Sir Keir Starmer says it's 'Not right to say only women have a cervix', I say this is literally madness...

Danllan · Sep 26, 2021

To be in total denial of an obvious and demonstrable truth is as good a definition as one can need to classify a person as not being in touch with reality. This isn't a political preference, or something else in which a personal opinion is clearly that and no more; it is someone who aspires to being our Prime Minister and who is disputing an entirely indisputable fact. I support the Tories for now, no surprise there, but I've written before - many times now - we need a credible opposition, and this isn't and can't be it.

I've just had a chat with a Labour friend of mine - proper Labour - who may well be an MP after the next General Election. He happens to be a doctor, but that is irrelevant to the fact that he and many others are exasperated and frustrated to near breaking point with this sort of stupidity in their party. What possible hope is there for credible Opposition - and therefore better government - when this sort of thing is the current political reality?

Labour conference: Not right to say only women have a cervix, says Starmer

The Labour leader calls for "mature, respectful debate" over trans rights after MP's comments.

www.bbc.co.uk

BrianV · Sep 26, 2021

Common sense left the Labour Party when Corbyn was made leader & there is little chance of that changing any time soon, sad for our country isn’t it!

Swarfmonkey · Sep 26, 2021

Pissing off 51% of the population (women) to keep 0.0001% of it (the trans lot) happy isn't really the smartest of moves for Starmer.

teslacoils · Sep 26, 2021

He's a dick. Plp stooge. Just wait for the Burnham & Rayner Show once the "choice of the champagne socialists" gets panned at the polls.

As usual, BBC have laminated pictures of him in their toss-bank.

stewart · Sep 26, 2021

teslacoils said:
He's a dick. Plp stooge. Just wait for the Burnham & Rayner Show once the "choice of the champagne socialists" gets panned at the polls.

As usual, BBC have laminated pictures of him in their toss-bank.

How can you say he is a dick in the gender neutral world we live in? I would agree that the genitalia is a perfect way to describe him, but in the interests of equality I would use either gender.

teslacoils · Sep 26, 2021

stewart said:
How can you say he is a dick in the gender neutral world we live in? I would agree that the genitalia is a perfect way to describe him, but in the interests of equality I would use either gender.

Denying my gender is a breech of my human rights.

He is a complete penis.

M-J-G · Sep 27, 2021

I really am finding reality highly unimaginable these days.

HatsOff · Sep 27, 2021

Ugh, this confused me no end. Had to ask someone who knew. Basically, it's the difference between 'female' and 'woman'. There's all other issues with the Equalities Act and Gender Recognition laws with dubious (and misleading) tactics on both sides. Overall I think trans people have had the worst of it and are treated in a dehumanising way sometimes.

Honestly, politicians do need to word things correctly and as individuals we need to just treat people with kindness and respect. Luke 6:31 and all that.

Bongodog · Sep 27, 2021

Starmer is a career lawyer, he and his ilk would argue black were white if someone was paying them. Who knows what he truly believes in on any subject, he's a piece of long grass that leans according to which way the wind is blowing

Highland Mule · Sep 27, 2021

Danllan said:
who is disputing an entirely indisputable fact.

Context is everything.

I don't think he was, but that comes down to what he meant by 'right'. Replace the word 'right' with 'appropriate' and you have the context he was meaning, I think, and one that is not as cut and dried as you're suggesting. Replace 'right' with 'factually correct' though, and I'd agree with you that he got it wrong.

'Not appropriate to say only women have a cervix' - perhaps debateable.

'Not factually correct to say only women have a cervix' - no debate needed.

Agrivator · Sep 27, 2021

Highland Mule said:
Context is everything.

I don't think he was, but that comes down to what he meant by 'right'. Replace the word 'right' with 'appropriate' and you have the context he was meaning, I think, and one that is not as cut and dried as you're suggesting. Replace 'right' with 'factually correct' though, and I'd agree with you that he got it wrong.

'Not appropriate to say only women have a cervix' - perhaps debateable.
'Not factually correct to say only women have a cervix' - no debate needed.

To be gender neutral, I regard some folk as a bit of a Tit.

arcobob · Sep 27, 2021

All barking up the wrong tree. Cervix means neck and we all have one, some more than others.

Danllan · Sep 27, 2021

Highland Mule said:
Context is everything.

I don't think he was, but that comes down to what he meant by 'right'. Replace the word 'right' with 'appropriate' and you have the context he was meaning, I think, and one that is not as cut and dried as you're suggesting. Replace 'right' with 'factually correct' though, and I'd agree with you that he got it wrong.

'Not appropriate to say only women have a cervix' - perhaps debateable.
'Not factually correct to say only women have a cervix' - no debate needed.

Hmm, interesting take on it, big defender of the Brexit bus and its slogan are you?

He knew what he was saying, he chose his words, and he knew how they would be taken.

Highland Mule · Sep 27, 2021

Danllan said:
Hmm, interesting take on it, big defender of the Brexit bus and its slogan are you?

He knew what he was saying, he chose his words, and he knew how they would be taken.

I haven't seen any VT to know the context, just know that those that want to take offence will do so, whenever they can (and you appear to have done so, from your OP).

Are you right to do so though? I wouldn't like to say.

Jsmith2211 · Sep 27, 2021

load of rubbish, but what do you expect from labour... surprised keir starmer didnt do the whole thing on one knee to "show solidarity"

Danllan · Sep 27, 2021

Highland Mule said:
I haven't seen any VT to know the context, just know that those that want to take offence will do so, whenever they can (and you appear to have done so, from your OP).

