J K Rowling has nailed it - re Starmer and the trans issue

Truth is truth

I do wish people would stick with that, rather than let another other thing whatsoever, get in the way of it.

This is just another thread focusing on Starmer bashing with no context - for the sake of it as per the right wing press - why not join the already existing discussions.

The subject of this post is J,K, Rowling. The usual excuses: Starmer bashing and right-wing press.

Keir Starmer's behaviour over the issue of trans rights, and much else, gives me cause for concern. He has dissembled, deceived,changed his mind and now announces that he accepts the Supreme Court's judgement, for clarity. He has no choice.
I have no confidence in him as a leader, and do not forget how he apparently supported Jeremy Corbyn Leadership as his second-in-command, his choice, then turned on him and had him expelled from the Labour Party as soon as there was an opportunity for him to become Leader.
I hold no brief for Jeremy Corbyn, but I believe he stuck by his principles, disastrous though they were. Starmer changes according to the prevailing wind and his own self-interest.
I fear for the future.

When I say I would have (maybe) voted for it to go through I don't mean that I believed men could become women, but that I don't think I would have realised the harm that could be done. It seemed like a tiny minority of people just wanted to live their lives differently from how they started, and that's probably still the case for a lot of people.

What was not obvious (to me, anyway) was that the issue would be used by anti-feminists to reverse so much of what women had fought for, or that it would become so divisive. How could it have been?

I don't think some of the protesters did themselves any favours whatsoever. All they proved was the they are in fact biological aggressive men. Why on earth attack statues?.especially Millicent Fawcett a suffragette!. As I said, aggressive, uninformed men, thankfully now outside women's spaces particularly sport.

20 years ago they wouldn't have capitulated to what then would have been considered an unsubstantiated fallacy.

Yet politicians did capitulate to the Gender Recognition Act 2004 which gave people the right to falsify birth certificates and allowed activists, including Stonewall, to misrepresent the law.

Theresa May was another one who I believe was of the opinion that men could transition to becoming a woman without medical intervention. These acquired beliefs have been embedded across the political spectrum. I don't know how people can have faith in politicians, let alone a PM who comes across as frightened rabbit backed into a corner, hence "well whilst the majority of women don't have a penis a minority do". These people aren't conviction politicians, we know they're sucking up to the zeitgeist of the moment. 20 years ago they wouldn't have capitulated to what then would have been considered an unsubstantiated fallacy.

Allira

"The Gender Recognition Act 2004[1] is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that allows adults in the United Kingdom who have gender dysphoria to change their legal sex. It came into effect on 4 April 2005."

"Among those who voted against the bill were Ann Widdecombe (who opposed it on religious grounds), Dominic Grieve, Peter Lilley and Andrew Robathan. Among Conservative MPs who supported the bill were Kenneth Clarke, Constitutional Affairs spokesman Tim Boswell, and future speaker John Bercow."

Interesting. I don't think it's about left and right, and never have.

I don't know, but suspect that in 2004 I would have voted for it to go through, as it did seem to be about tolerance and 'being kind' without the benefit of the hindsight we have now.

Who would have envisaged 'chestfeeders' and TRAs screaming death threats at 'TERF's back then? Or compulsory use of pronouns that suggest men are women because they say so?

And doodledog you left the labour party over this issue, which was more than I did, although it was touch and go. I hung on until other issues pushed me away.

Galaxy

No not you doodledog it was WW who referred to Starmers inner thoughts.

Ah, ok, sorry.

"The Gender Recognition Act 2004[1] is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that allows adults in the United Kingdom who have gender dysphoria to change their legal sex. It came into effect on 4 April 2005."

"Among those who voted against the bill were Ann Widdecombe (who opposed it on religious grounds), Dominic Grieve, Peter Lilley and Andrew Robathan. Among Conservative MPs who supported the bill were Kenneth Clarke, Constitutional Affairs spokesman Tim Boswell, and future speaker John Bercow."

No not you doodledog it was WW who referred to Starmers inner thoughts.

Galaxy

What? Do you think he actually believes privately that men can be women. That doesn't reassure me.

Who? No, I think nothing of the sort.

Exactly Pantglas2.

Given the current demonstrations, can you imagine the whooping & crowing &, no doubt, a good deal of misogynistic threats of violence such as we're seeing from transactivists now?

And would women who had lost have been out there with placards wishing death on trans people? I don't think so.

Pantglas2

Everyone I know, family and friends, have always believed that women don’t have penises. Were we wrong (and Starmer and co right because the Law hadn’t told them otherwise) to have held those beliefs up until last week?

I don’t think so! And as for not seeing it as a win, imagine if it’d gone t’other way…darn right they’d be crowing!

👏👏👏

Everyone I know, family and friends, have always believed that women don’t have penises. Were we wrong (and Starmer and co right because the Law hadn’t told them otherwise) to have held those beliefs up until last week?

I don’t think so! And as for not seeing it as a win, imagine if it’d gone t’other way…darn right they’d be crowing!

KS is a PM. Of course he will cop criticism. Last time I looked the UK wasn’t a total dictatorship but obviously some think it should be and no one should be allowed to criticise the government. Move over Trump and Xi Jinping.

The Times and the spectator have been good on this issue fir quite some time, certainly before the labour government, I think the telegraph is more a johnny come lately but I would need to check.

Galaxy

I was pulled into a 'discussion' with my manager when I objected to the content of a training course on this issue, narrowly avoided a complaint. I have donated to pretty much every single legal case on this matter. So I will criticise every single political party including labour on this issue.

Thats fair and just what has been happening for years

Where were the press when the Conservatives were in power not demanding Something Be done and blaming Johnson/Sunak for not doing anything despite all?

And have conveniently forgotten that Teresa May was in fact one of the chief voices for Self ID in 2017 onwards?

Galaxy

What? Do you think he actually believes privately that men can be women. That doesn't reassure me.

Don’t be silly, I have no idea what Starmer thinks privately.

What I do know is that he is a lawyer, and will always follow the rule of law.

Personally I find that gives me confidence because I know exactly how the PM will act. He will follow the rule of law.

The nonsense encouraged by the media, stops people thinking.

I was pulled into a 'discussion' with my manager when I objected to the content of a training course on this issue, narrowly avoided a complaint. I have donated to pretty much every single legal case on this matter. So I will criticise every single political party including labour on this issue.

Hear, hear Wyllow.

What? Do you think he actually believes privately that men can be women. That doesn't reassure me.

👏👏

Wyllow3

Oreo

So many politicians have been mealy mouthed on the subject of sex and gender.

Yes - for a good 20 years or so. As have many organisations outside the direct political arena.
We have 2 threads on this already and these sentiments expressed on both.

This is just another thread focusing on Starmer bashing with no context - for the sake of it as per the right wing press - why not join the already existing discussions Witzend

My sentiments exactly. The fashion for blaming KS for everything is exactly why he couldn't speak out in opposition. He's blamed whatever he does or doesn't do.

I'd love to know what those who are criticising him did about the issue themselves. Obviously JKR has no case to answer, but many of his critics remained in workplaces where they were compelled to go along with Stonewall nonsense. Are we to blame them too?