Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Zoe Williams on Wes Streeting

86 replies

southbiscay · 26/05/2024 22:42

Zoe is suggesting that Wes Streeting apologising for not supporting the GC position is an election wheeze to win votes. Whilst Wes has form for bending with the wind, it's nevertheless fascinating that she thinks the GC position is the vote-winning position.

Perhaps someone could tell Keir.

x.com/zoesqwilliams/status/1794842950272463176

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Thread gallery
7
MrsWhattery · 29/05/2024 10:10

What I dofind acceptable is sharing the information that a politician’s close family member (unspecified) is trans and the understanding that this might affect their actual position on the subject.

Absolutely - this makes a big difference to how I feel about him as a potential leader because it could tie his hands considerably (it shouldn't but it could). I can understand that a parent would want to put their child first and do what's best for them, but in this case we have parents being gaslighted into thinking what's best for their child is gender-affirming transition and medicalisation, and going along with gender ideology wholesale. IMO that's misguided and unfounded, and there's mounting evidence almost every day that it's harmful, but if a parent does believe it's what's best, then that's not compatible with doing what's best for women, gay people and everyone else's gender-confused kids.

Not saying he does have a transitioning child, we don't know - but I do agree it's key information unfortunately. Unfortunately because it's not fair on the child and we don't have a right to their medical information, which I also respect - so in the absence of KS making clear that he understands GI is unevidenced and will follow the actual evidence to protect women's, children's and gay rights, I maight have to not vote labour. Which sucks.

I hope he will do an MN chat during the campaign. I hope he's reading MN.

Signalbox · 29/05/2024 09:19

Runor · 29/05/2024 08:34

I absolutely agree that intrusion into family life is not acceptable

What I do find acceptable is sharing the information that a politician’s close family member (unspecified) is trans and the understanding that this might affect their actual position on the subject.

This is even more relevant where the politician in question has said some things which are likely to make me believe they support one point of view (some women have a penis); but they are now saying ‘soothing’ things like women should have safe spaces. If KS won’t speak clearly, then we have to use the information available to put his comments into context and decipher what he actually means.

Yes I think transparency is key here and Starmer is not transparent. He uses obfuscating language such as “safe spaces” which have no meaning in law. He’s not clear on what a woman is or whether or not it’s “right” that women are clear about the language we use about ourselves. People are desperate to be able to vote Labour and are looking for clues about where he actually stands on all of this.

Runor · 29/05/2024 08:34

DrBlackbird · 28/05/2024 22:19

@Floisme absolutely we do not want, are not calling for, any intrusion into these children’s lives.

It is not a stretch to reflect, however, that a personal experience might offer some possible insight into Starmer’s views on an issue that is likely to impact 50% of the electorate. And he did not have to mention their gender/sex in a tv interview that would give rise to speculation. I would’ve thought that he’s a lawyer who chooses his words carefully but happy to consider the possibility of a slip of the tongue as well.

in any event, discussing this possibility is not so different from commentary on the influence of the families of Ed Balls or David Tennant or Penny Mordaunt on this divisive issue, all of which has been discussed on FWR before.

I absolutely agree that intrusion into family life is not acceptable

What I do find acceptable is sharing the information that a politician’s close family member (unspecified) is trans and the understanding that this might affect their actual position on the subject.

This is even more relevant where the politician in question has said some things which are likely to make me believe they support one point of view (some women have a penis); but they are now saying ‘soothing’ things like women should have safe spaces. If KS won’t speak clearly, then we have to use the information available to put his comments into context and decipher what he actually means.

Signalbox · 29/05/2024 07:44

MrsWhattery · 27/05/2024 10:54

i absolutely don’t believe KS really thinks TWAW. He’s got his faults but he’s not that stupid. You can tell he’s uncertain and havering about what to do, but he doesn’t come across like a fully signed-up zealot. He comes across like he took advice from tras at the beginning and has been trying to find a sensible way back / through but lacks the courage to be clear.

but lacks the courage to be clear.

