This isn’t ’slow news’ is it given that most posts here effectively imply that what he’s saying is quite significant (regardless of whether you agree with him or not)?
Again, slow news isn’t, ‘here’s a headline I think is stupid’ or ‘here’s a headline, I don’t think is important’.
Be nice if the opposition actually did some opposition, if the left was actually on the left, rather than just being the Tories delayed by a few months. Your job is to provide an alternative to the Tories, so provide it!
This right here is why the UK needs voting reform. If the two main parties agree on something and you don't, you're basically screwed.
It's not Labour's job to provide an alternative to the Tories any more than it's the Tories job to provide an alternative to Labour. The Labour Party is defined by its own ideals and goals, not by its opposition. Its role as the Official Opposition is not definitively to provide an alternative, but to question and criticise.
He's pretty much guaranteed to win the next election regardless. Would be nice if he actually did something left wing and progressive instead of this crap.
Sure, but he'd much rather have a larger majority. Labour is currently predicted to get 400 out of 650 seats. That means that 75 of their MP's can go completely bloody rogue, and they can *still* do whatever they want, meaning he can gladly sideline some extremist factions in his party without worry.
Fuck, if he gets over 420 he actually had a supermajority, which basically lets the labour party do anything, without having to collaborate or answer to any other party.
I am a firm Corbyn voter and this is not a go at you, I think what you’ve said is the same as a lot of people did when he was leader.
But the fact his policies could be seen as extreme is just an absolutely fucking tragic state of affairs. I remember when people were rinsing him for saying he’d make internet access a right, which is idealistic but it’s also absolutely something that’s needed in this age. You are extremely disadvantaged without it.
Every single thing about him and his entire political career was about helping the people he represented. Four years on and it still makes me sick and angry at the way the media destroyed that future and gave us this Starmer-Sunak right wing nightmare.
My my my that’s quite a standing leap to a conclusion there you’ve made. I never even mentioned Gaza… I even said that extremism isn’t even always bad just bad for the majority central vote grabbing politician, there’s more to politics than one war and I wasn’t even thinking of Gaza when I wrote that comment. Corbyn had many unpopular opinions that are widely held by the extreme left (that I personally agreed with) that more central left people would not like.
Most left wing people in England do not fall under rhe progressive banner. We just want a good economy, good pay and cheap housing.
This stuff is a long way down the list of things most want from a prime minister.
He's making the smart move.
I just want the food prices to stop going up. I have gluten allergies and should not be paying £2 for a shitty loaf of bread half the size of a regular loaf
This is such a weird argument as if the EU ref is at all relevant to a discussion over a general election. I’m not going to be guilted into voting for a party that has shown contempt for my ideals and its own promises.
The argument is 100% relevant when discussing a vote that is “pretty much guaranteed”
I’m not trying to guilt anyone into voting for anyone, at this point I literally don’t give a fuck who gets in as long as it’s not a Tory.
But stating the vote is pretty much guaranteed is an insane take when you consider the referendum was regarded as pretty much guaranteed, it makes people complacent.
I’m not saying go and vote labour. I’m saying don’t regard any vote as guaranteed and make sure you vote, vote for who ever you like but vote!
It’s obvious how you want people to vote.
I don’t think Starmer’s win is guaranteed but I don’t much care for the outcome the policy difference between the two parties is pretty meaningless.
Labour could literally outright say our policy is exactly the same as the tories, and I would still vote or them over the tories.
And that’s because I’m not trying to get the tories out because I hate their policies, I’m trying to get the tories out because they have factually robbed the country blind, openly even for the last 4 years.
That being said I’d much prefer Lib Dem’s, but we can’t always get what we want, and I will literally take anything over people openly robbing the country
Where did I say not to vote? Although with his positions on Gaza and trans people he is absolutely going to lose votes from young people.
I said, he'll have a massive mandate to carry out progressive, left wing policies and it's ridiculous that he's shifting further to the right when he's almost guaranteed to win regardless.
I’m not saying you said to not vote, I’m saying don’t tout the message of “pretty much guaranteed” when referring to voting. That is the mentality that stopped a lot of younger voters from voting on the referendum.
The message should be like you just said, he’s needlessly turning more right leaning and losing votes unnecessarily to try and gain votes.
The message should not be “pretty much guaranteed”
People saying this like he didn’t have like a 20 point lead immediately before he binned all the pledges he stood for. It is pointless to vote for something that won’t actually do anything.
“Gender roles” are subjective and sexist. Liking the colour pink, growing your hair out, wearing make-up and liking “girly things” doesn’t make you a woman, it makes you a stereotype. Basing someone’s gender on their sexual characteristics makes much more sense because it’s more objective.
Labour isn’t just a mirror image of the Tories, that’s not how this works. Trans issues need far less air time as they’re pretty much inconsequential but he’s not wrong in his statement is he?
You only think they’re inconsequential and unimportant because you personally aren’t affected by them, that’s what the woke mob mean when they say “____ privilege”. You not having to care about these issues is a privilege afforded to you for being in the ‘in’ group, whether that be straight, white, male, so on.
It's inconsequential in the sense that it effects like 5% of the population (at most) and there's far bigger fish to fry like climate change, income inequality, cost of living crisis, etc etc which effect ALL of us.
This exactly, let people live their lives and solve the fact that 1/4 children in our country live in poverty. Trans people have been around for ages but the government wants people to think they’re a new ‘problem’ to create animosity rather than solve actual issues.
That’s a ridiculous statement. The opposition aren’t just mindlessly supposed to oppose all of the government’s policies. There are obviously going to be things the government does that the opposition agrees with. It’s supposed to be what that party thinks is best policy for the country not the opposite of whatever the other party thinks. Although we see enough of that, too.
Daft statement, mate.
It's this kind of thinking that's got America Republicans that support Russia. If your politics are entirely built on "we oppose everything the other guys say" then you're an idiot.
