Mick Hartley

This is why Keir Starmer will likely never be Prime Minister:

Sir Keir Starmer said that “trans women are women” as he called for a more “respectful” debate on transgender issues.

The Labour leader called for reform of gender recognition laws to introduce greater “respect and dignity” for transgender people after two of his shadow cabinet ministers struggled this week to define what a woman was.

Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, said that she did not want to go down the “rabbit hole” of a definition, while Anneliese Dodds, the shadow women and equalities minister, pointed to the range of different definitions in a variety of contexts.

Asked to define a woman, Starmer replied: “A woman is a female adult, and in addition to that trans women are women, and that is not just my view — that is actually the law. It has been the law through the combined effects of the 2004 [Gender Recognition] Act and the 2010 [Equality] Act. So that’s my view. It also happens to be the law in the United Kingdom.”

The man has clearly stepped to provide a leader's statement, putting an end to all the recent fuss about about Labour not being able to define "woman". This now is the definitive official Labour Party view, as laid down by the man in charge – "trans women are women".

But is "trans women are women" the law in the UK? Not according to the Legal Feminist:

The short answer is no: the law doesn’t define the terms “transwoman” or “trans woman” at all. 

The Gender Recognition Act 2004 does change some people’s legal sex. Obviously the law can’t change anyone’s biological sex. The fact that the law can’t mess with material reality is the point Canute was making when he forbade the tide to come in. But section 9 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 has the effect that some trans women (i.e. the very small number who hold a GRC – only a few thousand to date) are deemed for most legal purposes to be women, although exceptions apply.

The Equality Act 2010 forbids discrimination (in various different contexts) on grounds of gender reassignment. That means that in those contexts where the Act has effect (employment, provision of public services, education etc.), it’s mostly unlawful to treat a person less favourably than you’d treat other people because they are proposing to undergo, are undergoing or have undergone “a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person’s sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.”  If a person is somewhere on that path, it doesn’t matter whether they’ve got a GRC or not: they’re entitled anyway not to suffer discrimination on grounds of gender reassignment. There are some necessary exceptions, but in general it’s obviously right that there should be a legal prohibition against discrimination on this ground.

But it’s important to note that that doesn’t mean that trans women are entitled to be treated for all purposes as if they were biological women. If a trans woman who doesn’t have a GRC wants to access a female-only space, and is refused access, that’s not discrimination on grounds of gender reassignment, but discrimination on grounds of sex. She’s refused access not because she’s trans, but because she’s both legally and biologically male. That means she can lawfully be refused access any time it’s lawful at all to have a female-only space. In my view, it also means she almost certainly should be refused access in those circumstances. That’s because it’s only lawful at all to provide a single-sex space or service if there’s a good reason for sex segregation; but if trans women are admitted, it will cease to be a single-sex space.

If a trans woman who does have a GRC wants to access a female-only space or service, it’s still likely to be lawful to refuse, because of the exceptions that apply to prohibitions on discrimination on grounds of gender reassignment.

In short, the Equality Act does recognise that although sex is usually a bad and arbitrary reason for treating people differently, there are contexts in which biological sex matters.

So, basically..no, it's not law that trans women are women, except in a very restricted sense. 

But back to the Starmer article:

Plans developed under Theresa May could have seen reforms that allowed transgender people to achieve legal recognition of their gender based on self-declaration, removing the requirement for a medical diagnosis. Boris Johnson’s government in 2020 did not go ahead with self-identification.

The devolved Scottish government has proposed changes that would not require a medical diagnosis. Some campaigners say that they would affect the provision of single-sex services or women-only spaces.

Asked about the Scottish government’s plans, Starmer replied: “The Gender Recognition Act needs to be reformed. And I believe in safe spaces for women — I’m very clear about those too. I think the 2004 act needs to be reformed, I think the 2010 act, the Equality Act, which does provide for safe spaces for women is right. And therefore I’m very straightforward about this.”

But what does he mean by "women" here? If trans women really are women, as he claims to believe, then safe spaces for women will include trans women. But the whole point of the call for safe spaces for women is that these should be safe spaces for biological women, avoiding cases like that of rapist and self-proclaimed trans woman Karen White, placed in a women’s prison. Either he's talking nonsense about women's safe spaces, or he's admitting that no, really, trans women aren't women.

He called for a “more considered, respectful, tolerant debate about these issues”. Starmer added: “I don’t think it furthers the interests of anybody to continue the debate in the way that it’s been going on now for some time.”

Transgender rows have flared within the party periodically in recent years.

Rosie Duffield, the Labour MP for Canterbury, said that she felt unable to attend the annual party conference because of her views. Duffield, who denies being transphobic, believes there should be protected spaces that are not open to those who are biologically male. She was criticised last year after supporting those who opposed using the phrase “individuals with a cervix” instead of “women”.

Starmer said at the time the claim that only women had cervixes was “something that shouldn’t be said”. He added that the government needed to “go further” to protect trans people, who were “amongst the most marginalised and abused communities”.

Again with the nonsense. There's no evidence that trans people are “amongst the most marginalised and abused communities", despite the unceasing victimhood claims of trans activists. And as for a “more considered, respectful, tolerant debate", the abuse – "kill terfs", "suck my trans dick", death threats to JK Rowling – come entirely from one side. Or hasn't Starmer noticed?

[As I've noted before, it's standard practice now in the Times that any articles which touch on the gender debate have the comments turned off. The same applies to Sarah Ditum's piece today – What is a woman? Don’t try asking Labour: "Shadow ministers are living in Wonderland if they think they can go on ignoring the reality lived by half the population." Have they been got at by Stonewall? Is Rupert Murdoch a sudden late transitioner? It's frankly something of a fucking disgrace.]