Lammy… again!

I am just shocked at the level of ignorance. I was a midwife and a research specialist for years. If I had turned up and talked such dangerous nonsense I would have been sacked.

I heard him say "commit suicide" too. Can you remember which interview he said that in?

@ColourMagic
It was in Rachel Burden's interview on Radio5, here, about 3 minutes in. Preserved forever so there's no denying it.

Labour activists must choose between learn ing the art of persuasion, or working towards abolishing the secrecy of the ballot box, along with single-sex spaces. Which will they choose?

Don't answer that...

Yeah, Lammy sure has taken mansplaining to a whole new level!

I quite enjoy the way Lammy's mansplaining compulsion launched him straight into an explanation of how men acquire women's body parts. As if it's a kitchen refurbishment or something.

The impression I'm getting from social media is that there are loads of people who would raise this issue on the doorsteps, if Labour activists hit the streets and asked.

At this point, I'm remembering something an ex-Labour party member and MNer said- that she and other people who actually did the drudgery of political campaigning got shoved out of the party by Momentum types. And those ones may be only want to do digital activism on social media. Imo, the types who brand themselves as young Labour activists online don't come across very often as people who would give up their Saturday morning to go door to door, being approachable and reasonable to people with very different views.

Convincing floating voters to consider your party is a talent, and it's not one you can develop while simultaneously worrying about being cancelled by your walk partner if you don't say TWAW fast enough.

Maybe we should send the young chap a book about pregnancy and parturition, to make him aware of what the cervix actually does?

How does someone so immensely stupid or ignorant or craven (take your pick of any or all) manage to get to bloody Harvard? And then end up as an MP?

Un-bloody-believable.

Because he's in the safest of safe Labour seats. I'd love the women of Tottenham to vote him out on the basis of this but it probably won't happen. They deserve so much better though.

Im 52, i have never ever had a political canvasser on my door step…ever

I heard a rumour that there was one in the village once

It looks like Lammy was easily sold on the idea that only 5000, largely men, would constitute the trans population. Not 500,000. Which would mean, according to him, that suicides were at a rate of about 340 per day.

It really is frightening that a man this ignorant, who thinks that men can grow a cervix, and who is this dismissive of women's concerns, was highly involved in the GRA.

Surely to God, now that the GRA is evidently not fit for the purpose it was designed, there must be a discussion on its repeal.

Oh my fucking gaaaaaaad - that LBC interview!

Firstly - isn't it highly transphobic that when Nick Ferrari (who is definitely relishing asking this ridiculous question to these MPs and making them look like utter plonkers) asks 'do only women have a cervix' - David Lammy immediately starts talking about transwomen - thereby showing that he doesn't include transwomen in 'women' because transwomen are outside of that 'only women'.

Secondly 'a cervix is something that you can have, following various procedures and hormones and all the rest of it'....

WHAT???

David Lammy thinks a man can actually 'gain' a cervix? If there is one think that this whole cervix thing has highlighted, its that blokes know the square root of FUCK ALL about women and women's bodies!

But this man, he is an actual Member of. British Parliament. How. Just..... How?!

NecessaryScene

Reading his contributions to Hansard debates, he was much the same then as he is now. Very dismissive of concerns, dodging questions, and seeming to believe that transwomen are in some metaphysical way "women" and that transition is a magical process.

Wow, you're not wrong.

If I may remind you all, David Lammy showed he was aware that Muslim women might wear particular clothing in accordance with their faith just today on Radio 4. He said he found Boris Johnson's comments on the subject offensive. Fair enough, so do I.

Now, let's go back to 2004

Andrew Selous: The hon. Gentleman picks a specific example and it is not for us to speculate what would happen in an individual church—[Interruption.]No, I will address that point. It is, rightly, an established custom in many different Churches to have male prayer groups and female prayer groups. They are sensitive flowers, which grow up over a period of time and inwhich confidences are shared. People do not share intimate details of their life unless they have confidence that what they share will be respected, and there are some issues that men prefer to discuss with other men and women prefer to discuss with other women.

Mr. Lammy: Oh, please!

