Boris Johnson speaks again

Excellent comment that summarises the dilemma for us all. As he lies about this, what else will he lie about? What other delusions will he sell to the electorate because he's been "bought" by an ideology.

Everyone knows what a woman is (except some very mentally unwell souls). The fact that he's incapable of standing up to the bullies in his party renders him completely unfit for high office. He has neither the integrity or ethics - which is disappointing as I had hoped he would be different.

No, the word female has not fallen, and just because someone like Creasey tries it on does not mean it's now accepted fact. In fact, it's the point at which it all starts to fall apart from this never ending pushing.

The answer to 'a TW is an adult human female' is a flat out 'no'.

The T in TW means male. it's the defining feature. Stating that a male is an adult human female is plain silly, it's hit the point of being too ridiculous to even discuss further.

'Woman' as an honourary, polite kind of term... yeah, it was arguable, or at least it was before this all got really bloody offensive and apparent that any inch given just results in the next mile being demanded with menaces. Female? No. It's over. No further negotiation or discussion Stella, this is just silly now.

His liberalism was well demonstrated in his often misinterpreted article on the Burqa. He said (perfectly reasonably, I think) that he found it to be a ludicrous item of clothing, but then argued that in the U.K. we should not be in the business of telling women what they can and cannot wear, no matter how offensive some people may find that.

Can anyone explain to me why comments or policy which appeals to voters is evidence of questionable moral character. Is this an admission that Labour would prefer to criticise from the opposition benches rather than have the responsibility of running the country?

Haven't caught up but this post is too good to pass by.

There are some excellent people within the low ranks of the Labour party machine. The first time I heard Anne Ruzylo speak my mother dropped open that the Labour party has someone this articulate, with actual life and work experience in meaningful fields, with sense, doing actual socialism, who can hold an entire room and hold a conversation dealing with questions on the spot from her own knowledge without scripts and prompts and cards designed by advisors - name any of the top bods who can do that? We have people of this calibre! And where are they? Never allowed to rise anywhere near the top. Only the terminally insane dross are up there.

We don't have the far right in the UK: our right here would be centre left at the very least in the UK. The far left are insane in both countries, and are actively dangerous. What we're left with is the Tories. Who are slow, unenthusiastic and full of holes. But they're all women have got, and I'll settle for slow and grubby and unhelpful over dangerous bloody lunatics who should never get near power.

Starmer came on here during the leadership q&a (ha bloody ha) and where the three women candidates were all quite frankly nuts but at least had the integrity to be openly nuts and be plain about their stall and what they stood for and would do. Starmer smirked and said absolutely bloody nothing. The man's a coward, he has no integrity and no guts, but Stonewall et al have been plain: they have a written deal with the left and if Labour get into power women as a sex class are over. Homosexuality will soon follow. (Although it'll be spun ever so nicely as a much better version of homosexual).

True of the hard left. What puzzles me is Labour Party's behavior on this issue. They must realize it's alienating former allies, and that they do need the votes?

There seems, on the left, and not just hard left, an reflexive and unthinking support for any idea or movement that can be called 'progressive', or concerns 'minorities'. In the 70s this extended to tolerance of, and active support from some, of PIE. Now it tolerates and actively supports a movement that is just as emblazoned with red flags as PIE was. Why?

It’s a bit easier for those of us who’d not vote for a socialist party even before this stuff all kicked off.

It’s a bit academic for me anyway; I don’t get to vote in general elections in the U.K.

"am not convinced that Johnson is using this topic to catch voters or to deflect from other issues"

The trouble is that looking at past form, every time he opens his mouth about anything at all now, we're just trying to work out if he is trying to catch voters, deflect from other issues, or get money out of it for himself or his pals (or influence for his pals, which will translate into money for him). The fact that occasionally something might pass his lips that is actually a reflection of his true feelings (does he have any?) and not merely the most expedient thing to say at the time doesn't even occur to me.

Many women are prepared to make reality (in the here and now the issue is specifically biological reality, but it wouldn’t make any difference to me if it was enforced creationism or some other rhubarb) the hill we’re prepared to die on politically.

I’ve run out of fingers and toes for the number of women in my position, people I’ve known IRL for a long time, who feel the same.

I’m very afraid of the consequences of enforced lying about what is reality and unmoved by being called Tory Scum or any of the other pejoratives that would have cut me to quick when I was young.

I’m old enough now to them as the stick behind the “be kind” carrot. So if some people are mind boggled by my chosen strategies to ward off religiosity becoming the force behind law and social sanction again, I can live with that.

Sorry I should clarify - I mean he was the same in that he did not preach or lecture. I am not suggesting he is comparable in any other way.
for the benefit of any defamation specialists who happen to be reading 😬

There is undoubtedly a strong streak of preachy arrogance in the left which makes it vulnerable to being taken over by these kinds of ideas which they think they are entitled to push on the electorate. The average left wing politician is more likely to think they are there to direct and not serve: the electorate is ignorant, unenlightened, needs to be shown what’s right and reformed.
this helps also to explain the otherwise unaccountable success of B Johnson. He doesn’t think he’s better than anyone else and clearly is in no position to pretend he is. He doesn’t lecture and preach. The last Labour leader to be successful was the same.

Lisa ‘more light, less heat’ Nandy

Don't forget it's companion; "it's complex".

To borrow from AIBU, both make me feel a bit stabby.

This. The left is prone to lying just as much as the right. I'm not sure why the left feel that women owe them a vote. Historically, Soviet Union was far, far more sexist and misogynistic than UK, in spite of the lip service paid to 'equal rights'. I know, because I moved here in 1990, so have direct comparison. Somehow, after the revolution, there were still plenty other things to worry about than fighting misogyny

I still can't get over Lisa Nandy answering a question by stating violent sex offenders and rapists should be housed in a cell with a women should that be their choice (clearly the woman cell mate has no right to choose in her scenario).

Her exact quote being:

"I believe fundamentally in people's right to self-ID.

I believe the Gender Recognition Act strikes the wrong balance in relation to that.

I think that crimes that are recorded should be recorded as that person wishes, having gone through that process, received support and self-identified.

I think trans women are women, I think trans men are men, so I think they should be accommodated in a prison of their choosing."

Lisa is a member of the Shadow Cabinet. Her statements reflect Labours official policy and position.

And this is just one example, one Labour politician. This is why people who have been 'left-wing for years are turning their backs'.

MalagaNights

Agree with every word.

Yep again

Of course Starmer knows what a woman is.
Everybody does.

It's a test to see if he'll go along with the lie and he does.

How anyone can claim he has honesty and integrity when he will lie about material reality if its politically expedient is beyond me.

It's a different class of lie to 'oh I didn't think 5 people and a cake was a party'.

It's an authoritian lie that is based on fear and absolute conformity, which relies on everyone else going along with the lie and which results in great harm being done but we must not admit that or the lie is revealed.

It's a fundamental lie which corrupts.

Women did not abandon the left, the left abandoned women

yep.