That Starmer fella...

referred to trans women as 'male bodied biological men' - this is
mis-gendering, and therefore harassment under the EHRC guidelines

Trans women are biologically male (amab). That's literally the definition of a trans woman. If she wasn't male, she would not be trans. "Man", like "Woman", has been redefined as a mixed-sex single gender group but not everyone accepts that. I personally would have not issue with the redefinition - in fact I'd see it as positive - IF it was done in parallel with preserving pre-existing single-sex provisions. But that's not what is happening. Female people are simply being unnamed and disempowered, because the impact on us is considered unimportant. This is seen as purely a trans rights question but it is not, it is also a female rights question. Yet female people (by which I mean groups who speak for females of any gender rather than women of both sexes) are not at the table.

said she does not accept the protections conveyed to trans women under
the equality act - undermining one of the last bits of Labour

She wants to preserve the rights of female peple to exclude male in certain circumstances. I agree with her. It is not a gender issue, it is a sex issue. One of the most important engines of feminism was when female people started talking and realised that the problems they faced were not just individual to them but a systemic and structural devaluing and underpowering of fenale people in favour of male. That has got better but it has not in any way stopped. As a female, I feel the weight of male voices and male presence all the time. Males dominate spaces (literal and metaphorical). They talk over us. They reframe what we say to fit their own expectations. Sometimes they physically abuse us. They insert their sexualisation of us into everything we do.

Female-only spaces and conversations take that pressure off. The right to those spaces matters. to speak and have our voices heard as female is so important.

It simply comes down to, do you think female people should have the right to associate without males even when those males identify as women? Should we have the right to a female healthcare provider in intimate or triggering situations? When sleeping or undressing in accommodation or spaces that were not arranged by ourselves where we cannot personally chose who comes in, should we have the right to have a blanket exclusion of males? That doesn't in any way mean everything must always exclude tran women, just that it should be possible for female people to say "in this case, it's female-only" and for that to be seen as a reasonable and valid thing not a de facto act of hate.

To be very clear, if there were evidence that trans women in these scenarios behave like female people rather than male, none of this would matter but as far as I know there is not. The removal of the concept of female people as a meaningful group is being done not because of evidence it's unnecessary but because of an ideology that says this is how things should be.

So if you have any evidence to the contrary please please share it, because I would love to be wrong about all this! As someone who would naturally align with the standard progressive views it is very alien to me to be standing against on this specific topic. But it's not because I am suddenly no longer progressive, but because I believe what it does to female people is not progressive.

repeated her support for excluding trans women from lists of murdered
women - not an illegal thing to do but I think you'll agree, pretty
poor taste

As I understand it, there were no trans women murdered in the UK in the period which the most recent list reading covered. Meanwhile female people are being murdered at about three a week. That might just be a factor of there being much fewer trans women than female but in absolute terms the number of murdered females is undeniably much higher than the number of murdered trans women. I think given that context, trying to make it an issue about trans women is in pretty poor taste. I hope you agree.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000zsd­d - starts at 1:50:00

I haven't had time to listen to the interview but will try and do so over the weekend. Given the context I do have:

defended the convicted criminal Kurtis Tripp, a man arrested by the
FBI on terrorism charges after threatening to shoot up a school, who
thinks trans suicide rates are 'funny' and thinks trans people are
'cosplaying' as the opposite sex (a tweet which Duffield 'liked')

I will do more reading about Kurtis Tripp. I found this from him. Clearly it's biased, being his actual own words, but it certainly puts a different light on both the school "threat" and "stalking". https://kurtistrippmusic.medium.com/ribbons-72d563814132 . The only copies of the "suicide" tweet I can find are a cropped part of the conversation. It's not quite saying trans suicide stats themselves are funny but it may equally well be offensive for other reasons so I don't want to go too far on that based on what I saw. If you have more context I'd like to see it (not necessarily to defend him).

accepted that by 'liking' the 'deeply offensive' cosplay tweet, she
was endorsing the viewpoint contained within it

The "cosplay" comment is certainly offensive. What you may not realise that many female people find the hyper-feminised / sexualised presentation of some prominent trans women also offensive. That's where the "cosplay" reaction comes from. I have no doubt that the trans women in question have genuine reasons and needs to present they way they do, but for female people it's the same old story of female people being being told to STFU about our own offense to accommodate male emotional needs.

bisexual men in relationships with women aren't really queer and are
in fact co-opting gay culture - on bi visibility day!

Yes, on the face of it that sounds pretty nasty.

Do not get me wrong here. Cis women need specific protections too

I'm not just talking about cis women though. I'm talking about female people. Not all female people are women. I don't identify as cis - I don't meet the criteria. In fact I only identify as a woman because that's where the rights and protections that I as a female person need currently sit - I don't actually meet the gender-based definition of "woman" at all.

I also support laws for making misogyny a hate crime, and for making street
harassment a specific criminal offence, one which imo should involve
being put on the sex offenders register.

Thank you. I appreciate that. I understand that you are coming from a good place.

I just don't think we need to throw trans people under the bus, in order to stand up for women.

I agree we do not need to throw trans people under the bus in order to stand up for female people. But we also do not need to throw female people under the bus in order to stand up for trans people. After all, plenty of female people ARE trans! I do think we need to be able to talk honestly about the differences between female people and trans women to find a way that works for us all. Share the bus!

Honestly I'm not saying Duffield is a saint. But she is at least trying to get this conversation on the table. Starmer, and other like him, KNOW this is wrong. They KNOW it's not fair to female people. But they are too scared to talk about it, to have that "toxic" debate, so they want female people to SFTU and put male needs first. That is a tale as old as time.

Edited to add: And I'm going to leave it here. This is a public forum but it's also one where people know me IRL and female people have been threatened and worse for saying less than I have here so I have taken a pretty big step today. Anything further would be better as a face to face conversation over beer or cake.