Gender nonsense will be the Tories secret weapon

[bellinisurge]

To my mind, the only way the Tories can get themselves out of their self made mess is to shine a light on gender woo woo in the Labour Party. I'm guessing that was behind Wes Streeting's tentative "maybe we shouldn't say burn the witch all the time".
How can they not see how vulnerable they are when Liz Truss has become a more appealing prospect for women's rights.
Jesus.

[CorrBlimeyGG]

You know women's rights is far bigger than you not liking trans people don't you? What is Liz Truss' voting record on employment rights, benefit cuts, cuts to public services and healthcare? They all affect women far more than any trans woman will.

[ScreamingBeans]

CorBlimeyGG, if self ID goes through, there will be no women's rights.

By definition, if any man can say he's a woman, there's no women's rights, there's just people's rights. Which usually means rights which benefit men, if they don't benefit men then they're not seen as people's rights.

[bellinisurge]

@CorrBlimeyGG , I'm very sorry you think that caring about women's rights means I hate trans people. Speaks volumes, really.

[SantaClawsServiette]

I agree that this issue overall is really bad for the LP - not just because of the direct badness but also because people thinks it shows them as gullible and stupid, and also that they have a profound lack of respect for the public overall, women, etc. All these things just affect people's view of them as competent and working for the people.

But I am not sure that will translate directly to what people are upset about with the Tories at this moment, which seems to be another example of a party thumbing their nose at voters.

Their best approach might be new leadership before the election but then of course the question is, who?

[KittyLeMew]

This isn’t about not liking trans people LOL it’s about the erasure and erosion of women’s rights eg keeping prisons single sex to prevent vulnerable women being raped, keeping single sex spaces where women are vulnerable (toilets, changing rooms, refuges, rape crisis support groups) free of men, it’s about the transing of vulnerable children and teens and life changing medications and surgery that lead to sterilisation, irreversible changes to their body, health problems and a horrifying regret among many other issues all of which primarily and most seriously impact on women and children.

So just jog on with that idea @CorrBlimeyGG

[Seriouslymole]

@ScreamingBeans

CorBlimeyGG, if self ID goes through, there will be no women's rights.

By definition, if any man can say he's a woman, there's no women's rights, there's just people's rights. Which usually means rights which benefit men, if they don't benefit men then they're not seen as people's rights.

This, in spades.

[justaftb]

@CorrBlimeyGG

You know women's rights is far bigger than you not liking trans people don't you? What is Liz Truss' voting record on employment rights, benefit cuts, cuts to public services and healthcare? They all affect women far more than any trans woman will.

How can we have women's rights when we cannot even say that a woman is an adult human female? When the word "woman" has become meaningless because any male who says he is one, is one?

[bellinisurge]

The Democrats in the US will have the same problem.
Everyone likes to be nice and kind and supportive and liberal minded. But when you start to explain, with real examples, how selfID has already made it easier for predatory men to access women in vulnerable situations, it all falls over.

[justaftb]

I was a Labour voter and party member through and through, but the misogyny of statements from senior leaders in the party has opened my eyes to the misogyny endemic within it:

"The phrase 'only women have a cervix' is is something that shouldn't be said. It is not right." Keir Starmer.

"I think transwomen are women and they should be accommodated in the prison of their choosing." Lisa Nandy's response when asked if a male child rapist (Christopher Worton) should be housed in a woman's prison because he now identifies as a women.

"...dinosaurs who want to hoard rights." David Lammy on women who believe males should not be allowed access women's single-sex spaces.

Here's a full thread of more egregious examples:

twitter.com/ripx4nutmeg/status/1442783035389325313

Do we really want someone who says "A child is born without a sex", as Dawn Butler said, or "It is factually incorrect to say that only women have cervixes", as Emily Thornberry said, make any important decisions about anything? I wouldn't want either of those as Minister for Health or Minister for Equalities.

[Beowulfa]

@CorrBlimeyGG

You know women's rights is far bigger than you not liking trans people don't you? What is Liz Truss' voting record on employment rights, benefit cuts, cuts to public services and healthcare? They all affect women far more than any trans woman will.

How can we collate accurate data on these issues if self-ID means the word "women" includes men?

And yes, this is an easy win for the Tories, deflecting from their very obvious failings.

[bellinisurge]

Look what happened to that father in Loudon County when he stood up for his daughter. Do Labour really want that here?
We have sleepwalked into this mess.

[ScribblingPixie]

I read something via Dominic Cummings about them discussing whether to use it before the last election but decided against. My concern would be that it would be scare tactics: they would just use women for the votes without anything substantial being done. If genuine policies were introduced to protect women's rights and, mind-blowing idea, actually improve them they would have my vote (with a different leader who I actually thought had some integrity).

[bellinisurge]

@ScribblingPixie , I have no doubt that the Tories can't be trusted with women's rights. That they would exploit it for their own benefit. I despise them. And I despise Labour for not getting a proper grip on this.

[TheElementsSong]

[quote bellinisurge]@ScribblingPixie , I have no doubt that the Tories can't be trusted with women's rights. That they would exploit it for their own benefit. I despise them. And I despise Labour for not getting a proper grip on this.[/quote]
Exactly. I'll never vote Tory, but I'm utterly despairing that the other parties seem to be sabotaging themselves.