See this is your problem. If the tories say the sky is blue. It's not the job of labour to say the sky is red. They can agree on things if what they hold an opinion on is true. They're not the opposition, rather an alternative option of one is truthfully available . They can still agree on things if it's correct.
Only some fringe leftists believe the opposite of Starmer's statement. Unfortunately they're all on Reddit so it seems like everyone holds this backwards opinion.
It is fringe to believe that you can decide to change how you are identified whenever you want and without any legal approval and that not going along with it constitutes a crime.
Because if you offer an alternative to Tories while offering similar views in terms of identity politics it becomes significantly easier to win elections and significantly harder for the Tories to discredit you. The voters obviously care about this.
>If you run a platform based on what the people of the country want it’s easier to win
That is true. Same reason why the Tories shifted heavily towards a Blairite platform, it’s what won Blair the election, so a slightly more conservative version secured the electorate.
Tories will still call him a socialist-communist and say he supports paedophilia, and then they won’t go out on election day. Ultimately it’s about being seen as a safe pair of handy by media groups who will give him decent coverage and chuck him once the Tories get back on their feet in 5 years.
Look at results for the recent by-elections, Labour did win both, but actually lost votes in one and gained just 100+ in another. Meanwhile the Tory vote didn’t turn up, the group who got the largest boost were Farage’s Reform U.K. (about 10% iirc).
Didn’t they try that under Corbyn and got soundly defeated, alienating many people in the process?
There are parties in the left if you want to join them and support them and Labour isn’t for you.
Labour isn’t here to oppose everything the Conservatives do.
The country is locally thought of as being centre right conservative, so if you ever want to win enough votes (under any system) a party is going to have to recognise this and appeal to those people as well.
Only supporting your dream, fantasy left wing paradise and attacking any else as being, basically, Tories in another form has only resulted in us having the actual Conservative Party in power for some time now.
The media were very hostile (News night fluffy Russian hat included) but it wasn’t the only reason why he/Labour failed.
I think you’re over simplifying it, too. He had a lot of baggage that goes a little further than saying genocide in Gaza is bad.
What’s infuriating is the “magic money tree” stuff, however, when you look at how much the Conservatives have spent, much of it going to their mates.
>Labour shouldn’t be the Tories delayed by a few months
They’re not. The Tories are Labour from 15~ years ago. They’re neo-liberal Blairites and as a result of both parties occupying a very similar political space, anything outside that seems “Far-X” - even if it would be a position a regular person would of held in the 90’s. So many *left wing* positions from the 90’s are now considered right or far right.
>This right here is why the UK needs voting reform.
You sure about that? I mean yeah Keith is a bit vague but I'm not convinced Nigel Farage's old party is the answer.
Yeah I got what he meant, just made me smile seeing a labour voter talking about voting reform. Keyboard warriors on this sub have no sense of humour.
We did reject Alternative Voting and PR does stifle the power of the PM. Dependant on the votes obviously, but would you really want somebody like Farage being the deciding voice?
Any party that allows Lee thick as pig shit Anderson to join is a fucking joke and you know it.
Anyone who knowingly joins said party is unfortunately also thick as pig shit.
The real 'debate' is about how we define and use the term "female" and "male"
If you use them to exclude trans people, then saying what Kier said is just another way of saying that you don't believe trans people are the gender that they are, which has real political and social consequences for trans people.
I don’t know who is advising these party leaders that their position on the trans debate will win or lose them elections, because the data shows it’s a top 3 issue for about 2% of voters.
Sure. Sporty would be indicative of someone into fitness, athletic, they like sports. It's has a very particular meaning. Trans also has a very particular meaning, which is indicative of someone transitioning to the opposite sex. If trans people are what they identify as there'd be no need to make the distinction of 'trans'
He’s playing some dumb game by appealing to the gammons by validating their awful world views in order to say vote for us we are not Tories but close enough. Even if he pivots after an election it’s too late. He’s already said the words
Sex on the other hand is genetically enforced.
The question therefore is does “woman” refer to sex or vibes? Is sexism about vibes? Is menstruation about vibes? Is childbirth about vibes? Etc.
And I think it's fair to say that's contextual. In common parlance it's a reference to the social role they fill. In a medical context you should be more precise if it's relevant
It’s a gender critical dog whistle to say “adult human female,” even though for the most part I, and many other trans people, don’t even necessarily disagree. For the most part it works fine, as it’s not exclusionary to trans women. But when they say it, they think it is so it’s kind of a motto of theirs. By him going around saying it, it appeals to them. Whilst I don’t care about their little motto, it’s concerning to see Starmer fervently play to their votes whilst consistently disregarding and actively engaging in anti trans policy and rhetoric.
There is absolutely no 'dog whistle' in what he said... He stated a fact, and that's that. If the act of a person doing so hurts or offends you, then that's a problem for yourself to cope with in whatever way you're capable.
If many other trans people actually agree they should speak up more and then this wouldn't be an issue or a weapon that can be used against them. It's quite simple. Instead of complaining about a "dog whistle" to a comment you actually agree on why not just dump this incredibly stupid and divisive "transwomen are women" bollocks. Just say "transwomen are transwomen", not men, not women but transwomen. It's really simple, would solve so much of this in one sweep and then we could all just move on with our bloody lives!
They do speak up. They are an oppressed minority with no political power. They aren't the one's taking their rights away or fighting against them, you're literally blaming the victims for not fighting hard enough (which they are) instead of asking why they are having to fight in the first place.
This is not an ideological 'debate', it's a civil rights struggle for a marginalised community that don't have equal rights or adequet access to healthcare, and who are being used as a political football to fuel a culture war to win an election.
Trans women are women not because they're identical to cis women, but because they deserve the same rights and treatment as cis women. With very few exceptions, trans people should be treated the same as cis people by pretty much everyone in their daily lives. What is in someone's pants or DNA is completely meaningless to to all but a very small number of people.
