Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

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

383 replies

lcakethereforeIam · 02/07/2024 00:58

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

Starmer tw don't have the right to use women only toilets
OP posts:
Thread gallery
22
theilltemperedclavecinist · 03/07/2024 11:48

I think @Sunshineandchill is on to something with the 'bad actors spoilt it for true trans' trope, except I don't believe it's about individuals' choices, so much as an inexorable historical development that's played out over the last fifty years.

In the 70s, male transsexuals existed, on the strength of surgical techniques evolved during the previous fifty years, but they were rare, had no legal status following Corbett v Corbett, and had no protection from discrimination. So a political movement was born.

Medical practitioners of the time tried conversion therapies such as emesis and electric shock treatment, and discouraged transition if the patient was unlikely to pass, which kept numbers down.

Then it was decided that transition had therapeutic utility even for the non-passing. And a human rights based approach meant no more electric shocks (fair enough) and no more making a change in legal sex contingent on genital surgery.

So, for women, the situation has changed over time, from a rare encounter in the ladies (but not in other segregated spaces) with an almost-passing, virtually guaranteed castrated, individual with no political or social clout (therefore, likely to be frightened of the police, for instance). To frequent encounters, in every sort of space, with blatantly non-passing individuals who are virtually guaranteed to be fully intact. Since the turn of the century, lobbyists have been cheering them on, raising their social and political capital, boosting numbers, bullying women, and making any sort of sensible conversation impossible.

In hindsight, every step follows inevitably from the one before. So, what are the inevitable developments of the next twenty years? I don't think it's going to be good for women or trans people.

ScrapeMyArse · 03/07/2024 13:29

theilltemperedclavecinist

Excellent summary.

OP posts:
UpThePankhurst · 03/07/2024 13:44

I don't think it's pandering after the past few weeks of piles of evidence. I think Starmer is just a plain garden variety misogynist as is Lammy and several others. And so comfortable with it they are slightly baffled and hurt that women aren't just accepting the head pats and daddy knows best lines.

UpThePankhurst · 03/07/2024 13:51

Thank you for the link: a lot of good points there, well made.

Chersfrozenface · 03/07/2024 13:51

And so comfortable with it they are slightly baffled and hurt that women aren't just accepting the head pats and daddy knows best lines.

Not baffled and hurt - angry. Viz. Starmer's clenched fist on the radio phone-in.

ScrollingLeaves · 03/07/2024 13:51

theilltemperedclavecinist · 03/07/2024 11:48

I think @Sunshineandchill is on to something with the 'bad actors spoilt it for true trans' trope, except I don't believe it's about individuals' choices, so much as an inexorable historical development that's played out over the last fifty years.

In the 70s, male transsexuals existed, on the strength of surgical techniques evolved during the previous fifty years, but they were rare, had no legal status following Corbett v Corbett, and had no protection from discrimination. So a political movement was born.

Medical practitioners of the time tried conversion therapies such as emesis and electric shock treatment, and discouraged transition if the patient was unlikely to pass, which kept numbers down.

Then it was decided that transition had therapeutic utility even for the non-passing. And a human rights based approach meant no more electric shocks (fair enough) and no more making a change in legal sex contingent on genital surgery.

So, for women, the situation has changed over time, from a rare encounter in the ladies (but not in other segregated spaces) with an almost-passing, virtually guaranteed castrated, individual with no political or social clout (therefore, likely to be frightened of the police, for instance). To frequent encounters, in every sort of space, with blatantly non-passing individuals who are virtually guaranteed to be fully intact. Since the turn of the century, lobbyists have been cheering them on, raising their social and political capital, boosting numbers, bullying women, and making any sort of sensible conversation impossible.

In hindsight, every step follows inevitably from the one before. So, what are the inevitable developments of the next twenty years? I don't think it's going to be good for women or trans people.

Thank you, how well you have explained this.

UtopiaPlanitia · 03/07/2024 15:51

theilltemperedclavecinist · 03/07/2024 11:48

I think @Sunshineandchill is on to something with the 'bad actors spoilt it for true trans' trope, except I don't believe it's about individuals' choices, so much as an inexorable historical development that's played out over the last fifty years.

