Labour against transphobia group - thread 2

We are asking the wrong question then. It should be 'are transmen men?'

Yes and they can see how chancers might use it. Except chancers trying to see women and girls with no clothes on because THAT HAS NEVER HAPPENED ANYWHERE TO ANYONE

YES, it is fascinating how primogeniture is exempted isn't it?!

The thing that might affect men is exempted !!

Hard not to be cynical - That they know exactly what self-ID will do to women.

Oh collidascope that's brilliant. Because that is where the whole house of fucking cards falls down.

I'd like to see if Labour plan to tackle the primogeniture exception. Because it's one thing going after women, quite another going after rich white men for the sake of the odd TIF, and it would be interesting to see a justification for them not having leapt on this 'transphobic' policy yet.

The race logic is just bizarre. It doesn't even make sense. Black women are women exactly the same as any women because they are adult human females. Trans identified males are not women because they are the opposite sex.

Indeed. Its just vile. Black women are women because they are women. Male people are not women because they are men. Men = adult human males, not some mystical unsay able new definition of the word.

I read this a few days back, about how 'intersectionality' has been hijacked (whats new...) by transactivists. I was unaware of the history behind it all tbh

idgeofreason.wordpress.com/2018/01/19/intersectionality-what-it-is-what-it-is-why-its-been-debased/

That one's apparently leaving twitter while he works to prove his innocence from accusations of racism. Bless.

Is there a small window in their early thirties?

It would help to explain the appeal of self-ID AWS - zero possibility of those peak maternity leave years troubling all these brave new (trans)women MPs.

The race logic is just bizarre.

These folk are patriarchal white supremacists. They have no idea at all that they are thinking racist thoughts. They have no idea at all that they thinking sexist thoughts. And because they sit at the apex of society, nobody has ever, can ever, or will ever, shake them from their smug self assurance.

If it wasn't so terrifying, it would be funny that they self-identify as progressive.

(Self-declared ones - not asking to share personal or sensitive data)

Nauticant are any members on that thread members of the Labour Party?

The race logic is just bizarre. It doesn't even make sense. Black women are women exactly the same as any women because they are adult human females. Trans identified males are not women because they are the opposite sex.

I agree it’s not looking good. But most of the MPs’ comments have been confined to All Women shortlists in the Labour Party. Reforming the GRA is a much wider debate. Issues like whether self-defined transwomen have to “live as a woman” and what that means exactly, whether they have to live as a woman 100% of the time or can dip in and out. And what about transmen? Will Gentlemen’s Clubs have to allow self-declared female-bodied “men” to sign up? Men-only golf clubs? And there’s a whole debate about children and young people.

I wouldn't assume GC people will find many allies in the Labour Party to fight with them:

twitter.com/Davane2014/status/959018735964172289

And going heavy on the 'only the kind of bigot who would oppose same sex marriage would even question this policy' line. They have heavily contributed to an atmosphere where women feel frightened to speak out due to fear of being called a 'transphobe' or beaten up or having complaints made to their employer. How can a consultation be in any way meaningful in these circumstances?

Exactly. I think it's a nod to reasonableness with no real intent to meaningfully consult at all.

I have always been in favour of people staying within the party to fight this one if they can. Having said this, I see nothing here that looks any different. This says their policy is self-ID but they will consult. Great. Several key female MPs have just come out in various newspapers saying labour will bring this in if the Tories don't. And going heavy on the 'only the kind of bigot who would oppose same sex marriage would even question this policy' line. They have heavily contributed to an atmosphere where women feel frightened to speak out due to fear of being called a 'transphobe' or beaten up or having complaints made to their employer. How can a consultation be in any way meaningful in these circumstances?

Please don’t leave the Labour Party yet! New statement says:
““The rights of all groups to debate the implications of reforming the gender recognition act should be supported. I very much hope that any discussion on this matter is conducted in arespectful and inclusive manner.””
www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/01/labour-to-clarify-policy-over-trans-women-on-all-female-shortlists?CMP=share_btn_tw
Time to get the Woman’s Place model resolution to branches, CLPs, women’s forums etc.
www.socfem.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/CLP-model-motion.pdf

He looks very fit and well for 70 (although, not as fit and young as my mum, who is 72, looks) - but you can't use ageism like that. Surely it just invites the "well he's too old to run the Labour Party/country then!"

I'm done with the Labour Party. They're not only making themselves look ridiculous, by letting LM run wild, but they have shown they think they are above the law. And I was so pleased for JC in the last election...

wasn't allowed to question JC because he is 70 and it was bullying

Is that true? can you imagine? ‘Please don’t negotiate Brexit too hard, PM JC is 70 you know.’

‘Please don’t nuke us NK, PM JC is 70 you know.’

Is there a small window in their early thirties?

I think it's a diary clash about a meeting LM was supposed to have about women's refuges in the capacity of Women's Officer

Oh ffs Erishkigal she hasn't got time for all that women's bollocks

Is that line when someone (I forget who - a journalist) wasn't allowed to question JC because he is 70 and it was bullying?

At what age are the Labour Party available to be held to account? Is there a small window in their early thirties?

I think it's a diary clash about a meeting LM was supposed to have about women's refuges in the capacity of Women's Officer.

Someone pointed out that they were sharing a platform with an anti-Semite and provided evidence when challenged. Lily said he didn't have time to read it but that he was not anti-semetic x (sic) . The woman that challenged him then got quite angry:

"Your op describes your fellow speakers, including one known anti semite as "fabulous". You are giving your endorsement to an anti semite. You wouldn't share a platform with an transphobe. But you are prepared to share one with an anti semite. You also have people with anti Semitic views responding to this sub and you have done nothing.
Anti racism requires action from those in positions of power to help those who suffer oppression. Washing your hands of this is appalling."

LM has not yet replied.

The first post on the thread is pointing out that there is a diary clash and then someone says that poor old LM is only 19 and is rather confused and would he like some help with his diary. FFS - the infantilising is nauseating.

I’m blocked by LM. What did they say?