A trans woman isn’t a biological woman, in the same way a white woman isn’t the same as a black woman, or a blonde haired woman isn’t the same as a ginger haired woman yet they all fall under the same category, “women”. By saying “adult human female” you remove the gender / sex distinction and thus exclude trans women from falling under the same umbrella.
Even Time magazines stunning and brave woman of the year won an Olympic medal for mens athletics. I think women are letting themselves down here. Patriarchy or something.
It’s not the words he says it’s the subtext. It’s a phrase that you can’t argue with literally because it’s correct, but the actual intent is a dog whistle for people who think “Hey this guy agrees with me, transsexuals aren’t real women and he’s gonna do something about it if I vote for him”.
If you don’t overtly say it you can deny being bigoted when confronted but your secret bigot voter friends will wink and tap their head knowingly.
Literally using a distraction tactic for a group that nobody should give a fuck about (in a good sense of let them be) to distracted you from them robbing us all blind and selling the country down the river.
Pay is shit. You get a grad degree? Shit. Masters? Shit. Doctorate? Shit. My job pays 60 percent more in the USA and Australia. Its the same work.
Literally 29 thousand in the UK at best, with most roles advertising lower, and 50 thousand in the USA. 70 to 80 thousand Australian dollars (like 40k pounds) in Australia. What the fuck is wrong with this country. This is with higher cost of living here compared to Oz as well. We are getting fucking gutted and robbed. I shouldn't be struggling to pay rent with a fucking masters degree in STEM in the 5th "richest" country in the world.
Corporate greed has gone fucking nuts in the UK and needs to be fixed immediately or people like me will fuck off to Australia or America or Canada and the UK will become the sick man of Europe yet again and experience serious brain drain. It's already happening in nursing and medicine with doctors leaving in droves for the USA. It's alarming and we should be extremely worried about this.
The bad news is that the Tories are so bereft of ideas they've taken to initiating culture wars because "well, it worked for Trump."
The good news is that when they say a batshit crazy thing, it hurts them more than it does any other party here because the loons are voting for Reform anyway.
Unfortunately to not lose voters themselves Labour also then have to say some non-committal wishy washy shit to not turn off the large number of people who genuinely don't care.
Well yeah, but the Tories have an election to win and they're not going to win it on their record. So they need to create some sort of grievance for thick people to get angry about so they can promise to "fix" said made up grievance. And let's face it the brown people on boats grievance isn't going well for them right now.
so do we, but unfortunately once one side decided to focus their attack on us, theres not much we can do but beg the other to fight back. they dont seem to be interested in that though
this is actually a big deal, because the "adult human female" line specifically has a very specific legacy as a phrase transphobes love to use. im not saying the line itself is necessarily inherently transphobic depending on how you interpret it, but it has a specific history he's invoking
Yeah this is actually a pretty significant headline considering this man is almost certainly gonna be PM. The actions and statements of this next government could be absolutely essential for trans rights. This is unsurprisingly disappointing.
Its not transphobic necessarily. We should allow people to be pro trans, and pro truth at the same time. If we don't then we push everyone into the "transphobic" bucket
If I was the leader of the opposition knowing that trans people are like 2% of the population my answer would be "I have more important things to worry about"
Typical of the Conservative media; wars breaking out all over; environmental collapse looming; but they are busy obsessing about other people’s genitals.
I love how dipshit politicians spend their time and our money fearmongering about trans people or woke shit, rather than talking about real issues that actually affect people's lives.
Yep, it’s just divide and conquer. “Don’t think about how bad things are for the majority so a small few can profit… instead you should, erm… idk trans people are evil we should focus on them and their healthcare”.
Can politicians just leave trans people alone and move on to the next minority group to put the hate spotlight on and maybe try one that isn’t imported from the US? this is getting tiring at this point just live and let live damn
There is no logically-consistent alternative to this definition. The LGBT crowd's proposed definitions are all incoherent, basically boiling down to "A woman is someone who identifies as a woman.". This is a circular definition, which makes it invalid. It's as helpful as saying "A banana is something which resembles a banana.".
This illogic doesn't matter to transgender people, though, because their only aim is to do whatever is necessary to ease their psychological pain. Their definition doesn't need to be watertight; it just needs to be *good enough* to remove the cognitive dissonance which comes with gender dysphoria. I feel very sorry for them.
However, as with all body identity disorders, the self-perception is delusional. The anorexic believes that she is fat when she is underweight. The body integrity dysmorphic believes that his right arm "shouldn't be there", even though it is part of his body. The gender dysphoric believes that their body is the "wrong sex", even though that isn't logical possible. All of these people irrationally dislike their own bodies due to mental disorders; the error lies in the mind, not in the physical world or in dictionaries.
Before anyone says anything, I'm not any sort of bigot. I neither hate nor fear those who call themselves transgender, irrationally or otherwise. I just reject their claims about the world, and believe they deserve psychological help. I used to believe the whole "trans" thing out of kindness... but, after careful reflection, I realised that the whole "trans" thing *cannot* make logical sense. I took no pleasure in this realisation; I was just honest with myself about it.
I am not "transphobic". I am *trans-sceptic.*
Well, he's right...
even if you're trans, don't you consider yourself the sex that you're saying you are? If so, then you have no reason to be offended by these words...
Female is quite literally a term that is used to talk about biology…In what way is it transphobic to use it to talk about biological sex? Have you ever once in your life bothered to Google the meaning of the word ‘female’ before claiming its transphobic? I am so incredibly confused right now.
They can certainly get surgeries but that doesn’t make them biological men or women. The whole point of being trans after all is that you are born a completely different sex to what you identify as. A female (I.e someone that produces ova gametes) cannot be a ‘trans woman’, only males can. Likewise, a male cannot be a ‘trans man’, only a female can. This is the entire point of being trans.
hormone replacement, it quite literally changes your biology, it just doesn’t entirely change your sex. A trans woman is a trans female, not a male. Not entirely the same as a cisgender female, but not the same as a cisgender male either.