Willing to push the nuclear button but lacks the courage to be clear about what a woman is.

ResisterRex · 29/05/2024 06:56

I would’ve thought that he’s a lawyer who chooses his words carefully

I think we all thought this. More recently though, it seems more likely that he's one of these lawyers who will not give you an answer and who caveats every goddamn thing. Well, this one thing is where he's slippery really. Compare and contrast to VAT on school fees I suppose.

Don't trust him on this issue. And he chose to say what he did, all the while using slippery language about safe spaces Hmm Of course people will wonder. The press will not go there. They're not allowed for good reason. But ordinary people will see what he says and they'll wonder. No way to make that not happen.

Floisme · 28/05/2024 23:06

I'm not getting into an argument about it @DrBlackbird if only because I can't bear reading the twisting and ducking and diving involved in trying to justify it. You and some other posters think it's acceptable, I emphatically do not and I'm going to carry on saying so when I see it.

DrBlackbird · 28/05/2024 22:19

@Floisme absolutely we do not want, are not calling for, any intrusion into these children’s lives.

It is not a stretch to reflect, however, that a personal experience might offer some possible insight into Starmer’s views on an issue that is likely to impact 50% of the electorate. And he did not have to mention their gender/sex in a tv interview that would give rise to speculation. I would’ve thought that he’s a lawyer who chooses his words carefully but happy to consider the possibility of a slip of the tongue as well.

in any event, discussing this possibility is not so different from commentary on the influence of the families of Ed Balls or David Tennant or Penny Mordaunt on this divisive issue, all of which has been discussed on FWR before.

RobinStrike · 28/05/2024 22:17

Yes, that is what he said. It's an odd mistake to make. I hope it was a mistake. It's the one area of Labour policy I'm unhappy with. It then I don't trust any party on women's rights.

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 28/05/2024 21:37

RobinStrike · 28/05/2024 21:30

@MissScarletInTheBallroom I would like to think a fumble over words was true. But who gets the sex of their children wrong? How can you possibly say I have 2 boys by mistake?
I have seen the name of his son, I think it was mentioned before Starmer was leader. But I've not seen the name of his daughter and I think it is fair not to name them.

There's a site I use (for a legitimate purpose) and I've just found what I'm pretty sure are both his children's full names on it after about 20 seconds of searching, so it's just not believable that journalists couldn't do the same.

But I still understand why he doesn't name them in public himself.

As I understand it he didn't say "I have two sons", but "I have a boy who's 15 and a boy who's 13". That sounds like an innocent slip of the tongue to me.

RobinStrike · 28/05/2024 21:30

@MissScarletInTheBallroom I would like to think a fumble over words was true. But who gets the sex of their children wrong? How can you possibly say I have 2 boys by mistake?
I have seen the name of his son, I think it was mentioned before Starmer was leader. But I've not seen the name of his daughter and I think it is fair not to name them.

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 28/05/2024 21:23

I'm not sure I believe the trans child theory about Starmer. It sounds like the sort of thing that could be an innocent fumble.

Incidentally, I find it very difficult to believe that people don't know and can't find out the names of his children. It's very easy to find that sort of information out. So if they haven't been publicly named, isn't that just because it's not very interesting information?

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 28/05/2024 20:57

ResisterRex · 27/05/2024 09:59

Their plans are still as Dodds outlined them. Wes is just saying some words. Interesting about the Southend candidate and his apparent attempts to scrub history.

Deeds, not deleted words...

I also agree that if we end up with the LDs propping up Labour then it's the worst outcome of all. This assault on women and children couldn't have happened unless there had been a coalition government. The LDs are partly bankrolled by Ferring. Labour MPs bankrolled by GLAAD have placed themselves (or been placed by LPHQ) in positions such as at the WESC.

