Gender nonsense will be the Tories secret weapon

People basically won't vote Labour until they align with all of their values and priorities and have a credible program for achieving all of the most ambitious things they want, while simultaneously making them feel safe by not changing anything or raising any tax rates ever.

Really?

I'm a former Labour member who won't vote for them based on this issue and the contempt they have for women, but I won't vote Tory either for many reasons, so the Tories haven't swung me to them.

Not to disagree with your main points about the political influences and demographics though.

I wouldn't say "the gender critical" are in the majority, because that people who have it as a primary issue and are ideologically attached to it, and I think most people don't give it that much thought either way.

Repeatedly surveys have shown both in England in Scotland that people aren't in favour of legal self ID, and they don't want male bodied individuals in spaces such as toilets and changing rooms. They're not in favour of males competing in women's sports.

They are in favour of "trans rights" when it's phrased as a fluffy "do you think people should be able to identify as another gender" meaningless statement.

And yes, lots of women are "actively in favour of the continued expansion of trans rights" but that's a fairly meaningless statement without a definition of what they are for and against. Do they believe there are no issues at all? Do they, like many people, believe that MTF trans people have had a "sex change" operation and are a tiny minority group?

I think the point is that if Labour are going to overturn an 80 seat majority they're going to need a lot more than the votes of people who would have voted for them anyway.

Even if all the red wall voters return (or at least don't vote Tory) I doubt that would be enough. Surely Labour need to win over people who either voted against them or didn't vote at all last time? Would a commitment to self ID help sway those voters? Can't see it - I imagine the voters who want it are already in the bag.

So while I agree about it not being a defining issue in its own right, I don't see it as a vote winning issue either, which is what they really need.

I'm guessing Starmer thinks the same which is why he's desperate not to talk about it.

I'm gender critical and agree with most of the views here, but I'm not convinced the proportion of the electorate outside the MN bubble that feels similarly is large enough to have the kind of effect people are claiming. I converse online and off with plenty of women who are actively in favour of the continued expansion of trans rights. I'd be interested to see survey results on the subject but in lieu of them, I'm not convinced the gender critical are in the majority.

Then you have to consider what proportion of pro- and anti- self ID women are likely to vote Labour anyway. Presumeably pro- attitudes are more likely to correlate with being young, living in cities and various other demographic factors that indicate likelihood of voting Labour. Whereas anti- are more likely to correlate with being older, socially conservative and likely to vote Tory.

I say "more likely" advisedly - there are of course socially liberal, urban, natural Labour voters who just happen to be gender critical (I'm one) and vice versa. But then you're talking about a subset of a subset and I just don't believe that subset is as large or influential as the people in it think it is.

A lot of people here say they can't vote Labour because of the gender woo, but if you keep reading there are plenty of other reasons why they won't vote Labour too. People basically won't vote Labour until they align with all of their values and priorities and have a credible program for achieving all of the most ambitious things they want, while simultaneously making them feel safe by not changing anything or raising any tax rates ever. I doubt Starmer is under any illusions that opposing self ID is going to be some magic bullet.

The Tories will definitely continue to play the culture war card, of which trans rights will be one part, and probably ramp it up going into the next election (particularly as they now have so much corruption and incompetence to compensate for). Starmer knows this and is getting his ducks in a row, being lukewarm on Black Lives Matter etc. He'll probably just be lukewarm on everything to try and minimise the effect of it without offending anyone. And he's a shameless and inveterate liar so it's not like anything he says about what they'll do makes much difference anyway.

they tend to see things like class as nested sets of social responsibilities as well as rights, they tend to be composed of somewheres rather than anywheres and see connections to land and place as important, and they tend to see nation-states as the most important location, in most instances, for political autonomy to manifest, they tend to see significant economic self-sufficiency and dignified work, at the level of families and geographical communities to be necessary for a healthy society and to allow real political autonomy for families and communities

I think this is spot on, thanks Santa. It also explains the appeal, as I know many people who would tick every single box.

Isn't this what happened with the former red wall seats?

Yes, absolutely. And it is also happening, in a less concentrated form, with other types of voters who have often voted Labour. They are losing people over this.

What's interesting to me though is that they seem to be completely blind to the fact that the traditional left and traditional conservatism have a lot of overlap. Partly they are confused by the fact that modern neoconservatives are really economic liberals and maybe they don't have much real exposure to traditional conservatism.