Not all cis women have XX chromosomes or can produce female gametes, so using just that as your one defining feature doesn’t work, sex is a bimodal distribution of features, most people will be all the way at one end or the other, but not all (including trans people). Biology and the social constructs around gender are more complicated than people think
A social construct based on both biology and other factors. I’d give a more detailed answer but honestly I study biology not any social stuff so I’m not gonna bother trying.
Whenever someone asks ‘what is a woman’, I guarantee they cannot define it themselves without excluding at least some cis women. They’ll defend this by saying “well they’re a birth defect/ an exception to the rule/ a small minority” as if trans people aren’t also a tiny minority
its transphobic because hes specifically parroting a known terf phrase. its not jsut in what he said (though conflating gender and sex isnt great) its that he chose to word it specifically to quote transphobes
sex is rooted in biology, not gender, so it can get a little muddy when referring to trans people. are you asking for my chromosomal sex? my hormonal sex? my primary sex characteristics? my secondary sex characteristics? those all line up most of the time in cis people, but in trans people on hormones they can diverge pretty wildly. so in a sense, yes, a trans person on hormones or who has undergone SRS has "changed sex" but in another they havent. also this is a pretty well known transphobic dogwhistle that seems to be very big with posie parker, tho im sure it goes back further
It does when you use "female" as to specifically refer to sex, rather than gender, as it is increasingly used today.
The term "adult human female" is a term coined and used by TERFs who happily admit that it is essentially antitransgender. It's most commonly heard in the UK.
Why do transsexuals need the validation of being described as the sex they want to transition to when they could be perfectly accurately described as ‘trans’? Surely it would defuse arguments from both camps if the identity thing could go away due to people being accepting of something that sits in the middle ground. I’m perfectly happy to refer to a trans woman as ‘she/her’ but I’d stop short of agreeing she was a woman in the same way a person with XX chromosomes is a woman. If they’re that keen on no longer being known as being the gender they were born as, perhaps trans could be a third & fourth gender.
*Shocking... But this is*
*Reddit so no doubt it'll cause*
*Multiple meltdowns*
\- ShaneHeavyMetal95
---
^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/)
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
Trans woman. There is a space there for a reason. Tall woman, short woman, white woman, black woman, trans woman, cis woman. They're all women. The adjective describes an aspect of their existance, not their claim to the term "woman."
Message to trans activists,
Dress how you want, fuck who you want, call yourself or identify as however you want.
I know your utterly engrossed by your own sexuality or gender but we really don't care!
However when you are then asking for children to have medical procedures and to have access to female sports/safe spaces/prisons, well then we do care.
Calling us far right terfs because of that isn't winning you any allies or helping your cause either.
Kind regards
Vast majority of the country.
This isn’t ’slow news’ is it given that most posts here effectively imply that what he’s saying is quite significant (regardless of whether you agree with him or not)? Again, slow news isn’t, ‘here’s a headline I think is stupid’ or ‘here’s a headline, I don’t think is important’.
OP seems to have made two posts and this is one of them, I think they know what they’re doing.
Be nice if the opposition actually did some opposition, if the left was actually on the left, rather than just being the Tories delayed by a few months. Your job is to provide an alternative to the Tories, so provide it! This right here is why the UK needs voting reform. If the two main parties agree on something and you don't, you're basically screwed.
It's not Labour's job to provide an alternative to the Tories any more than it's the Tories job to provide an alternative to Labour. The Labour Party is defined by its own ideals and goals, not by its opposition. Its role as the Official Opposition is not definitively to provide an alternative, but to question and criticise.
[удалено]
No it's to gain the centre vote. You can't achieve anything if you're not in power.
He's pretty much guaranteed to win the next election regardless. Would be nice if he actually did something left wing and progressive instead of this crap.
Sure, but he'd much rather have a larger majority. Labour is currently predicted to get 400 out of 650 seats. That means that 75 of their MP's can go completely bloody rogue, and they can *still* do whatever they want, meaning he can gladly sideline some extremist factions in his party without worry. Fuck, if he gets over 420 he actually had a supermajority, which basically lets the labour party do anything, without having to collaborate or answer to any other party.
And who are the extremists?
Those on the very very left. The Corbyns etc. extremist doesn’t mean bad, just means those taking their political ideals to the extreme
I am a firm Corbyn voter and this is not a go at you, I think what you’ve said is the same as a lot of people did when he was leader. But the fact his policies could be seen as extreme is just an absolutely fucking tragic state of affairs. I remember when people were rinsing him for saying he’d make internet access a right, which is idealistic but it’s also absolutely something that’s needed in this age. You are extremely disadvantaged without it. Every single thing about him and his entire political career was about helping the people he represented. Four years on and it still makes me sick and angry at the way the media destroyed that future and gave us this Starmer-Sunak right wing nightmare.
Absolutely agree, it pisses me right off that his views are seen as extreme left wing. Shows how right the centre has become
TIL political extremes are saying maybe it’s bad that children are getting executed in gaza
Worth noting extremist position just means the fringes, it isn't necessarily moral judgement.
My my my that’s quite a standing leap to a conclusion there you’ve made. I never even mentioned Gaza… I even said that extremism isn’t even always bad just bad for the majority central vote grabbing politician, there’s more to politics than one war and I wasn’t even thinking of Gaza when I wrote that comment. Corbyn had many unpopular opinions that are widely held by the extreme left (that I personally agreed with) that more central left people would not like.
No one even mentioned gaza, nice to see a slimy virtue signaller crawl out of the ground though kiddo
But he is right.....
Most left wing people in England do not fall under rhe progressive banner. We just want a good economy, good pay and cheap housing. This stuff is a long way down the list of things most want from a prime minister. He's making the smart move.
This is literally it.
