so untrustworthy.
JK Rowling and Jane deserve a medal
The whole party are erratic on such matters that are all about women’s safe spaces that children frequent too when under age and young prepubescent girls who as i remember is an excruciatingly nervous time when so self conscious.

I am angry more than anything that this discussion with him even had to be a “ thing “
Totally in appropriate, totally disrespectful, and totally menacing in its tone.
He looks like a complete jerk, fool and I will never forget his and his cronies stance against women’s rights 😢

You are completely right cavalier, he keeps telling us we have to respect these appalling men that have absolutely no respect for us.

He hasn't even got the wherewithal to see what's actually going on. He's oblivious.

One of the comments:

Fucking hell. We're really at the point where trans women are being referred to as "males with GRCs" in the mainstream press.

Me:

🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉

I went back and read some more of that just now. They really are loons, aren't they?

I get umpteen begging letters from the Labour Party in my email inbox, and usually you can't reply to them, but I got one today that I could, and it said, can you step up, duc? (and travel to Lancaster to campaign for them!). So I replied

I'll step up, when Labour steps up and support women's rights, instead of being held captive by the gender lobby. When it's sorted itself out over who has cervixes and who has penises. When it gets natal males out of women's sports, women's prisons, and indeed, women's shortlists too. And when Rosie Duffield has received a decently-worded apology for the appalling way she's been treated. Until then, you're not getting my vote, and, I expect, those of a lot of women and men too.

Sorry haven't had time to read all comments so I may be repeating others.

Starmer's comments re women are in line with the EA as now written which allow for SSE.

ie when "proportionate" us lucky ladies are allowed to have a biologocal female only space.

Clarify the EA to say the sex means biology wont change anything.

It will still mean that those providing services, toilets, or whatever, can choose when and if they will offer SSS.

Unfortunately due to the whole gender woo campaigning over the past decade of so, most people no longer recognise what was once normal that there are any number of services and "spaces" that should be women only.

The hard reality is, is that even if the EA is changed to clarify the word sex, there is absolutely nothing that will require anyone to provide them.

This isn't just about TRAs but all the MRAs who never went away, who were always irritated that WLM in 70s created this and won the right for women's services.

But without any prompting from TRA local councils and other sources of funding are just not seeing women only as "value for money".

A newspaper report about a women's refuge that has just been told it will no longer be funded, has clarified that this wasn't even a decision taken by the local councillors.

The decision was taken by an officer who recommended the closure as it wasn't value for money.

The attack on women's sex based rights goes far deeper that the more recent loud voices of TRAs.

It is embedded in the patriarchal structure we still have socially.

The only thing that is new about Starmer's statement is that he has actually specified toilets as being one of the services that legally he would regard as proportionate.

It would be interesting to know in terms of his legal perspective, which other services he thinks are "proportionate" to be genuinely women only.

@IwantToRetire
The full text of the article states that he didnt actually mention toilets.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c6ppp1zpn17o

"People on either side of the debate on sex-based rights and gender recognition have told the BBC that political parties' stance on these issues would decide how they voted on 4 July.
Louise, 53, from Buckinghamshire, said she wanted "protection for single sex spaces", particularly in areas like prisons, changing rooms and sport.
While Aqua Moye, 21, from Hertfordshire said they wanted an incoming government to adopt gender recognition legislation which matches that passed by Scotlandd_."

But it never comes up on the doorstep 🦖

Aqua. They.

Uh-huh.

BTW, has anyone pointed out to AM that the Latin word aqua is feminine gender.

From the article it was written that his response was in the quesiton about toilets.

But yes, to be totally sure he would need to actually say clearly and be recorded as saying trans women should not have access to women's toilets.

All I could think was Alan Partridge

Jo Bartosch is Unherd shares our skepticism

unherd.com/newsroom/dont-trust-keir-starmer-on-women-only-spaces/

https://archive.ph/atxJm wtf is minotaur smut?

Well a minotaur is half bull and smut originally meant dirt or filth, cf. German Schmutz.

So I'm guessing 'bullshit'.

Is this a man you want on the world stage having to have serious conversations with world leaders with red buttons at their fingertips??

That.

The manifesto is deeply misogynistic, dismisses women's rights and equalities as a 'toxic culture war', and actively promises to destroy them in law. It is in hock to alternative realities which it wants to enforce by 'hate crime' punishments to stop people mentioning unwanted facts, which would protect men from women resisting being mugged for their rights. He has no care for women's dignity, and every damned time anyone has said 'women' he's immediately reminded us all about how sad and vulnerable and much more important men are, making it clear that the main issue for him about women's rights is ensuring that they make men happy.

That he's now making a few vague noises means absolutely sod all. The man does not have integrity, he says whatever works in the moment without conscience and changes it on a dime. It's too bloody late, and words mean nothing.

And while Willoughby's had a helpful little kick off, there's still absolute silence from the big orgs who have had all those cosy cups of tea and ministers' ears and been to all the meetings and planning that women's groups were excluded from.

Here's a few panicky last minute crumbs that from Friday morning will mean fuck all. Now vote for Kier like a good girl.