New Statesman - Inside Labour's clusterf*** on trans rights

Anyone trying to claim that it shouldn't even be a priority for major political parties to even be able to identify what category of human being 51% of the electorate belong to, never mind to actually care about their rights, needs their head examining.

The problem as I see it is that Labour feels that voters should be accountable to them rather than that they should be accountable to voters. This is why they can't quite comprehend why this issue is so important.Whycan't the stupid women shut up? It's not important tousso it shouldn't be important to them seems to be the general attitude.

Absolutely this. We choose them on the basis of whether they represent our views or not. They don't get to choose what our views are. Labour seem to have forgotten this.

I don't post on those threads any more. I'm an ex-Labour member and I'm a women on a lower than average salary in a household with lower than average income. I'm won't vote Labour because of this single issue.

I'm sick to death of the posters those threads attract bleating on about how harmful it is to prioritise women over whatever cause they happen to approve of, implying that women like me are stupid or ignorant, or must be middle class and privileged to choose to prioritise women over anyone else.

I used to be like them, used to talk down to people, lecture, and berate them too (see above, ex-Labour member). The thought makes me cringe with embarrassed horror now.

'Pipe down, Ladies - we'll get to you once we've solved the economy, war, famine, nuclear fusion and razor rash'...

Razor rash is an abomination. Total injustice and scourge on our society. Labour's going to sort it in no time. So fucking competent, the lot of them. War and famine? Borrow someone else's cash and waste it. Job done.
Dicks and/or vaginas?
Well, that's much, much more complicated. They're not biologists, for FS. Impossible to say. Very uncomfortable position to be in, as a serious party. Talking dirty is so inappropriate in a parliamentary setting, mind you.
So, yes.
I'm going to vote Labour as soon as it's humanely possible.
And then I'm going to declare myself a horse.
(Always felt this urge, you see, always felt so horsey inside).
Serves me fucking right.
TRANslogic.

The problem as I see it is that Labour feels that voters should be accountable to them rather than that they should be accountable to voters. This is why they can't quite comprehend why this issue is so important. Why can't the stupid women shut up? It's not important to us so it shouldn't be important to them seems to be the general attitude.

maeveiscurious I think I may have miscommunicated. I would be in support of third spaces. I was trying to explain the reasons women are given for why suggesting them is unacceptable to some in the trans activism movement.

Does anyone remember when Adrian Harrop said that terfs should be made to use their own loos, while everyone else could share in a mixed sex pissy utopia? He was so pleased with himself until all the applause from women started rolling in. It took him a while to realise ...

I would also like to see the 'isn't there better things to worry about?' question turned on it's head here in Scotland with the Scottish Government asked why they are so rabid about pushing through self id when 'there are more pressing things to worry about'.

If women's concerns can apparently be dealt with at a future, undetermined time, then surely it holds the same for trans issues?

And the TRA response? Fuck you TERF usually.

3rd spaces aren't acceptable, only female capitulation is. In short, you are asking questions of the wrong people.

I think when all this shit becomes clear to the general public (and it is happening) and political parties realise that they are onto a losing streak by capitulating to the demands of an ideology (I would dearly like to use another word here, but I'll be deleted), then the backtracking will begin.

It's already happening to a small extent - lots of articles seem to be talking about 'respectful debate' and 'middle ground' so I expect that 'inclusive spaces' (a rebrand of third spaces) will be the next big thing, along with lots of happy, clappy 'look! We can meet everyone's needs!!'.

The fact that women have been consistent in suggesting this and told in return that they were fascists (or worse) for doing so, will be conveniently forgotten and rewritten.

You see it quite often with newcomers to this board who always seem a bit baffled that it's not happening and suggest it as if the posters on here are unfamiliar to the idea. The general public are the same.

It will be pushed that there is no time or patience with silly stuff like this when people are going hungry and freezing in their homes and can't afford their cars.

Except who will be the demographic most affected by this?

It will be women trying to feed their families and stretch the pennies and keep the kids warm and get them to school. It will be many many women trying to do this on no child support because the children's father has walked away to more enjoyable pastures and there's no come back on him doing so. It will be women dealing with this extra and awful strain on relationships ending in violence and worse, and trying to work out how to get away when there's nowhere to go and no single sex help. It will be women who go hungry and cold so their kids and others they care for can have more, and their health which will suffer.

Trust me, it will not be any exciting form of woman that all the crap happens to; it will be the type stuck with the biological burden no one in Labour can bear to talk about for fear of upsetting the opposite sex.

Disappearing us in law, making life less accessible and safe for women, normalising that being born female is shit and comes with a heavy price of being a kind of second class human to the better ones but you have to pretend no one knows what sex anyone is?

GTF.

Seriously.

If Labour seriously cares about women voters crying on doorsteps about how tough things are - and are about to get - then they bloody well have to face up to the fact that those women need help, not word games and being encouraged to be naice about subordination.

'Shut up shut up look at the squirrel and we'll do this quietly so by the time you notice it's done and over and too late to argue' is not a manifesto I will ever get behind.