Are you right to do so though? I wouldn't like to say.

Not offended, revolted and also exasperated, there is a clear difference. Am I right to feel those regarding this? Stupid question, if people genuinely feel something it is right for them to say so should they wish to.

To pretend a feeling, offence or whatever, can range from pointless and daft to despicable, depending on context. I have no doubt that there are many who do feign offence as both a political tool and to be seen doing so, virtue flagging in the vernacular. I don't pretend how I feel in real life or on here, and am sufficiently confident and happy to express myself regarding any given matter.

For the record, I think freedom of expression is an inalienable right and, within certain obvious parameters - one example being the banning of child pornography - I do not think that my being offended by something is a good enough reason for anybody else to be restricted regarding sharing it, still less to think it. And I hold the reciprocal to be true too.

Jsmith2211 · Sep 27, 2021

Danllan said:
Not offended, revolted and also exasperated, there is a clear difference. Am I right to feel those regarding this? Stupid question, if people genuinely feel something it is right for them to say so should they wish to.

To pretend a feeling, offence or whatever, can range from pointless and daft to despicable, depending on context. I have no doubt that there are many who do feign offence as both a political tool and to be seen doing so, virtue flagging in the vernacular. I don't pretend how I feel in real life or on here, and am sufficiently confident and happy to express myself regarding any given matter.

For the record, I think freedom of expression is an inalienable right and, within certain obvious parameters - one example being the banning of child pornography - I do not think that my being offended by something is a good enough reason for anybody else to be restricted regarding sharing it, still less to think it. And I hold the reciprocal to be true too.

police be round soon arresting you for saying that.

Highland Mule · Sep 27, 2021

Danllan said:
Not offended, revolted and also exasperated, there is a clear difference.

Indeed and I didn't write that you were, just that you appeared to be.

Danllan said:
Am I right to feel those regarding this?

I'd say not, (certainly the revolt) based on the transcripts but not the VT. As all these things, context is everything and I don't see Keir having been "in total denial of an obvious and demonstrable truth".

Danllan said:
For the record, I think freedom of expression is an inalienable right and, within certain obvious parameters - one example being the banning of child pornography - I do not think that my being offended by something is a good enough reason for anybody else to be restricted regarding sharing it, still less to think it. And I hold the reciprocal to be true too.

Agreed, but equally so, I think it is important to have respect for others, and sometimes discretion is the right thing, which is perhaps what Keir was indicating.

Danllan · Sep 27, 2021

Highland Mule said:
...Agreed, but equally so, I think it is important to have respect for others, and sometimes discretion is the right thing, which is perhaps what Keir was indicating.

That certainly could be a way or taking what he 'said', but... it is a one-way discretionary caution, since he said nothing that could be in any way interpreted as letting the trannies know he thinks it would be diplomatic - let alone reasonable - to not keep telling women a) what they are, and b) how they may be classed and term themselves. For myself, I care not one jot what any consenting adult wants to do or does within the law; but I object entirely to being told that I may not express myself as I see fit on the basis of having exercised my critical faculties.

Without irrefutable scientific evidence to the contrary, I do not, will not and can not regard them as women / men as appropriate according to direction of change, but as transsexuals. Provide such evidence and I will accept it, but it hasn't been adduced yet, and for good reason. I don't dislike these people, look down on them or think them 'inferior' in any absolute way because of their situation. But that doesn't mean I accept that e.g. someone born a man ever has been or ever can be a 'woman' outside of his own mind.

I do not accept that surgery or, still less, mere self identification will or even can make someone something they are manifestly not, nor any more than an imitation of it and which all evidence indicates them to be the opposite of. And I will not pretend otherwise or submit to censorship seeking the advancement of such a view and the necessary thought-policing requisite for it.

So, for me, trannies can call themselves whatever they wish and express themselves similarly. But I shall remain as regarding them as rather unfortunate individuals who have very great physio-psychological problems which they attempt, at least in part, to reconcile themselves to by trying to make others 'buy into' a wholly irrational - sometimes even perverted - view of sex, gender etc..

M-J-G · Sep 28, 2021

I really am finding reality highl unimaginable these days.

Bongodog said:
Starmer is a career lawyer, he and his ilk would argue black were white if someone was paying them. Who knows what he truly believes in on any subject, he's a piece of long grass that leans according to which way the wind is blowing

90% of this covers just about every politician these days.
They have no real opinion, they just say what suits their pocket.

Sir Keir Starmer says it's 'Not right to say only women have a cervix', I say this is literally madness...

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

'Not appropriate to say only women have a cervix' - perhaps debateable.​

'Not factually correct to say only women have a cervix' - no debate needed.​

Member

'Not appropriate to say only women have a cervix' - perhaps debateable.​

'Not factually correct to say only women have a cervix' - no debate needed.​

Member

Member

'Not appropriate to say only women have a cervix' - perhaps debateable.​

'Not factually correct to say only women have a cervix' - no debate needed.​

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

0 %

Up to 25%

25-50%

50-75%

75-100%

100% I’ve had enough of farming!

Share this page

'Not appropriate to say only women have a cervix' - perhaps debateable.

'Not factually correct to say only women have a cervix' - no debate needed.

'Not appropriate to say only women have a cervix' - perhaps debateable.

'Not factually correct to say only women have a cervix' - no debate needed.

'Not appropriate to say only women have a cervix' - perhaps debateable.

'Not factually correct to say only women have a cervix' - no debate needed.