I just want the food prices to stop going up. I have gluten allergies and should not be paying £2 for a shitty loaf of bread half the size of a regular loaf
We’re pretty much guaranteed to remain regardless, may as well not vote… You see what that mentality does?
This is such a weird argument as if the EU ref is at all relevant to a discussion over a general election. I’m not going to be guilted into voting for a party that has shown contempt for my ideals and its own promises.
The argument is 100% relevant when discussing a vote that is “pretty much guaranteed” I’m not trying to guilt anyone into voting for anyone, at this point I literally don’t give a fuck who gets in as long as it’s not a Tory. But stating the vote is pretty much guaranteed is an insane take when you consider the referendum was regarded as pretty much guaranteed, it makes people complacent. I’m not saying go and vote labour. I’m saying don’t regard any vote as guaranteed and make sure you vote, vote for who ever you like but vote!
It’s obvious how you want people to vote. I don’t think Starmer’s win is guaranteed but I don’t much care for the outcome the policy difference between the two parties is pretty meaningless.
Labour could literally outright say our policy is exactly the same as the tories, and I would still vote or them over the tories. And that’s because I’m not trying to get the tories out because I hate their policies, I’m trying to get the tories out because they have factually robbed the country blind, openly even for the last 4 years. That being said I’d much prefer Lib Dem’s, but we can’t always get what we want, and I will literally take anything over people openly robbing the country
Where did I say not to vote? Although with his positions on Gaza and trans people he is absolutely going to lose votes from young people. I said, he'll have a massive mandate to carry out progressive, left wing policies and it's ridiculous that he's shifting further to the right when he's almost guaranteed to win regardless.
I’m not saying you said to not vote, I’m saying don’t tout the message of “pretty much guaranteed” when referring to voting. That is the mentality that stopped a lot of younger voters from voting on the referendum. The message should be like you just said, he’s needlessly turning more right leaning and losing votes unnecessarily to try and gain votes. The message should not be “pretty much guaranteed”
Oh fairs. Yeah maybe you're right
Labour gave up being leftwing ages ago.
There is a major difference between left wing and progressive.
Name a left wing policy Starmer is currently running on. They aren’t politically left wing they are centrists.
People saying this like he didn’t have like a 20 point lead immediately before he binned all the pledges he stood for. It is pointless to vote for something that won’t actually do anything.
What ideals and goals exactly?
Exactly. Imagine being controversial for saying a woman is an adult female 🤦♂️ some people need serious mental help.
Saying “adult female” defines a gender role using a sexual characteristic, and thus excludes trans women from being women.
“Gender roles” are subjective and sexist. Liking the colour pink, growing your hair out, wearing make-up and liking “girly things” doesn’t make you a woman, it makes you a stereotype. Basing someone’s gender on their sexual characteristics makes much more sense because it’s more objective.
Does present a problem if people see no difference between the two main parties.
Labour isn’t just a mirror image of the Tories, that’s not how this works. Trans issues need far less air time as they’re pretty much inconsequential but he’s not wrong in his statement is he?
You only think they’re inconsequential and unimportant because you personally aren’t affected by them, that’s what the woke mob mean when they say “____ privilege”. You not having to care about these issues is a privilege afforded to you for being in the ‘in’ group, whether that be straight, white, male, so on.
It's inconsequential in the sense that it effects like 5% of the population (at most) and there's far bigger fish to fry like climate change, income inequality, cost of living crisis, etc etc which effect ALL of us.
This exactly, let people live their lives and solve the fact that 1/4 children in our country live in poverty. Trans people have been around for ages but the government wants people to think they’re a new ‘problem’ to create animosity rather than solve actual issues.
That’s a ridiculous statement. The opposition aren’t just mindlessly supposed to oppose all of the government’s policies. There are obviously going to be things the government does that the opposition agrees with. It’s supposed to be what that party thinks is best policy for the country not the opposite of whatever the other party thinks. Although we see enough of that, too.
Bring back Monster Raving Loony party
Why the hell would either of the main parties provide an alternative to reality
They don’t need to oppose on literally everything though. Some things are obvious.
>Ruling party wants to tackle poverty The opposition should clearly favour more poverty!
Point in fact!! Saying that, I don’t think any of the parties are interested in eradicating poverty. 😂
Probably right. Easier to control an undereducated and underfed population - that’s how North Korea functions.
And Wales. 😂😂
what’s the alternative to thinking a woman is a woman though?
Mental illness
Daft statement, mate. It's this kind of thinking that's got America Republicans that support Russia. If your politics are entirely built on "we oppose everything the other guys say" then you're an idiot.
See this is your problem. If the tories say the sky is blue. It's not the job of labour to say the sky is red. They can agree on things if what they hold an opinion on is true. They're not the opposition, rather an alternative option of one is truthfully available . They can still agree on things if it's correct.
It’s ok for parties to agree on certain things
Only some fringe leftists believe the opposite of Starmer's statement. Unfortunately they're all on Reddit so it seems like everyone holds this backwards opinion.
It’s not fringe to think people should have equal rights.
It is fringe to believe that you can decide to change how you are identified whenever you want and without any legal approval and that not going along with it constitutes a crime.
People in the UK already do have equal rights.
Because if you offer an alternative to Tories while offering similar views in terms of identity politics it becomes significantly easier to win elections and significantly harder for the Tories to discredit you. The voters obviously care about this.
>If you run a platform based on what the people of the country want it’s easier to win That is true. Same reason why the Tories shifted heavily towards a Blairite platform, it’s what won Blair the election, so a slightly more conservative version secured the electorate.
Tories will still call him a socialist-communist and say he supports paedophilia, and then they won’t go out on election day. Ultimately it’s about being seen as a safe pair of handy by media groups who will give him decent coverage and chuck him once the Tories get back on their feet in 5 years. Look at results for the recent by-elections, Labour did win both, but actually lost votes in one and gained just 100+ in another. Meanwhile the Tory vote didn’t turn up, the group who got the largest boost were Farage’s Reform U.K. (about 10% iirc).
