Labour infighting over trans issues reignited by Cass Review

Well said. Where was Keir during the post-Cass publication question time in parliament recently? Counting up all the women in the world who have a penis and trying to get his maths to make sense?

But I imagine that JH will still vote for these idiots, right?

She expresses the rage of so many once labour voting women very well. Long overdue for the Labour brothers to stop being a terminal disappointment, acknowledge Cass showcasing the dreadful things that have happened to children and young people from transactivism and start putting things right.

Of course, it's not only male colleagues who have been hostile. There's a group of female MPs, some of whom have behaved appallingly.
Some have 'whispered' loudly about 'f terfs' as I walk past. Then, as our official policy appears to change, I'll see them on television saying: 'It's terribly concerning that women haven't been able to talk about this issue.' Their hypocrisy is monumental.

Charming. 🙄You can just picture it. What a state the Labour Party is in.

Jean Hatchet has a searing article in the Critic

https://thecritic.co.uk/a-labour-of-unrequited-love/

I wish for MOAR Labour Infighting, preferably until they agree that the dumbrades who still believe that women as a sex class don't exist, are fringe nut nuts. Welcome in the broad church of the movement, but nowhere near the levers of power. If that requires a leadership election or a spine transplant, fair enough.

Obviously I can't go back and check but, from what I can remember, I think the post concerned wasn't just about you personally disengaging but it was also suggesting other posters did the same? If that's correct then that might have been the point where it was judged to have crossed into troll hunting.

Just a thought, and it could be wrong but, if correct, it's something we can all remember.

Bread pudding is revolting and not a cake, but I respect your right to your misguided opinions, @IwantToRetire 😉

I think there’s an element of ‘not in the spirit’ involved in pedantry- where an implication has been made and posters respond to that implication, and are then picked up as misrepresenting what was said.

Equally, when a poster takes very literally something intended as hyperbole or perhaps illustrative.

It becomes incredibly frustrating.

DH has ASD and has deeply hurt me in the past by implying that I lied or exaggerated about something not at all crucial or needing precision. We have a household saying now to humorously challenge someone who is being needlessly pedantic, or occasionally too hyperbolic. DH’s preferred conversation style is to a, avoid conversation if possible or b, stick firmly to facts delivered as dryly as possible. ‘Quite good’ and ‘not bad’ are high praise. No event has yet been ‘great’. That apparently would require memorable, recorded excitement from critics.

Slight derail, but some conversations hold echoes of DH on his most annoying days 🤣

I've just bought a gluten free doughnut, first one for years, coated my teeth in sugar.

That's a very wise post. There's definitely a pattern on certain threads where one poster makes (as an example) negative political insinuations and then other posters react, challenge those false but damaging claims in good faith and then a "back and forth" develops.
It's always a shame that a few people are so lacking in insight and self awareness that they see political differences as a threat and are unable to discuss them without descending into childish assertions. Always reminds me of how important it is when working with adolescents to enable them to develop the maturity to accept and discuss difference without it being necessarily a threat to their world view.

But I suppose that's a consequence of our twitterverse age where critical thinking and empathy is discouraged while throwing accusations of wrongthink are seen as a debating tactic.

It's also 100% impossible to determine if someone is "bad faith" or has a difference of opinion. If one finds oneself regularly thinking "bad faith" poster, best strategy is first to challenge your own cognitive dissonance and then choose if you want to disengage or make your point for the lurkers.

It's interesting about "derailing".

I think a derail is when people go onto a totally unrelated topic. E.g. coming onto a thread about conditions for women at work and starting talking about male soldier deaths in WW1.

A difference of opinion on a relevant point if debate is not a derail. And if all threads are kept to violent agreement about whatever is being discussed, that's an echo chamber, not a discussion.

I linked MNHQ post upthread because they were quite clear about having misrepresentation challenged on a thread. It is entirely possible to disagree without insulting people, troll hunting or making accusations.

Yes. I can (unfortunately) be like a dog with a bone when I get going. 😳😬

However, I do find it easier not to engage when others also aren't, as I can't then be drawn back in by a discussion being had with somebody else.

Yes, I've noticed that too

quite right, fully agree

@MissLucyEyelesbarrow yes that's all fair comment.

Realistically, MN cannot control derailers. There are tonnes of threads that deviate from the subject of the OP, and often that's what makes MN interesting and fun. How do you distinguish a deliberate derail?

As MN cannot do it, it is up to all of us how we respond, when we suspect someone is derailing. I'm not criticising anyone, as I am 100% guilty of this myself but, quite often, FWR posters just cannot let something go, even when it's obvious that the person with whom they are arguing is not open to debate and, in some cases (am not saying this is true of anyone on this thread), is not arguing in good faith.

It's incredibly frustrating when a good discussion gets lost in a fight between two or three posters - again, recognising that I am myself sometimes one of the people guilty of this. We all need to have the discipline to move on from a particular point or poster, in the interests of everyone else and of useful debate.

I expect Karmer has made a statement on the Cass report, I just haven't gotten round to reading it yet. I'll look for it after lunch.

Of course pro women pp on FWR are being logical. It’s one strength which finally is showing in the move away from harm, atm for children in Cass review and stopping puberty blockers but hopefully more changes to come.

We’ve been consistent in rationally pointing to the harm and now have the Cass Review thankfully backing it up.

Labour are proposing implementing the Bill developed by the Conservatives under Truss. It is here:

www.gov.uk/government/consultations/banning-conversion-therapy/banning-conversion-therapy

The government is aware of concerns regarding the impact of legislation. We recognise there is a plurality of experience in this area and that there are adults who seek counselling to help them live a life that they feel is more in line with their personal beliefs. We do not intend to ban adults from seeking such counselling freely, but consent requirements will be robust and stringent. The person entering the arrangement must have freely consented and received all the appropriate information about the potential impacts, short and longer term, of such counselling to allow them to do so, otherwise this would amount to an offence.^

Wes Streeting has been clear an incoming Labour government will work to implement Cass' recommendations.

https://twitter.com/wesstreeting/status/1777835770184634751

The problem for many posters on here is they won't believe it until they see it. Which is not going to happen if Labour aren't voted in.

I find the opposite to you dime. The more posters attack "the left", shut down dissenting views and use hyperbole like calling Starmer an "extreme misogynist" the more I think those posters are not using their logical brain to make decisions.

This thread has been quite enlightening.

It's brought to mind reverse psychology. The more that I am being told that someone isn't a misogynist etc etc, the more convinced he is (not that I needed convincing). The more I'm told 'nothing to see here' regarding the LP lack of intention to protect women and children, the more I'm convinced that there IS something to see here.

Very disappointed that the Cass review has not led to the LP (as far as I know but I haven't been online all that much) to openly retract it's statement on conversion therapy because I can't see how they can ban 'all forms of' conversion therapy at the same time as following the Cass guidelines.

Given that the LP know that there are a fair few voters for which this is the single issue, along with women's rights, it's surprising that they haven't more unequivocally stated that now they have this 'new information' (in inverted commas because it isn't new at all) they will back track on the conversion therapy promise. I'm not sure Streeting's statements go far enough.

I guess they think one should just personally ignore it. Which works, obvs.

It does.