Andrew Selous: The Minister seems to have an objection to that. It may not be the custom in the Churches of which he has knowledge, but it is the custom in Churches up and down the country. All I am saying is that we need a degree of sensitivity to the situation, which is not too much to ask.

How utterly dismissive is that? Lammy certainly didn't think about Muslim women then, eh. And how they might wish to have a group where they could discuss without covering?

Special shout out for Glenda Jackson, who decided that women having the right to associate without males being there was just like women being subjected to Female Genital Mutilation or being stoned to death for adultery.

Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)

Is the hon. Gentleman arguing that if a religious belief carries with it an acceptance of a practice—such as female circumcision, polygamy or stoning to death a woman taken in adultery—it should be outside civil law and this House should allow it to be part of the structure of this country or should not voice any criticism of other countries where such practices take place?

I wonder what world he is living in.

2021 is what world he's living in thanks to you lot.

It's clear he doesn't know what he's saying, what with the 'hormones grow cervixes but probably not ovaries' bollocks. But to be on record saying there are only 5000 transsexuals in the UK but then say those 5000 are committing suicide at the rate of 1 in 4 - surely any idiot can do the maths and work out that if he's not talking more bollocks then at some point he's thrown women's rights under the bus for about 2 people.

Why is he so keen to campaign for stuff he doesn't understand in the least?

At this point he's got a lot of sunk costs - he was deeply involved in getting the GRA2004 passed.

Reading his contributions to Hansard debates, he was much the same then as he is now. Very dismissive of concerns, dodging questions, and seeming to believe that transwomen are in some metaphysical way "women" and that transition is a magical process.

Here are a couple of his bits:

(on third spaces) The Government also believe that separate facilities for minority groups are objectionable, and we urge the House to reject the proposal. For obvious reasons, many hon. Members fought to ensure that separate signs for minorities became a thing of the past in South Africa, and we did not engage in that fight in order to set up such prejudice over here.

And this exchange is good:

Andrew Selous: First, let me say what the new clause is not about. It is right and proper that transsexual people should use changing and washing facilities appropriate to their acquired gender. That is what should happen and I am confident that in a vast and overriding number of cases it will happen without difficulty. However, as the measure will give legal recognition, in all cases, to the acquired gender, I want the House to consider, and the Minister to explain, what would happen if someone had a gender recognition certificate but had not undergone sex reassignment surgery and wanted to cause difficulties to the management of the facilities.

(Selous goes on to cite a real-world example of a "transwoman" with a beard who sued a church for not being able to go to a "ladies prayer meeting", and wonders what would happen if such a person was refused entry to women's showers, changing rooms etc... Various dismissals, then...)

Mr. Lammy: The hon. Gentleman will know that under the Bill a person would have to be diagnosed with gender dysphoria, to have lived with the condition for two years, to demonstrate that there was some permanence in the condition and to convince the panel that they merited a gender recognition certificate. He is right to suggest that that may not always mean that they had undergone an operation—there could be medical reasons for that—but those are substantial hurdles to overcome and that is the purpose of the Bill.

Lynne Jones: To be candid, if the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that someone who sports a full beard would have their application for a gender recognition certificate granted, I wonder what world he is living in.

Andrew Selous: The hon. Lady attacks me for raising the issue, but on several occasions over the years the House has not foreseen potential developments. I fully accept that the vast majority of transsexual people will not want to go down that route, but there is always the litigious minority to deal with. I am keen to avoid public resentment and concern.

Mr. Lammy: The hon. Gentleman keeps talking about a litigious minority. I remind him that there are more than 60 million people in this country and only about 5,000 transsexuals, and the Bill contains a number of hurdles. For example, the person concerned must have had gender dysphoria, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) explained, persons with that condition do not want to be exposed in public in that way. Surely, therefore, the hon. Gentleman's preoccupation with the minority becomes redundant. Has he not argued himself out of the position from which he started?

He identifies as a feminist?!

This is an example of exactly why males can't be feminists. I didn't used to see it but I really do now.

What happened to politicians - the people who were so passionate, dedicated and knew their stuff. We might not have agreed with them, but they researched subjects and at least read briefing papers. I can’t believe we are putting up with this level of incompetency from all parties.

I bet if social media wasn’t available for people to give their views, I think we’d be rioting until they sorted out their shit.