OK-Join me in a "Who will lose their job first?" poll

[CurlewKate]

And how soon" competition.

My money's on David Lammy by February.

Ooh or Braverman
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/articles/c6p28g8qy3eo.amp

To hoard a right you have to have it. You can't hoard what you don't currently own.

If he wasn't talking about women hoarding their rights which group or groups do you think he was talking about?

In the context on the conversation only women make sense to me?

Do you think he was talking about people with gender reassignment hoarding their rights like dinosaurs? Because they are the other group who have legal rights in this conversation.

I'd be happy if Braverman was next. Well, or Sunak to be honest but I was impressed by his speech the other day.

It could have been anything, given he mentioned workers rights, black and gay people.
Let's judge him on what he actually does. Novel I know after 14 years of Tories.

That is a very, very disingenuous post.

He was so obviously talking about women - and hiding behind pointless reference to “the right” - you’d have to be knavish to suggest otherwise.

I think it's "very,very disingenous" (putting it politely) to call him a misogynist on the basis of a made up quote.
I'll give him the benefit of the doubt in the meantime.

I used to think being good at academic stuff meant you were clever. I've grown up since then. I realise it just means you are good at that particularly speciality. Its not a measure of being good at anything else. It doesn't mean you are good at wider critical thinking, reasoning, logic, analytical thinking or that you have integrity, honestly or courage.

David Lammy clearly has not idea what a cervix is but is confident enough to opine that men can grow them with proper medical assistance. That's right proper thick, that is. An intelligent person who had integrity in his situation would have replied, 'I'm don't know what a cervix is so I can't answer that question'. Or he could have just googled it on the spot and said, 'No men can't.'

I'm not anti-Labour. I'm happy there is a Labour government.

That doesn't mean I'm okay with a well educated senior politician spouting ageist anti-woman nonsense and not addressing it properly when he is challenged on it.

He is a educated enough with sufficient practice as a lawyer to talk clearly. Also to explain properly what he actually did mean if it wasn't interpreted correctly. He has not done so.

If politicians spent all day responding to instances where they've been misunderstood, misrepresented or quoted out of context they would never get anything done.
He made a comment at a fringe event. There's no way to find what he actually said. It was a few years back. Let's see what he does in power rather than obsessing about ideological purity.

Tbf if that line does apply to

..’workers, black or gay people’

as suggested in pp. eg ‘gay people are rights hoarding dinosaurs’

he probably would be tossed out faster than if related to women. Maybe he should say who exactly is hoarding their rights.

Good point. And he's highly unlikely to be the second person to do what this thread is about.

Maybe Badenoch? She seems to be stirring the pot.

He was talking about some women (and men) who take a stance he disagrees with on trans rights. He clearly was not talking about all women. Not all women oppose trans rights.

I'm the first to say that academic intelligence doesn't necessarily translate to competence in any job (I'm an academic, so trust me I see vivid proof every day).

BUT, describing someone who studied at Harvard as "thick" is just ridiculous. I don't think @bellinisurge has been back to argue her point either.

Does that apply to Oxbridge politicians? I’m pretty sure that term has come up previously

It doesn't mean you are good at wider critical thinking, reasoning, logic, analytical thinking

It really does. Those qualities are necessary for academic success.

It really does not. When I hear gender studies academics who subscribe a belief in gender identity but say they can't define what gender identity is as it is ' very complicated' ' . When I hear gender studies academics decry gender critical academics but then say they don't really know what GC academics believe as they never read their stuff, when GC academics cannot get published in gender studies journals as the academics don't want to read stuff that challenges their thinking, I know for a fact these are people who are not good at critical thinking, reasoning or logic.

There are academics now in very niche fields who exist in a very small bubble of people who all think the same and don't like dissenting voices to the extent they shut them out. You can't be good at critical thinking or reasoning if you never test yourself by really challenging your views with debate with those who disagree with you.

Wouldn’t it be refreshing if we could get through a thread without mentioning gender?

You can't be good at critical thinking or reasoning if you never test yourself by really challenging your views with debate with those who disagree with you.

And you think someone with Lammy’s education hasn’t done this?

Wouldn’t it be refreshing if we could get through a thread without mentioning gender?
It would be absolutely brilliant if there were no need to talk about this bollocks as it was all kicked to the kerb, but there we go, its not. Whilst fundamental women's human rights are not recognised, there is a need to bang on about it.

And you think someone with Lammy’s education hasn’t done this?
Clearly not on this issue if he thinks its about women hoarding rights and men being able to grow cervixes, which bring us neatly back to my point about academics being good at their niche issue but that not translating into or rigour of thought about other issues. Now if Lammy were talking as a bloke down the pubs with his mates on gender, that would not matter, but talking as someone who is looking to be in a government making decision on these issues, it does.

I wasn’t talking about “this issue”. I’d be very happy if I never had to hear about it again The world’s bigger than this.

The world’s bigger than women having inalienable rights to participate freely, with dignity, on their own terms, in society?

Okay. Got it.

Idk a small number of men seem to think its important enough to abuse, threaten or use violence to try to get what they’re after

Women who don’t consent just talk about it and say no

You know as well as I do that’s not what “this issue” is about.

I haven’t got a clue what’s going on in your head, as it happens, and nor am I curious.

Good. Maybe we can return to the topic of the thread then.

Oh go on then...I'll put a fiver on Lammy 😝