Keir Starmer "adult female" niggle or am I nitpicking?

[lechiffre55]

Is anyone else getting this wierd vibe that Keir Starmer still doesn't get it.
I'm grateful for the adult female bit, but that the word human got left out makes me think he's just repeating a few words without really understanding what he's saying.

If all adult females are women then adult females of all species are women, cows, dogs, cats, bees, elephants etc.....

There's a test for dementia that involves three words being spoken and then requested to be spoken back. Is "adult human female" really that difficult to remember?

With respect, those saying "it's implied" or op is "nitpicking ":have you not seen who he is the ladt 5 years? Like many caught up in this he has used words and their delicate differences to shaft people fond of reality. He told us we "shouldn't say women have a cervix". He also said THE LAW said this too: so a liar or a bad lawyer. Or potentially both. So I make no apologises with being with Sir Humphrey on this one: get them to nail their trousers to the flagpole. That way they can't climb down.

I can't get het up about this.

I also assumed because "W=AHF" is a known Posie Parker activism slogan, he is desperately trying to not be associated with that, whilst conceding that actually Posie (and us GC women) are in fact right.

It's still a profound leap forward. I can't imagine how much champagne KJK has consumed 😆

I only saw excerpts on the news and not the whole thing, but I got the distinct impression that he is following the law as now clarified, not that he actually believes it.

Completely untrustworthy, unprincipled, corrupt.

I couldn't give a fuck what he said or how he said it. It's all weasel words

He may have fudged words and so on, but I don't care now, the genie is out of the bottle and this issue will gradually recede in the public's view I think.

As long as there are no moves to introduce new laws etc. to row back on this I'm happy enough.

I do think he uses weasel words though and hedges his bets, but does that matter anymore regarding this issue anyway.

I have no wish to be pedantic but, if that is your concern, adding "human" would not make one iota of difference.

I didn't say otherwise? @HelenaWaiting

I think the missing word here - as it pertains to the judgement - is "biological" not "human"
Human is implied. Biological needs saying. He won't say it though.

When I say “it’s implied”, I mean because the context is that of humans discussing the Equality Act, which only applies to humans.

There are completely separate laws for animal rights, but they aren’t the subject of the SC ruling nor the interview questions KS is answering.

As an example, when we talk about global warming, we don’t need to clarify that we’re all talking about Earth, as we are all on the Earth so there’s no need to say that. In the future if some people move to Mars, then we might need to clarify which globe we’re talking about, but in the current context of everyone living on Earth, it’s implied.

@LonginesPrime
The implied argument at any other time would be vaild. It's just common sense. The problem is we are at now in time, and common sense isn't very common. The need for the legal clarification from The Supreme Court that the words woman and sex in The Equalities Act referrs to biological women and biological sex explicitly shows that word "implied" doesn't hold a lot of water thesedays.

A lot of activism is based around deliberately muddying the waters around the meaning of words and trying to change the language in doing so.
One example I was fine with people changing gender, but not at all with people changing sex. Gender is just made up. Sex is biological reality. But it got corrupted by some people claiming their GRC which changes their gender, somehow changes their sex, which The Supreme Court has now clarified doesn't happen. Relying on "implied" thesedays is in open invitation for the TRAs to alter the ground you stand upon.
e.g. my old favourite of clownfish. Combine "clownfish" with adult female to define women, and we go right back to the start.
"Implied" assumes good faith and a common understanding of meaning. We don't live in those times any more.

I respect and understand your distinction,and assume good faith as you've never done me otherwise: obviously, this is where it falls down with KS.

I see what you’re getting at OP, which is precisely why I clarified that I meant “implied” in the context of legislation that only affects humans, not in terms of obscuring everyday language to mean something else.