In the 70s, male transsexuals existed, on the strength of surgical techniques evolved during the previous fifty years, but they were rare, had no legal status following Corbett v Corbett, and had no protection from discrimination. So a political movement was born.

Medical practitioners of the time tried conversion therapies such as emesis and electric shock treatment, and discouraged transition if the patient was unlikely to pass, which kept numbers down.

Then it was decided that transition had therapeutic utility even for the non-passing. And a human rights based approach meant no more electric shocks (fair enough) and no more making a change in legal sex contingent on genital surgery.

So, for women, the situation has changed over time, from a rare encounter in the ladies (but not in other segregated spaces) with an almost-passing, virtually guaranteed castrated, individual with no political or social clout (therefore, likely to be frightened of the police, for instance). To frequent encounters, in every sort of space, with blatantly non-passing individuals who are virtually guaranteed to be fully intact. Since the turn of the century, lobbyists have been cheering them on, raising their social and political capital, boosting numbers, bullying women, and making any sort of sensible conversation impossible.

In hindsight, every step follows inevitably from the one before. So, what are the inevitable developments of the next twenty years? I don't think it's going to be good for women or trans people.

👏👏 Excellent summation!!

Morwenscapacioussleeves · 03/07/2024 16:16

lcakethereforeIam · 03/07/2024 13:39

Julie Burchill in Spiked

https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/07/02/labour-would-have-the-suffragettes-spinning-in-their-graves/ open in incognito

I hope she felt a little better after writing it. Strangely I felt a little better after reading it.

Thank you that did make me feel better, weirdly.

theilltemperedclavecinist Excellent post!

murasaki · 03/07/2024 16:24

She's on point there. The differing treatment of Duffield and Badenoch is a good point. Still looking at a spoiled ballot myself.

lcakethereforeIam · 03/07/2024 16:25

I think it made me feel like you do when you think you've lost your keys and then you find them in your pocket. But instead of keys, sanity. IYSWIM.

OP posts:
Morwenscapacioussleeves · 03/07/2024 16:41

lcakethereforeIam · 03/07/2024 16:25

I think it made me feel like you do when you think you've lost your keys and then you find them in your pocket. But instead of keys, sanity. IYSWIM.

Love this 😃
We thought we'd lost our marbles but there they are safely in our pockets!

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 03/07/2024 19:56

lcakethereforeIam · 03/07/2024 13:39

Julie Burchill in Spiked

https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/07/02/labour-would-have-the-suffragettes-spinning-in-their-graves/ open in incognito

I hope she felt a little better after writing it. Strangely I felt a little better after reading it.

Thanks for this link.

This part hits home for me:

There is another group of modern women she would be absolutely baffled by – namely, those feminists (proper ones, not the Frankenfeminist kind) who still intend to vote Labour because ‘bigger issues’ are involved in the General Election. I could just about get this if Starmer was planning something huge, comparable with the founding of the National Health Service perhaps. But you couldn’t slip a wet wipe between him and the Tories when it comes to policies – except on those regarding women’s sex-based rights.

No offence to anyone here who still plans to vote Labour. We must all do what we think is best, which will be vastly different from one constituency to another and difficult to judge due to boundary changes and the strange uncharted territory we are currently in.

But I think that last sentence sums up why I was ultimately unable to vote Labour. Neither their manifesto nor their loyal supporters can explain what they are offering which is really any different to the Tories other than not sending asylum seekers to Rwanda and other more nebulous things such as "decency" and "common sense".

As if any party that says women can have penises can ever be said to be the party of common sense.

ifIwerenotanandroid · 03/07/2024 20:13

I agree, Miss Scarlet. It seems to me that any good stuff Labour could do will be impossible (no money) or won't reach fruition until after the life of this government (because realistically it'll take too long to bring about, so we won't see any benefit in the next 5 years). There will be plenty of bad stuff I'd rather do without.