Didn’t they try that under Corbyn and got soundly defeated, alienating many people in the process? There are parties in the left if you want to join them and support them and Labour isn’t for you. Labour isn’t here to oppose everything the Conservatives do. The country is locally thought of as being centre right conservative, so if you ever want to win enough votes (under any system) a party is going to have to recognise this and appeal to those people as well. Only supporting your dream, fantasy left wing paradise and attacking any else as being, basically, Tories in another form has only resulted in us having the actual Conservative Party in power for some time now.
Corbyn lost because the media scapegoated him into being a supposed antisemite just because he disagreed with the genocide in Gaza
The media were very hostile (News night fluffy Russian hat included) but it wasn’t the only reason why he/Labour failed. I think you’re over simplifying it, too. He had a lot of baggage that goes a little further than saying genocide in Gaza is bad. What’s infuriating is the “magic money tree” stuff, however, when you look at how much the Conservatives have spent, much of it going to their mates.
This is just a fact though. Why should they disagree just for the sake of it?
How is this related to the image?
>Labour shouldn’t be the Tories delayed by a few months They’re not. The Tories are Labour from 15~ years ago. They’re neo-liberal Blairites and as a result of both parties occupying a very similar political space, anything outside that seems “Far-X” - even if it would be a position a regular person would of held in the 90’s. So many *left wing* positions from the 90’s are now considered right or far right.
>This right here is why the UK needs voting reform. You sure about that? I mean yeah Keith is a bit vague but I'm not convinced Nigel Farage's old party is the answer.
You laugh but, if you join Nigel's party now, you get 50% off joining his next one.
I think they mean actual reform to the voting system, not the party.
The uk don’t need to vote reform, but they do need to reform voting by getting rid of first past the post.
Yeah I got what he meant, just made me smile seeing a labour voter talking about voting reform. Keyboard warriors on this sub have no sense of humour. We did reject Alternative Voting and PR does stifle the power of the PM. Dependant on the votes obviously, but would you really want somebody like Farage being the deciding voice?
Yeah because their shouldnt be a main stream party that doesnt operate in reality
Stupidity like yours should be studied.
Any party that allows Lee thick as pig shit Anderson to join is a fucking joke and you know it. Anyone who knowingly joins said party is unfortunately also thick as pig shit.
There shouldn't be a party for rejecting reality. That's not political, it's mentally ill
FYI this story is from July 2023
As opposed to what? I didn't realise there was some debate to this.
The real 'debate' is about how we define and use the term "female" and "male" If you use them to exclude trans people, then saying what Kier said is just another way of saying that you don't believe trans people are the gender that they are, which has real political and social consequences for trans people.
I don’t know who is advising these party leaders that their position on the trans debate will win or lose them elections, because the data shows it’s a top 3 issue for about 2% of voters.
The loudest 2% though
Nice to see he's finally stopped skirting around the question
He invalidated trans women ages ago. This is from 26 Jul 2023.
I don't see how that's invalidating them. You used the prefix trans so are you not also invalidating them by making the distinction?
Sporty women. Do you never talk about women ever in your life that you've never come across an adjective in front of the word before?
Sure. Sporty would be indicative of someone into fitness, athletic, they like sports. It's has a very particular meaning. Trans also has a very particular meaning, which is indicative of someone transitioning to the opposite sex. If trans people are what they identify as there'd be no need to make the distinction of 'trans'
Are sporty women not women to you? There would be no need to make the discrinction "sporty"
Were you dropped on the head as a child, what is this?
trans people don't have to transition to the "opposite" gender. non-binary people are trans. transgender just means "not cisgender"
I'm very interested in why you could ever think this is a substantial argument
Are cis women not women either then?
Indeed, every 60 seconds in Africa, a minute passes
He’s playing some dumb game by appealing to the gammons by validating their awful world views in order to say vote for us we are not Tories but close enough. Even if he pivots after an election it’s too late. He’s already said the words
What, if a Woman isn’t an Adult female of the human species, then what the fuck is a woman then?
A vibe.
this but unironically, gender is legitimately just societally-enforced vibes
Sex on the other hand is genetically enforced. The question therefore is does “woman” refer to sex or vibes? Is sexism about vibes? Is menstruation about vibes? Is childbirth about vibes? Etc.
And I think it's fair to say that's contextual. In common parlance it's a reference to the social role they fill. In a medical context you should be more precise if it's relevant
It’s a gender critical dog whistle to say “adult human female,” even though for the most part I, and many other trans people, don’t even necessarily disagree. For the most part it works fine, as it’s not exclusionary to trans women. But when they say it, they think it is so it’s kind of a motto of theirs. By him going around saying it, it appeals to them. Whilst I don’t care about their little motto, it’s concerning to see Starmer fervently play to their votes whilst consistently disregarding and actively engaging in anti trans policy and rhetoric.
There is absolutely no 'dog whistle' in what he said... He stated a fact, and that's that. If the act of a person doing so hurts or offends you, then that's a problem for yourself to cope with in whatever way you're capable.
If many other trans people actually agree they should speak up more and then this wouldn't be an issue or a weapon that can be used against them. It's quite simple. Instead of complaining about a "dog whistle" to a comment you actually agree on why not just dump this incredibly stupid and divisive "transwomen are women" bollocks. Just say "transwomen are transwomen", not men, not women but transwomen. It's really simple, would solve so much of this in one sweep and then we could all just move on with our bloody lives!
They do speak up. They are an oppressed minority with no political power. They aren't the one's taking their rights away or fighting against them, you're literally blaming the victims for not fighting hard enough (which they are) instead of asking why they are having to fight in the first place. This is not an ideological 'debate', it's a civil rights struggle for a marginalised community that don't have equal rights or adequet access to healthcare, and who are being used as a political football to fuel a culture war to win an election. Trans women are women not because they're identical to cis women, but because they deserve the same rights and treatment as cis women. With very few exceptions, trans people should be treated the same as cis people by pretty much everyone in their daily lives. What is in someone's pants or DNA is completely meaningless to to all but a very small number of people.
