I didn't reply to the rest of your post because I didn't have an issue with it, I was actually in complete agreement with what you were saying until I got to the last few sentences. It's still the case that you came into a discussion that had nowt to do with trans issues or transphobia and raised an observation that, as far as I could tell, looks like you were criticising Starmer for not being transphobic enough. Do you understand why people might a bit touchy about this topic on this particular week?
I made the point, in response to YouSir saying "
They've already lost the young and Left Wing ones, if they drive off too many of the old hardcore of forever Labour types" - that I was aware of (a specific but arguably statistically significant demographic) of hardcore lefties, usual Labour voters, who have publicly stated that they will no longer be voting Labour, having also mentioned the Corbynistas/Momentum-types, thus I had referred to two distinct (but potentially overlapping) demographics of soon-to-be-former-Labour-voters - again, in direct response to what YouSir said.
NB: It's possible to agree that someone's interpretation of a situation is correct without necessarily agreeing with the opinions or behaviours of those who are contributing to/effecting that situation. For example, YouSir has made an observation, interpreted the situation, eg when YouSir said:
"Think he's already gambled on getting enough funding in from elsewhere for it not to matter but routinely hemorrhaging party members does take a toll. If they aren't harassing people on doorsteps and paying subs then someone else has to.
They've already lost the young and Left Wing ones, if they drive off too many of the old hardcore of forever Labour types then, from what I've seen at least, they'll be left with a handful of middle class, middle managers locally and they tend to prefer having a title to actually doing stuff.".
YouSir wasn't expressing an opinion as to whether they thought Starmer was right or wrong, didn't express an opinion as to whether or not they agreed with/supported Starmer, they were commenting on the party's funding situation, losing members, and what the repercussions of that would be. I agreed with their assessment of the situation.
NB: I'm not a Labour party member, not a party political tribalist - I'm actually an equal opportunities sceptic, wouldn't want to belong to any party that would have me - but I know many people who are members, or who joined during the Corbyn era and subsequently left, some suspended and/or expelled, and I know loads of lefty activisty types more generally, so was simply stating an observation of some other people's declared [not-]voting intentions, which effectively backed up what YouSir was saying (general point being Starmer and Labour are in difficulties).
Similarly, I wasn't expressing an opinion as to whether I thought Starmer was right or wrong, I was similarly commenting on the haemorrhaging of members and what the repercussions of that would be, which backed up YouSir's thoughts about Labour - reading between the lines: losing foot soldiers for campaigning and canvassing, and I extended that by pointing out they're not only losing members, but losing votes (and I suspect they're not really aware of how many votes they're losing, tbh).
If you think I'm criticising Starmer for being not transphobic enough, then you're projecting that on to me. I did not say that at all, nor do I think it. Please stop putting words in my mouth and then criticising me for things I haven't actually said.
ETA: I won't be responding again, hitmouse, because you're effectively arguing with yourself, arguing with things that you're projecting that I've said and think, when they're just your projections, and because I don't want to continue this discussion, about something which, as you've pointed out yourself, is neither the time nor the place to be arguing.