I get your point about bad faith arguments, but I think that pressing KS to clarify that he means “human” females seems like stooping to the level of those acting in bad faith (as the “human” isn’t really a contentious issue here, it’s merely a scientific definition to differentiate us from other species) when he should really be pressed on things like what he’s going do about MPs criticising Baroness Falkner and the SC, the threats against women and criminal damage at the protests, the GMC continuing to conceal doctors’ biological sex, companies stating they’ll defy the law, apologising to Rosie Duffield, women’s groups and others (both within his own party and outside it) whom he’s condemned for speaking the truth, and so on.

@LonginesPrime
I think we mostly agree.
Assuming the obvious doesn't work in the context of bad faith.
I don't think Starmer should be pressed on the "human" issue, I was making an observation. The best explanation I have seen is that Starmer wants to avoid saying "adult human female".

If I was to be allowed to press Starmer my choice would be to ask him this question again:
Is it ok to say that only women have cervixes?
His reaction would tell us a lot about where his thinking on the subject is right now.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-58698406

Is it even necessary to have the word adult. Girls are also female and also entitled to single sex spaces.

I'm really feeling very puzzled about the number of threads analysing what Keir Starmer says.

I had no regard for Boris Johnson at all but if he'd committed to protecting women's rights I think I would have been.....pleased? Of course he would have been doing it for entirely cynical reasons but that's a lot less important than it getting done.

It's the subject of the entire thread.

I think KS has a child who identifies as trans so he has to be extremely careful what he says…..

I think it’s nitpicking. He was answering in the context of laws clearly applicable only to humans.

Some have complained he didn’t say ‘biological female’ - well, that’s tautological, ‘female’ is a biological term. Using ‘biological female’ implies there’s some other sort …er well it’s pretty clear we’re not talking about electrical connections so no, there isn’t.

adult female is fine.

Isn’t Adult Human Female considered a dog whistle by TRAs? I’d assumed that he was desperately trying to avoid looking as if he’d been influenced by our side.

I’d say it was an uncharitable interpretation. But then I don’t think he deserves any charity.

YABU. Honestly, I don't think he's particularly bothered: he wants to make sure he's following the legal advice. End of.

Isn’t a potential antonym of a biological female a ‘certified’ female? In which case, biological would be clearer that it didn’t refer to GRC holders etc

‘Certified female’ is nonsensical. If people are using it they should stop it.

Act already says that a woman is a female of any age. The wording chosen suggests that whoever wrote it either doesn't understand the ruling or, worse, is hoping to achieve some political effect by appearing to say 'TWAM, so yah boo sucks!'

Whom is that supposed to please? Not me, because women's rights not centred, like always.

Ruling is not relevant to TWAW, which is an (untrue) scientific or (unfalsifiable) metaphysical statement.

Ruling says TW must not be treated by the EA as if they AW. Or, if you prefer, that male and female refer to biological sex.

Best way to spin it? I might have gone with 'I welcome this ruling about the sex-based rights enshrined in the EA. This important law ensures that men and women are treated fairly with respect to one another, taking into account their biological differences, and the ruling has confirmed that it must be applied - and should always have been applied - on the basis of biological sex ie birth sex' (bound to be some nitwits who think TW change biological sex)

I'd say that "adult human female" carries a certain connotation at the moment. It's very much a slogan of our side of the debate. People sell T-shirts with it on.

So to avoid parroting a slogan, he's left out the one word of it that he can. Every one knows we're talking about humans here. Even if someone comes out with "Well, ackshually, adult female flamingo's aren't women", people are just going to look at them like they're stupid.

Politicians have to walk a line. Even if he really believed and wanted to say "Look, being trans is just a mental illness, gender is a fiction, it's all a load of bollocks", he couldn't say it. Not if he wanted to keep his job and get all the other stuff he wants to do done.

He's been very much on the wrong side of the line up till now, and most of us on this board probably still wish the new fence he's chosen was a bit further on our side of the garden, I can't really fault him for not actually using the phrase "Adult Human Female"

He left out human, it's pretty much the one term everyone agrees on. (Side-eyes the furries)