Labour suspends activist in transgender row - Times article. Broadly sympathetic(41 Posts)
Labour suspends activist in transgender row
It's paywalled so I can't read all of it but:
The founder of a crowdfunding campaign to bar transgender women from all-women shortlists has been suspended from the Labour Party after her name appeared on a “secret hit list” submitted to party officials.
... sounds very bad for Labour. I'm also glad it clarifies her position in the second paragraph ('she supports greater representation of transgender people but that that should not mean fewer places for those born female.')
Excellent. Thanks flaps for getting this out there.
The article is broadly sympathetic, but unfortunately it obscures the actual point of conflict, via the imposition of TRA Newspeak which makes it impossible to accurately describe Labour's illegal policy and why woman like Jennifer James are opposing it. This is no doubt not Bannerman's fault, but imposed by the Times' Style Guide,* which forbids anyone to name men who identify as trans as men, and instead mandates that they be referred to as 'transgender women' (which most people assume means transsexual).
Therefore Times readers will likely come away from the story unaware of the actual misogynist insanity of Labour's position: that any man who claims to identify as a woman will have access to AWS, and women who take issue with this are being hunted down and rooted out of the party.
Compare and contrast the two sentences below, one using Trans Newspeak and the other using plain language, and the different reactions they are likely to provoke from the general public:
Times: 'The founder of a crowdfunding campaign to bar transgender women from all-women shortlists has been suspended from the Labour Party'
Knee-jerk public reaction: Nasty feminist, wants to exclude the minuscule number of poor, vulnerable men who have gone to the trouble of a 'sex change' from AWS
Spectator: 'men who identify as women will be allowed (on Labour all-women shortlists)'
Knee-jerk public reaction: Wow, Labour have gone completely batshit, what is this insanity?
The fact that TRA-imposed Orwellian language manoeuvres are now in place in the Style Guides of most publications across the country is emerging as a major issue for women in the debate over self-id of legal sex, as it means that even when we manage to get the issue reported on in a fair manner, we can't clearly describe what is actually happening so that the public grasps the full implications of self ID. This needs to be tackled as a matter of urgency via communication with editors and journalists - without clear language to describe reality, which makes it impossible to say 'men' and 'male', the battle is already lost.
*I'm guessing that the section of the Style Guide which deals with trans issues will have been written after consultation with TRA groups like Trans Media Watch. Feminists need to start lobbying editors and journalists immediately to consider revising these guidelines to ensure that there is scope for sex to be clearly identified, instead of disappeared, when reporting on trans issues, and also educate individual reporters so they can find ways to write around it in the meantime (perhaps by using 'male' and 'female' in stead of women and men, if necessary).
I intended to leave a version of my comment above re: Times house style on the article itself, in the hope that Lucy Bannerman and/or the Times subs would see it, but comments appear to be closed. Frustrating.
It does say "The list includes many other campaigners who have raised concerns over the implications of allowing people to self-declare their gender."
So at least the concept of self-ID is raised.
Agreed re the style guide and Orwellian use to language.
When you say we should be emailing editors and papers, is there somewhere to arrange this? I am happy To write in on this matter.
RE Style guides, one way to get around it when reporting on individuals is by strategic use of photos. If the wording all says she, but the photos clearly show a male, that not only makes what's being reported more clear but can also prompt a "wtf why are they calling that person she?" reaction. Especially useful when reporting on sexual and other violent crimes.
Thank you for the really interesting analysis Donkey.
Excellent point Donkey.
All About Trans helped Independent Press Standards Organisation to draft new guidelines on transgender reporting, back in 2016.
I recall someone here pointed out that the woman who interviewed Lily Madigan on TV had been trained by a trans organization, so was already primed for sympathy.
You have to admire the skill at which trans have quietly rewritten policies in all the key British institutions: media, schools, universities, health.
Has any feminist organization tried to change media guidelines for example on reporting men who kill their partners?
It is open to comments if you are a subscriber.
How does one get so organised as to re-write the rules of the press?!
Feminists need to organise ASAP. I'll help if I know how.
It's great that this story is reaching the public, fantastic, but yy that the first line referring to "Transgender women" already works to skew sympathy in favour of TIMs.
This is the best article so far on the issue and the comments below fill the gaps well. It was cool-headed and feel I actually learned a couple of things through reading it.
I read it as an entirely sympathetic article. I get the point people are making but I can't imagine there are
m any Times readers out there thinking 'The Labour Party sounds completely reasonable on this one'
They will be losing voters over this. Can they continue to be this stupid?
Aisling Musson updated the hate list again at 1024 today, after the Times article.
She has removed Jennifer James from the list, doubtless because Jennifer is now suspended, which was supposedly the purpose of the list.
However, two women are retained on the list despite
1. Not being Labour Party members (which breaks the rules of the list)
2. Not having a folder of "evidence" uploaded alongside their names (which also breaks the rules of the list)
Aisling knows she is being watched, and she knows these women are not LP members. And yet she keeps their names on the list.
For what purpose, exactly? Intimidation? To scare them?
Have reported Aisling to her uni, to the LP and to the SU.
One of the comments says:
The lack of judgement of people like Angela Raynor and Wes Streeting means they cannot be trusted with any senior position.
And in truth, this is where I'm standing vis a vis the Labour Party at the moment. Add in Dawn Butler, who kicked this whole thing off by saying TIMs would be able to self-ID onto AWS and is the Shadow Equalities minister, and thus betrayed an absolute ignorance of the law in her own brief. Add in total silence from Dear Leader on witch hunting inside the party. How could anyone trust this bunch of incompetents with poor judgement to run the country?
(And it bloody hurts me to say this.)
Just wanted to say thanks to everyone for posting all these articles and information, it’s really given me a different viewpoint on the Labour Party. Coming from a left wing background I always assumed I would be a Labour supporter but their actions on this issue (and Brexit) have really changed my mind.
Has there already been a thread about the different political parties and their policies on self ID?
How many people are on the list and where are you seeing it?
Comments on the times article are really encouraging IMO.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now »
Already registered? Log in with:
Please login first.