Labour infighting over trans issues reignited by Cass Review

I don't think people here are suggesting that transphobia doesn't exist, more that the definition of transphobia has been broadened to the point of meaninglessness, leaving no word for actual transphobia. (What other words does this remind us of?)

And unfortunately, I think we were in a place where trans people were accepted and treated pretty well by society, but they are now going to find some people rather less friendly, precisely because we've all had this stuff rammed down our throats for the last decade and been labelled transphobic for not believing humans can change sex.

The whole thing is just spectacularly unhelpful to trans people as well as other vulnerable groups.

Regarding Brianna Ghey, the police were unable to establish that her murder was motivated by transphobia.

I'm going to go back to this misogyny point, because posters keep saying it. Upthread someone said Starmer was an extreme misogynist.

Misogyny means hatred of women. Andrew Tate is an extreme misogynist. Munroe Bergdorf is an extreme misogynist.

Misogyny is the wrong word to use for someone saying 99.9% of women don't have penises. Because that is not about "hating women" as there is nothing inherently bad about men or penises, and it's not actually making any negative statement about biological women. By saying it is misogyny, you are diluting the meaning in an identical way to the TRA who says that TWANW is transphobia.

He's wrong and that's fine to call out, but its not misogyny.

Two possibilities. She's confused. Or, much more likely, she is fully captured, and thinks that the Review is a transphobic attempt to genocide trans kids by stopping them from getting PBs/cross-sex hormones. Make no mistake: this is what TRAs are thinking, which is why they are pissed off with Stonewall's mealy-mouthed reaction.

Maybe share something that shows the whole exchange:

I found it extremely distasteful and tone deaf of Sunak to make that comment. No "second hand offence" about it. Sunak should be clever enough to moderate his comments depending on the circumstances. It was very poorly judged I thought.

Just picked this last post to quote, but this is a reply to everyone who quoted my previous post.

As well as saying "gender identity" doesn't exist, there seems to be a similar move to say "transphobia" doesn't exist, and that's why people don't like the tweet.

I think Brianna Ghey is a good example of what the tweet is about. That poor child did not leave the house very much and clearly had some major MH issues going on. They clearly needed some specialist medical support. And I can imagine for children like that, the tone of the debate and the resulting fear about what people might think of them will be a factor in them engaging in society etc. Which conversely is more likely to entrench their feelings of being different/trans, not less.

That's before you even get to the fact that Brianna's gender was a factor in her murder. Thus demonstrating that even if rare, transphobia is real and dangerous.

I can understand why women are concerned by the tweet, given the history and the ridiculously wide definition of "transphobia", as you say. But in that particular case I don't think her tweet was particularly controversial. It just (again) shows the polarisation that Cass was talking about, that people assume ill intent in the tweet.

Absolutely agree. Tedious and predictable.

The point about Sultana is that is the issue of the day is the Cass Review, and she didn't want to talk about it, other than as a peg on which to hang her regularly trotted out complaints about 'transphobia', which as far as she's concerned, is the only important issue here.

Come to think of it, you could make an analogy with posters who go from thread to thread on MN, churning out the same old, same old! 😛

He didn't even mention Brianna Ghey. Here:

Check out Starmer's terrible acting!

Nothing. He made a jibe at Starmer durning PMQs in relation to gender ideology whilst Ghey's mother was in the building (not in the room as that MP is claiming).

It's all making hay out of 2nd hand offence.

What did Sunak say about Brianna Ghey?

This hatred is spread by the politicians and the powerful – just think of Rishi Sunak's recent transphobic jibe at PMQs while Brianna Ghey's mother was in Parliament

What Sunak said was NOT transphobic and I do not think that he is a 'transphobe'. She needs to look a bit closer to home for hateful shit being spread by politicians - Keir Starmer is very definitely a misogynist with his 1% ladycock nonsense.

Whether it's a problem or not depends on what you think transphobia is.

I've seen far too many people recently suggesting that not believing trans women are women is transphobia.

That would make almost the entire population transphobic and the word essentially meaningless.

She is so fucking stupid but I am glad that at least she is saying what she thinks - her constituents need to listen.

There are bits of it that aren't wrong, albeit there'd still be legitimate criticism because of what she's not said.

However, the claim from the UN 'expert' is festering bollocks, and a person who includes that isn't to be trusted either because they're ignorant or disingenuous.

She's offering up a skewed version of what Cass is about and why it was commissioned and has linked it to a bunch of things that are adult and activist driven.

She has conflated sexual orientation with gender identity.

She hasn't provided a definition of transphobia nor how it is relevant to the medical negligence of children.

It's cherry picked TRA bullshit 101.

Also @AdamRyan, WTF is transphobia? Many (and I would suggest this woman) think it's just an expression of belief in sex. Transphobic hate crime is really not on the up, unless you count some very dubious examples.....

I read that as her saying transphobia is a problem and children identifying as trans need medical support.

And zip, zero, zilch about children who were enthusiastically transed and permanently damaged by drugs and surgery when it was very much NOT in their best interests. In fact that medical "support" you speak of cheered the mutilation on!
Whatever you are on, I definitely don't want any.

@AdamRyan

Because concern about transphobia has been used to stifle debate about appropriate child treatment and the statement casts doubt on the Review several times - references to "concerns" galore and a lukewarm welcome for "some recommendations" (which ones? Probably not the ones that involve not affirming all kids automatically). Not once did this woman say that she wanted to ensure that trans children got the most appropriate treatment for them, which is the key point - getting healthcare is one thing, getting the RIGHT healthcare quite another...

She is a real, stalwart fighter for women’s rights, an absolute heroine, in it for the long haul. I would say ‘tireless’ but I am
sure the endless battle is exhausting. I hope the day comes when all the superb women who have held the line for our rights can relax without fear of another attack.

What exactly is your issue with what she said? Because I read that as her saying transphobia is a problem and children identifying as trans need medical support. This could include all the stuff that we talk about on here and that Cass recommended- talking therapies, autism assessments etc.

I don't think that is controversial at all.

Good Lord above. What’s she on and can I have some?

think I can't remember where I read it, that the membership tended to be disproportionately concentrated in the safer Labour seats, rather than more closely fought ones. Meaning that people leaving the party and presumably then staying at home/protest voting are less likely to be able to make a difference anyway.

This is true as far down as ward level in my local CLP - the council seats that Labour doesn’t occupy have almost no local membership. The Regional party bus activists around, or at least they do if they haven’t pissed all the activists off!

So completely ignores the scandal of unethical medical treatment on children? Reframes the issues as "transphobia" rather than damage to children's bodies and futures?

When someone shows you that they don't give a toss about children's welfare yet will be asking for your vote in the near future, remember how she framed this.