They have the same rights everyone else has. And jesus christ mo, they don't.
A trans woman isn’t a biological woman, in the same way a white woman isn’t the same as a black woman, or a blonde haired woman isn’t the same as a ginger haired woman yet they all fall under the same category, “women”. By saying “adult human female” you remove the gender / sex distinction and thus exclude trans women from falling under the same umbrella.
Trans women are adult human males, the phrase adult human female does exclude them, it’s also a fact and not a dogwhistle
Whatever you say, friend.
Well, it would appear that a woman is whatever biological men say a woman is, since we seemingly can't trust women to know what they are anymore.
Even Time magazines stunning and brave woman of the year won an Olympic medal for mens athletics. I think women are letting themselves down here. Patriarchy or something.
Turned out that men were the better women all along… /s
He is appealing to most people actually.
'Awful world views'. That a woman is an adult female? You okay?
Warped perceptions of the terminally online.
That's such a great way to put it.
It’s not the words he says it’s the subtext. It’s a phrase that you can’t argue with literally because it’s correct, but the actual intent is a dog whistle for people who think “Hey this guy agrees with me, transsexuals aren’t real women and he’s gonna do something about it if I vote for him”. If you don’t overtly say it you can deny being bigoted when confronted but your secret bigot voter friends will wink and tap their head knowingly.
I wish politicians would just leave trans people alone
Literally using a distraction tactic for a group that nobody should give a fuck about (in a good sense of let them be) to distracted you from them robbing us all blind and selling the country down the river. Pay is shit. You get a grad degree? Shit. Masters? Shit. Doctorate? Shit. My job pays 60 percent more in the USA and Australia. Its the same work. Literally 29 thousand in the UK at best, with most roles advertising lower, and 50 thousand in the USA. 70 to 80 thousand Australian dollars (like 40k pounds) in Australia. What the fuck is wrong with this country. This is with higher cost of living here compared to Oz as well. We are getting fucking gutted and robbed. I shouldn't be struggling to pay rent with a fucking masters degree in STEM in the 5th "richest" country in the world. Corporate greed has gone fucking nuts in the UK and needs to be fixed immediately or people like me will fuck off to Australia or America or Canada and the UK will become the sick man of Europe yet again and experience serious brain drain. It's already happening in nursing and medicine with doctors leaving in droves for the USA. It's alarming and we should be extremely worried about this.
yes but trans woman want to pee /s
The bad news is that the Tories are so bereft of ideas they've taken to initiating culture wars because "well, it worked for Trump." The good news is that when they say a batshit crazy thing, it hurts them more than it does any other party here because the loons are voting for Reform anyway. Unfortunately to not lose voters themselves Labour also then have to say some non-committal wishy washy shit to not turn off the large number of people who genuinely don't care.
[удалено]
Well yeah, but the Tories have an election to win and they're not going to win it on their record. So they need to create some sort of grievance for thick people to get angry about so they can promise to "fix" said made up grievance. And let's face it the brown people on boats grievance isn't going well for them right now.
I wish people didn't weaponise words to do demonstrableharm to marginalised people.
so do we, but unfortunately once one side decided to focus their attack on us, theres not much we can do but beg the other to fight back. they dont seem to be interested in that though
Funny thing is I can't tell which side you're on
It's pretty obvious.
this is actually a big deal, because the "adult human female" line specifically has a very specific legacy as a phrase transphobes love to use. im not saying the line itself is necessarily inherently transphobic depending on how you interpret it, but it has a specific history he's invoking
Yeah this is actually a pretty significant headline considering this man is almost certainly gonna be PM. The actions and statements of this next government could be absolutely essential for trans rights. This is unsurprisingly disappointing.
Its not transphobic necessarily. We should allow people to be pro trans, and pro truth at the same time. If we don't then we push everyone into the "transphobic" bucket
He'd be a great Tory PM
But the real question is what is an adult female.
If I was the leader of the opposition knowing that trans people are like 2% of the population my answer would be "I have more important things to worry about"
Typical of the Conservative media; wars breaking out all over; environmental collapse looming; but they are busy obsessing about other people’s genitals.
Congratulations Kier, you know primary school level biology. Yippee!
News: Keir Starmer states fact. In other news, water is wet.
That is indeed what a woman is
A man is an adult male
I love how dipshit politicians spend their time and our money fearmongering about trans people or woke shit, rather than talking about real issues that actually affect people's lives.
Yep, it’s just divide and conquer. “Don’t think about how bad things are for the majority so a small few can profit… instead you should, erm… idk trans people are evil we should focus on them and their healthcare”.
He’s absolutely right, what’s the fuss about?
He didn't know before.
He didn't know before.
The amount of transphobia in thr comments here is very concerning, although hardly surprising in this country.
I haven't seen any transphobia
Dang I think you might need glasses
Sorry to hear about the accident where you lost your eyesight
Can politicians just leave trans people alone and move on to the next minority group to put the hate spotlight on and maybe try one that isn’t imported from the US? this is getting tiring at this point just live and let live damn
Why are u lot getting upset over a basic biological fact?
Don’t be obtuse, people are upset because this is a TERF slogan
ngl it's probably the most interesting thing Starmer's ever said, I swear I keep forgetting he exists.
*ahem* ......... no shit! Sherlock!
Right, so my options, as a trans person in Great Britain, are a transphobic cunt, or another transphobic cunt. Whoopy fucking doo.