In truth though the traditional left and traditional conservatives are both anti-liberal economically and to some extent socially, they tend to see things like class as nested sets of social responsibilities as well as rights, they tend to be composed of somewheres rather than anywheres and see connections to land and place as important, and they tend to see nation-states as the most important location, in most instances, for political autonomy to manifest, they tend to see significant economic self-sufficiency and dignified work, at the level of families and geographical communities to be necessary for a healthy society and to allow real political autonomy for families and communities.

To a significant extent the disagreement between the groups is historically related to the change from agrarian to industrialized society, and how to give those who could potentially be exploited by those with more power in the hierarchy political autonomy and means to protect their interests.

A Conservative Party that tried to harness these elements while jettisoning some of the liberal elements could be very powerful. The latter might be a battle, but there are other reasons that economic liberalism may be on the wane.

https://twitter.com/sullydish/status/1482080065240379398?s=21

Been talking to uni age DD about all things gender woo.

She pointed out to me that her generation was raised, in the main, as completely accepting of both gay rights and equality between races. As a result, many of her peers are rejecting the gender nonsense on the grounds that :

Lesbians particularly but also guys are being persecuted once more for their sexual orientation.

Muslims, particularly women but also men, are suffering from a lack of consideration about how this affects them. Muslim women are quietly speaking to their non Muslim peers about how they have to be so careful now to avoid accidently being in situations around men claiming to be women that would go against their religious circumstances.

I'd agree with @SantaClawsServiette about the shift to Idpol and it really troubles me. It's so divisive and reductive: everyone is to be described by the most obvious facet of who they are, and then expected to fall into line behind various (often self-appointed) 'leaders' of the community to which they belong.

It's as if some people are hell-bent on pulling society apart.

Sorry but even though I agree with many people on this thread about many, many things, this just isn't an issue that will cut through at general election

Agree, for most people, the sex/gender wars are not high priority

@bellinisurge I've mentioned same to MP (Con)) - currently discussing the problem with schools (teaching gender I'd, lgbgtq+ clubs and focus, external groups), ROGD, and the potential harm to talking therapy for children in the bill to ban 'conversion' therapy.
Have put forward comments to Dept of Ed and Liz Truss.
I think this is a key area as more parents wake up to what's happening in their schools and potential implications.

Not sure how it will affect electoral behaviour. I know there's quite a hefty group of Conservatives behind the scenes, trying to maintain a rational stance, but I don't know if the party would be brave enough to make it an open committment to pushing back on gender ideology, and also vociferously supporting women's and sex-based rights due to current climate
However, with institutions leaving Stonewall, and a couple of years yet to the next GE, I'm hopeful that more awareness will be achieved in the electorate to allow a very clear open debate and drawing lines.

Have totally gone off the other parties due to this issue, whereas used to vote LD etc, and never voted for the Cons, but this issue would be enough to sway me, I find.

Some more 👏🏻 for Velvet. Great post!

Datun

What's it supposed to mean now?

I think that's missing the point? Straight GC people are not calling appropriating a name from the gay community. I don't think this poster was saying that straight people can't be allies, just that when they commandeer language for their own purposes, at the expense of gay people, then they can't.

I'm not sure you've understood correctly. The poster I'm replying to believes that GC people are all straight and therefore their input isn't wanted. They aren't, and lots of the "queer" lobby are also straight.

Are you forgetting Penny Mordaunt? What did BJ answer when asked the definition of woman?

DdraigGoch

Exactly. Even though not many people might care about the actual issue, (although I think a lot of people do care, they see it all of a piece with toppling statues and re-writing Enid Blyton), watching them flounder over simple questions like what is a woman is tv gold.

Like others, I don't believe that either party cares much about women, or their issues. But the Tories didn't go around telling people that women don't have a cervix.

It's less about the issue, and more about making your opponent look like a twat by asking very simple questions.

@HPFA

but it had a massive effect. From Zero to winning the seat. It happens to the Lib Dems all the time. Conservatives use the Lib Dems to register annoyance at their party. Had you forgotten Zac Goldsmith. Wins handsomely, then loses massively, then the Conservatives get the seat back at GE. Which is why the Lib Dems are still not cutting through in the media.

Liberalism in the UK has always thought it's known best and the attitude of 'you just need to be educated' hacks off lots of WC people and have a choice. Politics is a bit arse about at the minute and we just don't know where the chips will fall.

We wont know until the opinion polls tell is what the Liberal voice thinks will happen, and then it wont