I'm thinking of the current thread about who people would vote for Samphire. Women are being told they shouldn't be not voting Labour over the issue of women's rights. They should put it aside for the greater good.
I was just wondering whether, if Labour came out with a supportable (for me) position that upset another group would they be being told to think of the greater good.

Women who suggest third spaces get told they're akin to 1950s American race segregationists, South African apartheid advocates, and nazis making Jewish people wear yellow stars. It's either complete capitulation or you're a fascist.

But somehow they weren't all that acceptable... which is why we are still here, arguing about basic biology.

Labour figures all say that the line of media questioning over the past week has been cheap and unpleasant — one described it as “rude and gratuitous to talk about the genitalia of trans people”. And everyone is aware of the competing tensions the party must manage: the squeamishness they feel talking about genitals, the concern they feel about causing hurt to the trans community and the desire to say something pithy and with common sense. They also see it as a diversion tactic when voters are breaking down in tears about the cost-of-living crisis in focus groups and never bring up trans issues in such settings.

There's not a single mention, by any of them, about how concerned they are that they've insulted and offended so very many women with their equivocating and debating about what we are. Not one.

Case by case doesn't mean each individual person. It means each scenario - so one case would be "Can a women's refuge refuse entry to a transwoman?" Yes, that would be a proportional response. Case over - fully evidenced in the Guidance Notes.

That then allows every single refuge to remain single sex if that is what they choose to do.

And yet, despite having sent links to that Guidance and made that statement many, many times we (a refuge and crisis centre) have lost just over 40% of our funding over the last few years because, as stated specifically in one explanatory note, we do not include men or transwomen in our provision.

And this is why it is so fucking important that this is discussed and the idiocy stopped. It isn't just words to being nice. It has already had a measurably negative impact on the lives of many women and children fleeing DV.

Those at the top of the Labour Party believe that, despite the difficult media environment on trans issues, they are in the same place as the British public, who generally take a compassionate, “live and let live” approach to the question.

You can only think this is you haven't looked at the evidence in detail, of what is going on in gender clinics and school, with trans identities and gender ideology being affirmed, pushed and prioritised above anyone else's needs, and in workplaces and social media with bullying and threats and job losses for anyone who isn't on board, even if they simply state scientific facts and the actual law.

“Everyone wants it to go away, but it won’t go away while we look so scared about it,” one figure said.*

Ummmmmm how about looking at and applying the actual best, latest scientific evidence as a basis for statements and policies? And I don't mean whatever Stonewall tells you.

Now I've stopped laughing over "todger dodger" ...

From the article:

part of a wider, fractious public debate around trans rights that tends to stray far beyond the legal technicalities of provisions for trans people and same-sex spaces, and into a heated discussion about the legitimacy of trans identities and the philosophical fundamentals of sex and gender.

Well, if you decide to support legislative reform that allow people to self identify into a category with certain legal protections, you are going to get questions about the parameters of those categories and what defines those categories on a philosophical level.

But equally I don’t think this would be happening with any other form of discrimination.

Of course it would. If Labour supported self-id on age, disability or maternity, the exact same thing would have occurred. People would have said: "Err, wait a minute, if you allow people to self-certify their MAT B1 form, and no one is allowed to question whether they are indeed pregnant or not, aren't you going to get people taking advantage of that for dodgy reasons?"

they are in the same place as the British public, who generally take a compassionate, “live and let live” approach to the question.

This is a huge misunderstanding of how people actually approach issues. "Live and let live" usually means "Live and let live ... so long as it doesn't impact radically upon my own life." Once stuff does, that's when people start to get annoyed, and redefining the political, cultural, and social understanding of the word "man" and "woman" certainly does impact on a lot of peoples' lives.

it’s a fundamental thing about whether we speak a language voters understand

If you are not speaking a language that voters understand, you are not a national political party; you are, at best, a think tank or, at worst, a political sect.

Female not dale

It would be interesting to see what would happen if Labour did get a grip and say that women's rights would be protected and they were going to push for separate, protected provisions for trans people. Would there be the posts complaining that trans people should stop moaning about their rights and focus on the economy and disabled people's rights? That they shouldn't be single issue voters?

Those at the top of the Labour Party believe that, despite the difficult media environment on trans issues, they are in the same place as the British public, who generally take a compassionate, “live and let live” approach to the question. While the public debate rages with ferocity, however, the divisions within Labour are still bubbling under the surface. Some people are at odds with the party’s position, others hurt by the discomfort with which they are defending it. “Everyone wants it to go away, but it won’t go away while we look so scared about it,” one figure said.

So they have learned absolutely nothing and cannot see that if TWAW you cannot effectively protect single sex-based rights and that children are in danger from medical experiments.

Do those at the top of the Labour Party really believe that they are in the ‘same place as the British public’ on this?

I think they are deluded. Every person I’ve spoken with about this think Labour have lost the plot. My 75-year-old mother will - for the first time her life - not be voting for them.

They are losing their voter base. The tories will remain in power, and it’s all thoroughly depressing

Why do they keep on like this, when women make up 51% of the population and TRAs a tiny proportion? Do they not believe women will demonstrate their disgust at the ballot box, or do they just not care? And if they don't care about winning votes and getting elected, what's even the point of them anyway?