It is possible to be right on one issue and very very wrong on others.
One of the major problems with current politics is the 'you are either with us or against us' mentality, which doesn't serve the public interest in any way.
This concept means that we are supposed to accept certain detrimental things for this idea of the 'greater good' which hasn't been adequately examined or debated. We are just supposed to accept that someone else has decided on a major programme of policy but the details are irrelevant to us.
We know that various interests need to be balanced but therein lies the issue; no party discusses how we set that balance or where that balance is. The power isn't in the hands of the public and public debate is stiffled.
In reality we SHOULD sometimes be agreeing with Tories and sometimes with Labour members. Because thats HEALTHY and how things happen in the real world.
Some important context:
One of the things that the Tories are trying to push through in terms of 'human rights reform' within the Bill of British Rights is this concept of those who are worthy of human rights and those who are not. So the suggestion is that criminals lose their rights - of course this is framed as paedos and murderers - but the implications go much further than that and affect us all. If you start to create a situation where not everyone is worthy of human rights, you are saying its okay to abuse and act inhumanly to groups you dislike.
Ironically in saying that Gender Criticals are unworthy of rights and in bed with the far right, what are certain Labour Supporters doing? Supporting the Tories...
So we have this weird thing of saying Gender Criticals are in bed with the 'fascist tories', whilst effectively supporting an idea which fits in with a Tory policy of removing rights from one group.
The point for Human Rights is they must be balanced where there are competing interests. This effectively comes down to protections from harm coming first and then feelings / privacy etc coming second. And you protect vulnerable and often unpopular groups first because they don't have advocacy / control over their lives. This means children and people under state care first over all others. Cos thats what safeguarding is all about. Its about Rights and Protections. You can't then start blathering on about safeguarding being a weasel word or a transphobic dog whistle. Cos it doesn't make sense in the wider context of rights.
Kemi Badenoch in saying that we should protect women and children from ideology is actually doing this, when the Tories are moving away from this in other ways. She is saying that women prisoners are worthy of protection from a wider ideology in society. Ironically.
This shows there is something of a breathe of view within Conservative thinking that is increasingly being discouraged within Labour Circles. I think you have to ask questions about this.
Don't get me wrong, I am not a Tory. I don't support them. I think Labour have some policies and ideas which are vitally important to our country. My point is that if you are being instantly dismissive of Badenoch (who I think its a wing nut in other respects) you are missing the point and aren't interesting in the best thing for our country and the public as a whole.
This concept of being gender critical meaning you are in bed with fascists is utterly ridiculous for this reason.
What it comes down to is a Labour issue with being unable to understand the principles that underpin rights and that also means that our wider rights are at risk, because unless you understand how rights work: That Dorkin quote above highlights it well.
Labour are utterly failing to protect ALL rights if they indulge this nonsense and they use this force teaming mentality that you are 'either with us or against us'.
If Labour are all about rights they need to acutally get their head out their arse and demonstrate they understand the principles on which they are founded on, better rather than going along with this nonsense which will ultimately go hand in hand with their demise. At the moment all they do is prove that actually they don't have a bloody clue what they are talking about and are going to be complicit in undoing what they say they stand for.