- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
I’m constantly amazed that this is a hard subject for people. As the golden rule says:
“I’m not going to reach into your pants, without an invitation. And I prefer no one reach into my pants, because we barely know each-other. Whatever someone tells me is in their pants, I’ll take their word for it, as long as they haven’t flashed me in public. Also, shitting in practically transparent stalls is awful for everyone, and showering with strangers sucks. Let’s all just do less of both.”
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer does not believe transgender women are women, his official spokesman has said.
Oh damn, this is huge. He’s officially admitting to being a Transphobic Bigot. Literally.
What else in this ballpark would he like to admit to while he’s at it? Maybe he’s a Homophobe too? …What’s his stance on black people?
Also, are transgender men, men? And if so, why is it one rule for women and another for men? Is he sexist too?
On the basis of his admission of being a Bigot I would argue he is unfit to be leader of the Labour Party. I recall a Labour Prime Minister not too long ago getting angry at someone for being a Bigot… how times have changed…
“when looking at the Equality Act” is the key missing part off the quote. Would you expect an ex-barrister to contradict the ruling of the supreme court?
What’s actually needed is new clear primary legislation to address all these issues. Parliament still had primacy here but good luck getting MPs wading into such a toxic debate?
They could have announced they would look to introduce new legislation to address this. They could have said just about anything instead of what’s been said today.
But they didn’t, they are instead parroting the court ruling as if it’s a final settlement on the issue as whole.
There is no weaselling around these words, the only debate is whether it exposes cowardice or bigotry.
It’s probably cowardice.
I totally get why people are upset but the real question is what to do next. You can try lobbying the government with the massive majority by accusing them all of being bigots or form a new party (or join an existing one) with this reform at the top of their agenda.
Sadly while there may or no may not be a majority in the country who have sympathy with the plight of trans people I doubt there are enough where it is the top off their priorities when deciding who to vote for.
This is not huge. He is literally saying what the law says, which is exactly what you expect a prime minister to do. This isn’t transphobia. This isn’t bigotry. Literally.
You’re blowing this completely out of proportion, and also throwing in a load of other shit that he never said anything about.
This is not huge. He is literally saying what the law says, which is exactly what you expect a prime minister to do.
Damn, if only the PM had the power to get the law changed.
The PM declined to repeat his previous statement “transwomen are women,” instead asserting: “A woman is an adult female - the court has made that absolutely clear.”
This is transphobia, seriously listen to him weasel out of it. He was asked if trans woman were women in general, not specifically for the purposes of the Equalities Act.
A woman is an adult female. A transwoman is an adult female who used to be male. It’s not difficult to grasp that they are different things. You can admit that and still believe that transwomen should be treated with dignity like anyone else.
Personally I don’t give a shit what bathroom people use or what they want to be referred to. I’ll go along with whatever… But a woman and a transwoman are different things, and it’s disingenuous to pretend otherwise. Always have been different things and always will be, no matter what the law states, now or in the future.
Kier’s words are still not transphobia. There is no fear, dislike, prejudice, discrimination, harassment, or violence in his statement. The scream of ‘transphobia’ is thrown around too much for anyone who disagrees with a narrow definition. Any disagreement is labelled as hate, and it’s silly.
Should a transwoman have the same rights and respect and opportunity as a woman (as per the legal definition)? Absolutely. Are they the same? No, they are not. Is that a hateful bigoted viewpoint worthy of scorn? I don’t believe so.
Should a transwoman have the same rights and respect as a woman? Absolutely. Are they the same? No, they are not.
‘As a woman’, a trans woman is a woman, different from a cis woman sure, but still a woman. This statement is fairly absurd if you substitute trans with another adjective, like is a blonde woman different from a woman?
Kier’s words are still not transphobia. There is no fear, dislike, prejudice, discrimination, harassment, or violence in his statement.
The prejudice is denying the legitimacy of trans women as women. ‘Adult human female’ is a dog whistle for ‘not trans’, so by asserting that a woman is ‘an adult female’ he’s saying trans women aren’t women (and that trans men aren’t men).
I don’t use the term cis. I use the term woman and you knew exactly what I meant. A blonde woman is a description of a woman’s hair colour and is a semantic-based response that is nothing to do with this point. You know this; it’s a foolish riposte that’s nothing at all to do with the clear and simple fact that a woman who used to be a man is not the same thing as a (cis) woman.
I can call it a woman who used to have a penis or a woman who used to be a man if you want me to be pedantic about it. Nothing to do with hair colour, or skin colour, or anything else except previously being a biological male and now identifying as a woman.
‘adult human female’ is not a dog whistle. It’s a legal and common-sense definition that you clearly understand but are trying to make out to be hate for some reason. I am not denying the legitimacy of transwomen; nor is Keir.
Transwomen and (cis) women are different things. And Transmen and (cis) men are different things. They have different names, which you yourself use for a reason. That reason being they are not the same thing. This is exactly the same as saying transwomen are not women, because they are not. They are transwomen.
It’s pretty simple.
A trans woman, and a cis woman are both subtypes of women. One used to be physically male, the other didn’t. Both are women and should be afforded the same treatment under law unless actually there’s actually reasonable issues created by that.
I use the term woman and you knew exactly what I meant
I didn’t actually, I wrote that to probe out what you actually meant because I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.
A blonde woman is a description of a woman’s hair colour and you know this.
And trans/cis is a descriptions of whether a woman was assigned female at birth or not. Woman is not synonymous with cis woman.
They have different names, which you yourself, use for a reason.
You give them different names, I’m using adjectives because the distinction matters in this context.
‘adult human female’ is not a dog whistle. It’s a legal and common-sense definition
It really isn’t. When you meet someone irl, you brain doesn’t decide if it thinks they are a man or woman based on their chromosomes or some bioessentialist bs, it does it based of social ques because man/woman are social categories.
I am not denying the legitimacy of transwomen [sic]; nor is Keir.
But also:
This is exactly the same as saying transwomen [sic] are not women, because they are not. They are transwomen [sic].
I’ll probably fuck my terminology up here, forgive me, I try. Questions I have:
Are there a lot of people who look at other people’s genitals in public toilets?
Can these people be arrested because I think they might be perverts and I don’t want them looking at my kids?
Are people going to have to start showing their genitals to security guards?
Has someone given security guards the right to demand to see people’s genitals?
How the fuck does that even work when someone’s had gender reassignment surgery?
Presumably trans men must now use the women’s toilets?
Does someone who’s had gender reassignment surgery need to bring their full medical history with them in order to prove they’re using the “correct” toilet?
Not aimed particularly at you flamingos - just questions that are coming to mind reading this thread.
Seems to me this would be a lot simpler if people would just stop looking at other people’s genitals in toilets uninvited.
I can’t decide whether they’re awful or just saying awful things to pander to the awful bits of the electorate. Both are terrible but they’re different flavours of evil.
Pandering to the most awful bigots in the country is an awful thing to do. This is a spineless government with no principles other than “don’t offend the right wing”.
Feels like a cozying up to trump looking for a tariff exemption by doing this too, right?
Wouldn’t be surprising at this point.
Labour chose to take this particular stance today. There are many other approaches they could have taken, they could have also tried to dodge the matter and kick they can down the road, but instead “trans women are not women” is what they have chosen to actively embrace.
(Further) pandering to the transphobic lobby is not necessary, and what’s been said today is far beyond pandering.
They’re missing a word on the end of that sentence: “today”. Tomorrow, however …
It’s at times like these I turn to my man Alexei:
