Lisa Nandy knows what a woman is, wants to protect them, but also "twaw"?

Thanks for putting the link up Buzz, Labour have got themselves in a right old mess over this.

Keir Starmer not much better, anyone seen his retweet if his interview in Pink News, I despair of Labour.

Great post, Floral.

Ooo DuLang, please tell us more...?

It’s bullshit. She knows that the score is, they all do.

She is just willing to throw women under the bus just so she appears ‘woke’. I really do think these women/ or the party are receiving funding from pro TRA because no way would any sane politicians be saying shit like this -especially when they are getting a pasting for it and driving members away.

There is not even any back peddling. You would think they would be refusing to get involved in it because it’s so contentious but no - they are getting stuck in choosing their wrong side.

It’s just fucking weird.

I also think that they are targeting the uni lot for the next wave of labour supporters. Maybe they have thought ‘well we fucked this generation of labour up, let’s just all in and focus on the kids who don’t remember shit’

It's been mentioned on FWR before, but this kind of 'conclusion agreed before debate commences' approach is almost identical to a variety of Christian apologetics called Presuppositionalism. You start by the position (the 'presupposition') that the bible is the basis for morals etc. and lo, your arguments all lead to the conclusion that it is true.

Now, you read that and thought "Well, duh, but that doesn't prove anything at all" and you're right, of course, but you would be amazed at the amount of people; clever, rational people, who find it very compelling and even intellectually satisfying. I used to be one.

Trans ideology works in a similar way, which is why TWAW is a primary article of faith, leveraged with such enthusiasm, because once that pin in the board is removed, nothing else sticks.

Which, boringly, is why we must keep challenging this dull, stupid, ridiculous mantra, because the only way to dismantle the presuppositionalist argument is to show that the starting point is not sound.

Obviously, dismantling someone's Christian arguments is neither here nor there, but trans ideology is embedding itself into the halls of power, and challenging the massive error at the heart of it is imperative.

The minimum standard for trans inclusion of males in female-only spaces run by those who endorse transgender ideology and legislation is a verbal statement of "identifying as a woman".

So, I'd like to know how Lisa can square her belief that women's spaces are vital to the female of the species with the belief that all men should have access on their say-so.

Or are there criteria? If so, what are they?

And then I'd love to know what does she and I and every other woman on this plane, what do we have in common with a man claiming to identify as a woman that we don't also have in common with every other man?

Finally, the female residents of this country currently have the right - in language and in law - to define themselves in a category of their own, separately from males. To organise and assemble as a sex, with their own sovereign spaces, their own sports and scholarships and a whole range of other legal set asides that are for females only.

Does Lisa Nandy seek to abolish this right? And if so, how does she justify this?

That would make a good Spartacus thread for a Monday morning, don't you think?

I won’t vote for any politician that states TWAW. Fuck em

I totally agree.

If she could explain how transwomen are different from other males in the regard of their eligibility for single sex spaces...

Wanting and being are very different

People at Labour HQ have shit themselves with how badly this leadership contest is going down. The YouGov polls of member voting intension are interesting, to say the least (Angela Rayner has dropped 25% in either a week or two weeks? Would have to check dates.

I’ve heard of at least 4 MPs who are absolutely livid at contenders for saying such nonsensical bullshit on gender issues, none of whom you would expect. At least one more seems to be tentatively revealing their position on twitter in real time.

LynnSchmob I also won't vote for anyone who states TWAW. It's a total dealbreaker for me.

I won’t vote for any politician that states TWAW. Fuck em.

Mockerswithnoknockers

Run of t'mill, if you don't mind.

In the end she is just a run-of-the-mill politician who is only in it for the salary and the prestige. They abound all over the world. Even if it weren't an issue that is crucially important for women's rights and the safeguarding children, it shows what type of person she is and that is not leadership material.

She wants a debate but that debate must start with everyone agreeing with her

and she still stands by the pledge to purge for dissenters

It’s like debating the existence of God from the starting point that God is real, end of.

Don't worry, we had those debates at school, and I got detention for blasphemy.

Anyways, Nandy-Panderer reminds me a lot of Thabo Mbeki: Privilged child of leftie royalty, so soaked in right-on Sussex Uni thought that he could not acknowledge the simple fact that HIV rather than racism caused AIDS.

A scary number of people (and especially scary when it is MPs) allow themselves to be painted into a corner insidious stroke by insidious stroke and can't work out how to get out once they engage their reasoning.

Actually that’s a bad analogy as I reckon a much higher percentage of the population believe in God than believe biological sex isn’t real.

It’s like a ‘debate’ between Position A (held by 99% of the population) and Position B (held by 1% of the population) starting from the premise that Position B is correct and cannot be deviated from. 🤯

It's hard to say, but on one hand she seems to support issues, but then when it comes to putting her money where her mouth is, she backs out.
As i say, she's our MP, so it's little things at local level.
She's become well known for it round here, don't get me wrong, I used to support her.
She seemed happy to support wc northern people but when it comes down to it we know she wouldn't support the unions, despite her background.

I think some people are forgetting what a debate actually IS. Which is rather worrying from someone who does that as their, you know, job.

How can a debate start from the premise that one side of it is correct?

It’s like debating the existence of God from the starting point that God is real, end of.

She's our MP, she isn't up to much. Sits on the fence about women's issues

Can you give some examples?

Have to say I used to see her as future leadership material.......but can't forgive her for her lack of integrity on this issue.

she would allow a committee of women to determine what harassment is

Really, how generous. Unfortunately in Nandyland these committee women could be males with special gender identities who are oblivious to how women experience harassment. Like that transwoman David in the Telegraph, who feels that he is now entitled to use women's loos because he and his penis identify as female.