[LemonSwan]

Its irritating because whilst their is deadlock on the issue in other parties - the tories wont bother to resolve it properly - just keep us running in this purgatory. Because its their card to re-election over and over.

[justaftb]

If exploiting voters on this issue means reforming the GRA, rejecting self-ID, clarifying that single-sex means single-sex, ensuring that male prisoners are not housed in women's prisons, ensuring that must schools inform parents in situations where their child is saying they are now a boy/girl, regulating the medicalisation of children, banning any surgery related to gender dysphoria on the under-18s, then I'm happy to be exploited.

[bellinisurge]

I spoiled my last general election ballot paper and it looks like I'll do it again. I wrote to my local Labour MP to see if maybe he was hiding a Rosie Duffield-type view. I tried to look for something in his reply that would indicate that. But, no, it was full of the usual tripe.
And that is how the Tories will get in again, albeit with a reduced majority.
It doesn't take much to give them the electoral advantage in our current system. And frankly, the alternatives to Labour are even worse on this so, even in some kind of new proportional system, women's rights are sacrificed.

[bellinisurge]

@justaftb , it might come to that.

[ScribblingPixie]

@justaftb

If exploiting voters on this issue means reforming the GRA, rejecting self-ID, clarifying that single-sex means single-sex, ensuring that male prisoners are not housed in women's prisons, ensuring that must schools inform parents in situations where their child is saying they are now a boy/girl, regulating the medicalisation of children, banning any surgery related to gender dysphoria on the under-18s, then I'm happy to be exploited.

God me too. 100 per cent. But it would need to be explicitly stated, not just 'look what what happen to you under Labour'.

[Floisme]

I don't think the Labour Party have a clue how angry some of us are about this.

the tories wont bother to resolve it properly - just keep us running in this purgatory. Because its their card to re-election over and over.
Yeah, it reminds me of how the Democrats never seemed to me to be that interested in putting abortion rights on a firmer footing when they were in power. I'm no expert on US politics but, form this side of the Atlantic, it always struck me as a very convenient way of keeping women voters in line.

[prudencepuffin]

[quote bellinisurge]@ScribblingPixie , I have no doubt that the Tories can't be trusted with women's rights. That they would exploit it for their own benefit. I despise them. And I despise Labour for not getting a proper grip on this.[/quote]
Quite. Which is why so many of us are currently struck with a sort of voting paralysis. Also, where did the OP say they didnt like trans people? Another of those silly leaps that gender enthusiasts like to perform.

[Helleofabore]

The framing of protecting the rights females need to then protect themselves against sexist discrimination due to their sexed body as 'you not liking trans people', really needs to go. It is so old and tired.

If you cannot post something other than that and cannot show just exactly HOW the conflicts between the two groups can be resolved, then you are obviously in the group of people who deny there are conflicts at all.

And if you can look a woman who has lost the access to the single sex space that she needed to heal, or the woman/girl who has been exposed to a penis in an area that they had confidence would be without penises, or the woman/girl who misses out on their sporting chance and declare that they should suck it up because there were NO CONFLICTS, they you have obviously have little empathy for anyone but transitioned males.

[justaftb]

I'm torn between wanting to rejoin the Labour Party so I can attend the local meetings and hear what's been said on this, and not wanting to help bolster their numbers or give them money currently. I may rejoin because I think the environment is now safer to speak up on this. When I quit, it was because I felt I would be ostracised locally if I did question the TWAW mantra.

I emailed my local Labour MP in support of Rosie Duffield last year asking if she supported her and if so, why she hadn't spoken up. I cc'd Rosie in. I actually received an email from Rosie thanking me and saying that this particular MP has been a good friend and supports her in private. I had to follow up with the MP for her response and it was a few weeks later before she replied and it was a very cage-y, trying to be "balanced" response. Obviously, she is afraid to honestly say where she stands on this, so I guess the environment in the local Labour Party groups is not conducive to gender critical views. I participated in the Sex Matters campaign and had a copy of Trans sent to her.

[RoyalCorgi]

By definition, if any man can say he's a woman, there's no women's rights, there's just people's rights. Which usually means rights which benefit men, if they don't benefit men then they're not seen as people's rights.

This is the nub of it. Introducing self-ID means erasing "men" and "women" as policy categories altogether. The implications are terrifying.

Clearly the Labour Party are too stupid to see this. But strangely I think the Tories are too. The Tories are divided on the issue of self-ID, and even the ones who are against it seem mainly to be against it because they realise it's unpopular, and that it's a stick to beat Labour with, not because they understand the full implications of it.

It does amaze me that our politicians, who we pay to understand the consequences of adopting particular policies, just haven't grasped the import of this issue.

[AnotherLass]

"By definition, if any man can say he's a woman, there's no women's rights"

I'm GC, but I don't think that this kind of hyperbolic wordplay is helpful - it looks as irrational to me as the kinds of things that genderists say. Genderism harms women's rights but women clearly have all sorts of rights it doesn't affect, and for most people, most of the time, those rights (to work, healthcare etc) are more important in their day to day lives. To say it means that THERE'S NO WOMEN'S RIGHTS just seems silly.