It would be much better to make Labour have to defend it as solely their policy and observe if they dare to whip MPs, and see what happens. If it's a coalition then we are absolutely fucked.

This is why I am wondering whether I need to hold my nose and vote Tory.

newtlover · 28/05/2024 18:04

IMO he has every right to do whatever might work to protect the identity of his children

newtlover · 28/05/2024 18:03

OK, for vague read 'actively misleading'
hence, 'is that Jo Starmer;s Dad the Labour bloke?' 'No, silly, Jo is fourteen and a girl. He's got a 12 yo boy and a 16 yo girl, I read it in the Daily Mail'
might work

Tootiredforallthiscrap · 28/05/2024 16:10

You do realise that Wiki can be altered by anyone ? Even @DrBlackbird could have changed it to create mischief ? Who knows ?
And even if it was the case, so what ? Wes Streeting is gay, does that mean he’ll start pushing gay issues ? Sunak’s wife is a multi millionaire IT business owner, has he treated these people favourably ?

NoBinturongsHereMate · 28/05/2024 15:16

newtlover · 28/05/2024 12:57

if I was trying to protect the privacy of my teenaged children, I might very well be vague about their ages and sexes

He was quite the opposite of vague.

ResisterRex · 28/05/2024 13:30

Things politicians have said and placed in the public domain which don't add up will attract questions if those things don't make sense. Parents can easily forget the age of their kids - especially the second or third child. They don't forget, or get the sexes wrong. I've never known anyone who's done that.

newtlover · 28/05/2024 12:57

if I was trying to protect the privacy of my teenaged children, I might very well be vague about their ages and sexes

ResisterRex · 28/05/2024 12:02

ArabellaScott · 28/05/2024 11:35

Williams has now deleted that tweet.

And put up one about Harriet Harman.

'Harriet Harman will be missed in the HoC by pretty much everyone, I think'

What most feminists probably think of when they hear HH's name is her support for the Paedophile Information Exchange, I think.

https://x.com/zoesqwilliams/status/1794842950272463176

She's got a role at Fawcett now. So watch out for them magically remembering their own take on feminism post election

ArabellaScott · 28/05/2024 11:35

Williams has now deleted that tweet.

And put up one about Harriet Harman.

'Harriet Harman will be missed in the HoC by pretty much everyone, I think'

What most feminists probably think of when they hear HH's name is her support for the Paedophile Information Exchange, I think.

https://x.com/zoesqwilliams/status/1794842950272463176

x.com

https://x.com/zoesqwilliams/status/1794842950272463176

Floisme · 28/05/2024 08:48

I am quite dismayed to see posts on a parenting website repeatedly using a politician's children (age 15 and 13 if that article is correct) to bolster their argument. And I don't care what Starmer might have said.

Marjoriefrobisher · 28/05/2024 08:00

Bobbotgegrinch · 27/05/2024 16:31

To me, the fact that they've realised that this stuff doesn't win elections is the important part.

Kier Starmer, Wes Streeting etc don't have any skin in the game here. They don't actually care about pro-trans stuff, they just thought it was a vote winner. Now they're realising it's not, they'll just try their best to quietly ignore it for the next 5 years.

Politicians aren't the ones setting the narrative on this, they're just reacting.

I think this is wrong; Starmer died actually support this stuff, like he supported corbyn’s extreme left politics. He is pretending he doesn’t while wording his statements to give him wriggle room to do what he wants once elected.
he is a weaselly little lawyer to his core, I’m afraid

DrBlackbird · 28/05/2024 07:47

I completely get their desire to protect their children, but if they move into no 10, how can that happen? I wonder if she and the kids will actually remain in their current home and only Starmer will ‘move’?

DrBlackbird · 28/05/2024 07:38

NoBinturongsHereMate · 27/05/2024 17:45

Bios where, @DrBlackbird ?

Just plain old Wikipedia. Under Starmer’s it just said two children, under his wife’s, it said a boy and a girl.