Finally a response from Keir Starmer to SC ruling.

[LadyBracknellsHandbagg]

A woman is an adult female, and the court has made that absolutely clear.
I actually welcome the judgment because I think it gives real clarity. It allows those that have got to draw up guidance to be really clear about what that guidance should say.
So I think it’s important that we see the judgment for what it is. It’s a welcome step forward.
It’s real clarity in an area where we did need clarity, I’m pleased it’s come about.
We need to move and make sure that we now ensure that all guidance is in the right place according to that judgment.

Thoughts?

‘But he's more like Frank Drebin than Judge Dredd.’

Love this 😂

Seconded!

He trained as a lawyer, used to fudging.

The word you needed was biological Keir, because that is the word that the entire ruling was about .

Are we allowed to say that only women have cervixes again?

Clarity that’s as clear as mud

Dunno. Shall I give India W a call and see if he has an opinion?

How many times has he said clarity in that response?!

However, at least he’s accepted it and not tried to give a response that would appease all factions.

It depends if David Lammy still believes this word salad -

obviously, it's probably the case that only, that trans women don't have ovaries. But a cervix, I understand, is something that you can have, following various procedures and hormone treatment and all the rest of it.

This man went to Harvard, what a complete waste of time that was 😂😂

I think he's said the bare minimum and only because everyone has been calling him out on his silence. Spineless twat he is.

As you well know, India has a cervix because he offered to show it to people on television, 🤮

It's better that he said this than any denial.

Still, he's such a drip.

It's clearly clear that Kier has had clarification which has resulted in clarity.

Can never be reminded of that without starting to sing Mambo no 5

Still, he's such a drip.
Thank you @MMBaranova it does sum up exactly what he is.

I think you can conclude that the government aren’t going to waste any political capital changing legislation.

I suspect a consequence will be that many organisations will think it’s easier to have unisex spaces, and women will have to fight harder for single sex provision, but that can at least be done using words that have clear meanings.

It's embedded into a video on this link (sorry for non-share token, it won't work on this computer): https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/trans-women-men-toilets-b8gt6l22c

Translation: thank fuck this is maybe all over now, I hope I never have to think about trans women in loos ever again and no-one can blame me for a decision they didn't like.

There are lawyers and lawyers, and Parliament is full of them, but Starmer has a particular trick that lawyers in politics often do, where he says something that's true on its face, but he omits to say the important thing that qualifies what he actually said.

So in this case it's always been "women are adult females (but men with GRCs are legally female)" and following on from that "Labour will protect safe spaces for women (but since TW are female this mixed sex space doesn't have any men in it)".

I don't know if it's a particular kind of rigid thinking, or if he thinks it's a clever trick and we're too stupid to see him doing it. But if you've seen him do it once, you keep noticing when he does it.

It's very lucky for us that the SC ruling was clear enough to saw out the branch from under him.

Does he keep it in a box, like Life of Brian's Stan having a baby?

It's just his usual word salad. He hasn't stated that women are biological females. He's still trying to appease the TWAW brigade.

I literally LOLed at it too!

Was going to say the same. It’s as though if he repeated those phrases enough he might convince us that he believed them…

Exactly. And in this issue, he's hiding behind the fact he's been given clarity. Quite a lot of clarity, given how many times he repeated it.

Really irritating. He is clearly, as the clip above mentioned, trying to back away from the crime scene.

He's been given clarity, but in this case clarity means I don't care about women, but now I've been told, so my hands are tied, let's move on, because my feet are getting hot as you seem oddly determined to hold them to the fire.

I mean For fuck's sake, he's had a week to work out what he's gonna say, surely, even his head, he didn't think that repeating the word clarity half a dozen times was going to work.

I don't know about anyone else, but he's coming across to me as increasingly empty inside. Like he's missing a chromosome.

If the judgement had gone the other way, he'd be standing there going 'TWAW, clarity blah blah'.
No substance to him at all. He goes wherever the wind blows and says the bare waffly minimum in case it changes direction again.

I often go back to the webchat on here during the Labour leadership campaign, where all the women candidates were open and honest about their beliefs and intentions, however questionable those were. Starmer said almost nothing about his. There was a lot of hopeful framing that he was just clever enough to keep his cards close to his chest, but increasingly it's appearing that this may have been an overgenerous interpretation. He said nothing and shared no beliefs or intentions, perhaps because there just weren't any.

“This is an area where we needed clarity”

Did we though? Most sane minded people knew what a woman was, we didn’t need clarity.

Do we need clarity about what a man is?