Keir Starmer has now signed the 'trans pledge

seems like even the lgbt pledge isnt woke enough for the woke stasi of the Labour party. Is this what it looks like when a political party cannibalizes itself?

HullyGully - you're back! Where have you been?

Your comment was typically succinct and to-the-point, I have to say.

These are the women who would have been screaming at the suffragettes yelling 'lock them up! (that's right Geoffry isn't it? I'm a good girl aren't I?)'

I think this nails it.

I always remind myself: women at the forefront of UK politics are a very tiny minority who have got to the top of a men's game because men allowed them there on men's terms. Essentially they got into power by winning at Patriarchy and being good girls at pleasing men. They are no friends to women, and we see very clearly now how true that is.

These are the women who would have been screaming at the suffragettes yelling 'lock them up! (that's right Geoffry isn't it? I'm a good girl aren't I?)'

And Im furious at those women IN the labour party who said 'be nice, lets not use names, lets say some TWAW, etc etc

this is where we are now. Proper fucked.

Those Outliers who told it how it was from the start were shunned and excluded, and yet they have brought more attention to this than anyone else.

Venice
Posie
Sheila Jeffries
Anne Ruzylo
Julia Long
WOLF

letter writing to MPs has got us precisely absolutely zilch nowhere. Allowing some TW to still be 'she' has blurred the lines and given ambiguity.

Those men who are pushing this havent been nice. They havent cared as they sneeked under the radar and policy captured every institution in the land. Theyve slurred and name called and blackened the voice of any women who objects to this. Theyve pushed to the front rudely and made damn sure that THEIR voices have been heard, whilst sacrificing 'trans' children as colalterol damage in the need to prove this madness bullshit is real.

I honestly don't understand why they would do this in the face of such overwhelming evidence and concerns.

There are books written by academics about how in history politicians have convinced themselves into highly distorted and immoral/ cognitively dissonanced beliefs. Alice Miller's well-known 'For Your Own Good' is one. Gita Serenay also wrote several excellent ones.

There's books written by the children of such politicians too, who have had to live with the consequences of 'my parent actually did that to other people and tried to enforce that it was somehow a good thing', and have tried to unpack and rationalise this.

In this case, the unspeakable belief is that trans people can only be properly served and happy by the enforced full destruction of women's civil rights and some of their human rights too, and deletion of them as a recognised group in any form. And this is not a clash of rights because women shouldn't have rights. Any women believing otherwise should be punished with the full force of the law.

Why are women doing it? Spearheading it?
Privilage, careerism and possibly surrounded by people who are making damn sure that nobody with an opposing view is allowed near them, or certainly not without having been framed as wrongthinkers

it seems these women have all lived such safe privilaged lives that they have never felt threatened by a man, or had need to flee to a male free space

Starmer has no such excuse. He worked with women who were victims of violence by men, in domestic abuse. I had wanted him to win and Id held him to a higher standard than the stupid handmaidens who were always going to be stupid handmaidens

The pledge he has agreed with (Im not sure Ive seen him agree to the other one) on the surface looks benign. It 'looks' reasonable to most people - doesnt call out hate groups and is far more measured. But it is sneaky and insiduous to those of us who are aware of what it really means.

The conversion therapy

The gender id

The ensuring that no school in the land can avoid teaching trans ideology, and no parent can remove their child from the brainwashing.

Im fucking furious

I feel like a table.

Ok. Odd, but there's a frame of reference and shared meaning of what a table is and does, and there's an extent to which you can indulge a human in what it means to them to feel like they're a table.

I feel like a Nuchvagn.

…...yeah, going to need extensive notes first on what one of those is, what it does and what that means for what you want me to do about it, because no shared meaning at all on what one of those, in reality, is, that you would like to be considered as being.

Because no one has the faintest shared meaning of what that is or does or what relevance it has.

I'm done with being polite now.

Wrong-Daily needs someone to point out, in very small words, that people can only 'feel like a woman' if everybody knows damn well that the word woman means female human. Otherwise how would you be able to say you felt like one?

Like every other part of this agenda, it involves people pretending they aren't perfectly well aware that there are females and there are males who would like to be known as. It's called disingenuousness, Rebecca. There's a word for acting out and pretending innocent naivety. It's bloody well not 'kind' either. Not to anyone.

We're going to start needing asking Labour where the funding for the huge bloody great new prisons for women is coming from. Because they're going to need a lot. And now that the police are decriminalising burglary to suppress women saying uncomfortable truths to men and wanting to meet up and talk without men telling them first what they can talk about and being there to supervise them properly, the obvious result will be prisons full of women who retweeted something female centred on twitter with no room for actual criminals who will need community service alternatives instead.