I think some people are expecting everything to be put right e.g. waiting lists, & I don't see how it can be. A lot of people are going to be very disillusioned.

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 03/07/2024 20:24

ifIwerenotanandroid · 03/07/2024 20:13

I agree, Miss Scarlet. It seems to me that any good stuff Labour could do will be impossible (no money) or won't reach fruition until after the life of this government (because realistically it'll take too long to bring about, so we won't see any benefit in the next 5 years). There will be plenty of bad stuff I'd rather do without.

I think some people are expecting everything to be put right e.g. waiting lists, & I don't see how it can be. A lot of people are going to be very disillusioned.

Yes. And one thing that worries me is that self ID or "modernising the Gender Recognition Act" will shoot back up the agenda once Labour realise it's one of their few manifesto pledges they can actually implement without a shit ton of non existent money, and there's no real opposition to it in the House of Commons (especially if the Lib Dems are in opposition).

At the end of their term they have to be able to show they've done something, and self ID might be the easiest and cheapest thing they can do. All it really costs is women's rights and dignity.

Sorting out the cost of living crisis is much more difficult.

DuesToTheDirt · 03/07/2024 21:04

Well said Julie Birchill. Wonder who she's voting for. I wish I had a Communist standing in my seat, or Alba, or SDP, or even a Monster Raving Loony candidate. All 7 of my candidates stand for something I just cannot vote for - 4 against women's rights, 2 right-wing parties and 1 independent who doesn't say much I agree with and thinks the climate is not important.

maltravers · 03/07/2024 21:27

Well said Julie and pithily expressed as usual.

OP posts:
IwantToRetire · 04/07/2024 01:30

Just to get back to OP and what Starmer may or may not have said about women's toilets have just seen this.

An invitation to Starmer from Attitude to write an op-ed.

Although they felt unable to publish it without reprimanding him for engaging with JKR.

https://www.attitude.co.uk/news/keir-starmer-attitude-letter-469078/

Why Sir Keir Starmer’s op-ed for Attitude cannot run without context or correction

Events have overtaken us, and it’s not good, writes Attitude publisher Darren Styles

https://www.attitude.co.uk/news/keir-starmer-attitude-letter-469078

RainWithSunnySpells · 04/07/2024 08:39

Archive version of the Attitude article.

https://archive.ph/LA64i

Hepwo · 04/07/2024 09:26

Well that's a lot of mansteria in that article.

lcakethereforeIam · 04/07/2024 09:30

From the Attitude article

As a teenager, my friend Graham, a gay man, was attacked by homophobic thugs.

Just like Fred Sargent was recently...oh wait!

OP posts:
ScrollingLeaves · 04/07/2024 10:05

IwantToRetire · 04/07/2024 01:30

Just to get back to OP and what Starmer may or may not have said about women's toilets have just seen this.

An invitation to Starmer from Attitude to write an op-ed.

Although they felt unable to publish it without reprimanding him for engaging with JKR.

https://www.attitude.co.uk/news/keir-starmer-attitude-letter-469078/

Thank you. So this is KS’s true manifesto and his priority is being seen as a Transgender and general ‘Pride’ champion, while safeguarding children, and women’s rights to safety, dignity and privacy will need to come last.

EarthSight · 04/07/2024 10:16

lcakethereforeIam · 02/07/2024 00:58

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

I thought that as long as you has a Gender affirming certificate, then isn't it legal? Unless he's saying he doesn't agree with the current law?

cavalier · 04/07/2024 10:35

ifIwerenotanandroid · 03/07/2024 20:13

I agree, Miss Scarlet. It seems to me that any good stuff Labour could do will be impossible (no money) or won't reach fruition until after the life of this government (because realistically it'll take too long to bring about, so we won't see any benefit in the next 5 years). There will be plenty of bad stuff I'd rather do without.

I think some people are expecting everything to be put right e.g. waiting lists, & I don't see how it can be. A lot of people are going to be very disillusioned.

It’s all too good to be true
unrealistic expectations will quickly lead to unrest.
If it’s too good to be true then it usually is.