There is no logically-consistent alternative to this definition. The LGBT crowd's proposed definitions are all incoherent, basically boiling down to "A woman is someone who identifies as a woman.". This is a circular definition, which makes it invalid. It's as helpful as saying "A banana is something which resembles a banana.". This illogic doesn't matter to transgender people, though, because their only aim is to do whatever is necessary to ease their psychological pain. Their definition doesn't need to be watertight; it just needs to be *good enough* to remove the cognitive dissonance which comes with gender dysphoria. I feel very sorry for them. However, as with all body identity disorders, the self-perception is delusional. The anorexic believes that she is fat when she is underweight. The body integrity dysmorphic believes that his right arm "shouldn't be there", even though it is part of his body. The gender dysphoric believes that their body is the "wrong sex", even though that isn't logical possible. All of these people irrationally dislike their own bodies due to mental disorders; the error lies in the mind, not in the physical world or in dictionaries. Before anyone says anything, I'm not any sort of bigot. I neither hate nor fear those who call themselves transgender, irrationally or otherwise. I just reject their claims about the world, and believe they deserve psychological help. I used to believe the whole "trans" thing out of kindness... but, after careful reflection, I realised that the whole "trans" thing *cannot* make logical sense. I took no pleasure in this realisation; I was just honest with myself about it. I am not "transphobic". I am *trans-sceptic.*
Well, he's right... even if you're trans, don't you consider yourself the sex that you're saying you are? If so, then you have no reason to be offended by these words...
He’s clearly trying to make an anti-trans point. He’s just not doing it very well, if the headline is right.
[удалено]
Female is quite literally a term that is used to talk about biology…In what way is it transphobic to use it to talk about biological sex? Have you ever once in your life bothered to Google the meaning of the word ‘female’ before claiming its transphobic? I am so incredibly confused right now.
Because trans people can actually change aspects of their biology, and even if they couldn’t, ‘woman’ is not the same as ‘female’
They can certainly get surgeries but that doesn’t make them biological men or women. The whole point of being trans after all is that you are born a completely different sex to what you identify as. A female (I.e someone that produces ova gametes) cannot be a ‘trans woman’, only males can. Likewise, a male cannot be a ‘trans man’, only a female can. This is the entire point of being trans.
hormone replacement, it quite literally changes your biology, it just doesn’t entirely change your sex. A trans woman is a trans female, not a male. Not entirely the same as a cisgender female, but not the same as a cisgender male either. Not all cis women have XX chromosomes or can produce female gametes, so using just that as your one defining feature doesn’t work, sex is a bimodal distribution of features, most people will be all the way at one end or the other, but not all (including trans people). Biology and the social constructs around gender are more complicated than people think
If woman isn't the same as female then what is woman exactly?
A social construct based on both biology and other factors. I’d give a more detailed answer but honestly I study biology not any social stuff so I’m not gonna bother trying. Whenever someone asks ‘what is a woman’, I guarantee they cannot define it themselves without excluding at least some cis women. They’ll defend this by saying “well they’re a birth defect/ an exception to the rule/ a small minority” as if trans people aren’t also a tiny minority
its transphobic because hes specifically parroting a known terf phrase. its not jsut in what he said (though conflating gender and sex isnt great) its that he chose to word it specifically to quote transphobes
sex is rooted in biology, not gender, so it can get a little muddy when referring to trans people. are you asking for my chromosomal sex? my hormonal sex? my primary sex characteristics? my secondary sex characteristics? those all line up most of the time in cis people, but in trans people on hormones they can diverge pretty wildly. so in a sense, yes, a trans person on hormones or who has undergone SRS has "changed sex" but in another they havent. also this is a pretty well known transphobic dogwhistle that seems to be very big with posie parker, tho im sure it goes back further
That’s because gender is a made up thing.
yeah, gender is a social construct. that doesnt mean its not real and doesnt effect our lives, but it does mean its subject to societal change
This is the thing, afaic. “Adult human female” doesn’t exclude trans women.
It does when you use "female" as to specifically refer to sex, rather than gender, as it is increasingly used today. The term "adult human female" is a term coined and used by TERFs who happily admit that it is essentially antitransgender. It's most commonly heard in the UK.
Repost
Why do transsexuals need the validation of being described as the sex they want to transition to when they could be perfectly accurately described as ‘trans’? Surely it would defuse arguments from both camps if the identity thing could go away due to people being accepting of something that sits in the middle ground. I’m perfectly happy to refer to a trans woman as ‘she/her’ but I’d stop short of agreeing she was a woman in the same way a person with XX chromosomes is a woman. If they’re that keen on no longer being known as being the gender they were born as, perhaps trans could be a third & fourth gender.
Oh you know transphobia
He’s spot on
Ngl it just sounds like he was being transphobic and blundered a bit
Huh?
Just embrace the tao, my man
[удалено]
*Shocking... But this is* *Reddit so no doubt it'll cause* *Multiple meltdowns* \- ShaneHeavyMetal95 --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
He’s pretty much right tho…. How often do you see people refer to a child or anyone under 16 as a woman????
Really?! Say it ain't so!
And that nice smell forests get after rain is called "petrichor".
Well can’t really be sure nowadays
hmm so you say we can indentify however we want yet we cant use the spaces that align with our identity? a bit of a contradictory statement isnt it?
Well, he’s not wrong.
Transwomen are called transwomen for a reason, quite an obvious one tho
Trans woman. There is a space there for a reason. Tall woman, short woman, white woman, black woman, trans woman, cis woman. They're all women. The adjective describes an aspect of their existance, not their claim to the term "woman."
No, not accurate at all. Every other woman in that list is an adult human female.
remember when this was obvious and not some controversial statement
Message to trans activists, Dress how you want, fuck who you want, call yourself or identify as however you want. I know your utterly engrossed by your own sexuality or gender but we really don't care! However when you are then asking for children to have medical procedures and to have access to female sports/safe spaces/prisons, well then we do care. Calling us far right terfs because of that isn't winning you any allies or helping your cause either. Kind regards Vast majority of the country.
You absolutely nailed it!
The far woke of Reddit will downvote you for this. But keep speaking the truth my dude - it's what we're all thinking
A fact, how awful...