MRA wet dream.

I don't know how many times the Labour Party needs to slap women in the face before they realise that each and every slap was meant, not an accident. Stop hoping for better.

The confusing thing for me is that women are spearheading the LP charge towards the destruction of women's hard-won rights and protections. I honestly don't understand why they would do this in the face of such overwhelming evidence and concerns.

But it is increasingly difficult to argue against your conclusion WhatKatyDidNot

The LP are done for, whoever is responsible.

So that means that - no one is standing up for women, not even the women?

Balkinfly an employer can't break the law, even if they made you sign an agreement. The breastfeeding room isn't mixed sex, and they must provide single sex toilets and showers unless they are single occupancy.

I don't know how many times the Labour Party needs to slap women in the face before they realise that each and every slap was meant, not an accident. Stop hoping for better.

I mean, he's the best option available, but that's kind of like asking if you'd prefer earwigs, spiders, or silverfish in your salad - you're still going to be rather unhappy about the fact that "bug free salad" was not an option.

Also pledges to campaign for the end of parental rights to remove children from sex and relationship classes

This terrifies me, because these are unspecified classes, aren't they? Having seen an interview with the man who tried to stop his 14-year-old daughter from being given cross-sex hormones, it all started in the school.

They could be the classes that Tatchell wants to introduce, for example. At the moment it is seems like every school is deciding individually what to teach.

As for the defense of submitting to pressure, personally I can't be arsed with cowardly leaders. If I'm going to sign up behind a leader I would at least like them to have the courage of their convictions.

The only solution is a totally new left-wing party.

Oh for the love of fuck!! Who the fuck am I supposed to vote for now? And do I resign my labour membership over this?

Same here. I really was hoping for better.
I can't even begin to explain how pissed off I am about this. FFS.
His pledge is marginally better but only in the way that a pile of misogynistic shit is marginally better than a slightly bigger pile of shit.

Oh for the love of fuck!! Who the fuck am I supposed to vote for now? And do I resign my labour membership over this?

Unless you have a funny independent candidate running, you absolutely have the right to deface your ballot.

I think people are being little harsh suggesting there's no difference between KS signing this pledge and the other one.

The one he's signed doesn't target particular organisations, there's no mention of any targeted action against "transphobes", anyone being accused of transphobia would go through a proper independent process. Even the "introduction of self-declaration" is not incompatible with having exemptions. You could certainly have a law that says "in these areas self-declaration is enough, in these it isn't"

I get that some people would like him to have gone further but there is nothing here that is incompatible with compromise. It seems unfair to just conflate it with the hate-filled document that was produced yesterday.

Oh for the love of fuck!! Who the fuck am I supposed to vote for now? And do I resign my labour membership over this?

It doesn't really matter, sadly. We have a Tory government with an 80 seat majority, while Labour tear themselves apart over issues that the general public just do not support. The Tories went through paroxysms (and several leaders in swift succession) after 1997, too.

Huge, sweeping changes that affect our rights across every imaginable area, and they say women seeking to even try to discuss it are hateful bigots and should be expelled from Labour. Transactivists argue "nothing about us without us". I agree. Why aren't women afforded that right, too? Why must our voices be silenced?

If they were wilfully trying to make themselves unelectable, they couldn't be doing a better job. It's miserable.

Doesn't make it right, but I'm not surprised he's done it - he couldn't afford to be the odd one out

Well if any thought was given to it, a whole lot of women would back him if he had refused.
What if he means it? Cant bloody vote for him not knowing if he means it. Honestly he wants to run the country, then you stand by your principles, you dont just cave in at a tiny bit of pressure.
We can't vote for him as it stands (I'm not a member I cant vote anyway) but if he were to end up as prime minister, hahahahahaha, this would all be brought out and no one could trust what he had to say. One really needs to trust a leader will do as they say, not whatever someone random wants that day.

Someone here or on Twitter (I forget) said they're not cunts. They don't have the warmth or depth. They are spineless, self-serving, deceitful fools for sure.

I'm wondering at what point they're going to look around and decide it's gone too far - when they're in meetings where there's only 1% uterus-havers for example?

The beardies will feel that this situation is entirely the natural order of things and as it should have been all along.

The women might regret it, but it'll be too late for them to do anything about it.

We should compare everything of such a disturbing nature to it, for fear that we might miss the evolution of another atrocious ideology.

Absolutely. Examination, comparison, debate and discussion are safeguards against extremism.

Countries who have gone off the rails into inhuman ideology and come out the other side understand this. They usually promote comparison at every opportunity.