top of page

Read All About It!

Mind The Credibility Gap

Some people are of the opinion that Keir Starmer is still on the fence when it comes to sex and gender. That he’s “both sidesing” it.

I think they’re mistaken.

Only this week Sir Keir said that 99.9% of women are women because of their biology. And that seems clear enough to me. Because you either believe that sex is real and that it’s entirely a matter of biology, or you do not. You either believe that people can change sex, or you do not. And that 0.1% allowance made by Sir Keir tells me that he is willing to allow that men can be women if they say they are.

I expect he meant it to sound convincing to those of us who believe in the immutable sex binary because for some people 99.9% sounds like “essentially everyone”. But as a lawyer he will know that the exceptions matter.

Keir Starmer - Headline

It was through catering to that very small number of exceptions that we got the GRA all the way back in 2004. All the pleading to be kind and think of those poor men who couldn’t live as men (whatever that means) made sure to get the concept of gender recognised in law. And that opened the door to making Gender Reassignment a protected characteristic in the Equality Act 2010.

But here’s the thing. When Keir Starmer says ‘For 99.9 per cent of women, it is completely biological . . . and of course they haven’t got a penis,’ he’s not saying of course women don’t have a penis.

What he’s actually saying is that 0.1% of women do have a penis. Which is a lie.

Almost nobody is talking about trans issues. I do sometimes just wonder why on earth we spend so much of our time discussing something which isn’t a feature of the dinner table or the kitchen table or the café table or the bar.”

Even this plea to stop being asked “are you willing to keep on telling the same lie?” is more tangled up nonsense, which roughly translates to “why are we talking a lot about something that nobody is talking about?

And so we’re supposed to shut up, keep quiet, get back on campaigning duty because somehow those of us who see the ideological capture of the Labour Party as a deal breaker have got it all wrong:

I think there is a fear that somehow there could be the rolling back of some of the things that have been won. There are still many battles that need to go ahead for women and I don’t think we should roll anything back.

It’s far too late for that, though, because women’s rights are rolling back already. When men were placed in women’s prisons to see if anyone would notice. When women’s crisis centres had funding withdrawn if they failed to be inclusive of men. When women found themselves knocked off sports podiums and out of competitions. When school girls found they were sharing their toilets with boys.

Worst of all, the consequences of gender identity ideology for children are being ignored. The numbers are growing, and damage is irreversible.

It matters that the leader of the opposition claims to care about women’s rights to single sex spaces but supports a strategy that will ensure they are lost.

It concerns me that there is no opposition party holding the Tories to account for letting a destructive ideology run rampant through our schools and institutions.

I care that the Prime Minister in waiting is willing endorse ideology over reality and damn the consequences for women and children.

There is a huge credibility gap. And I mind that gap.



bottom of page