Or have Labour totally lost the plot wrt women’s rights?

[Lion400]

Does Starmer really underestimate women this much??

‘Would you vote for a party that promised to let men parade around bollock-naked in women’s changing rooms?

Or a party that was alarmingly blasé about gay kids being ‘corrected’ with drugs and surgery?

Or a party that threatened to clamp down on thoughtcriminals who refer to people with penises and testicles – you know, men – as men?

If not, then don’t vote Labour in the upcoming General Election. Because it’s possible it will pursue all of these petty tyrannical policies’

https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/03/13/tyranny-in-drag/

[Lion400]

YABU - Labour are perfectly good for women

YANBU - Labour are misogynistic cretins atm

[brytersky]

Well the Tories are just as bad, so we're at a bit of an impasse aren't we? I suppose we have to choose between publicly facilitating mens fetishes and being at increased risk of sexual assault and harassment or facing collapse of local council facilities, social care, NHS, education and deteriorating public spaces.

I shall need to consult Mazlow's hierarchy of needs and make a decision based on that. We really are scraping the bottom of the barrel now. Thanks for the anti
Labour propaganda though. It's always good to start early 😊

[brytersky]

You shouldn't use the term 'cretin' either as it's offensive and ableist and about 60 years out of date.

[leafybrew]

I think there are more pressing issues - eg global warming/green energy/NHS collapsing and the continuing recession.

I don't go clothes shopping that much, and have never seen anyone 'stark bollock naked' in any changing room - either male or female.

Maybe get a grip and dial down the hyperbole - or keep it to the usual board.

[Lion400]

None of the text is exaggerated. It’s all factual.

[Lion400]

I didn’t realise cretin was offensive or ableist, sorry for that.

[CaterhamReconstituted]

It’s hardly news that Labour are unreliable on the trans stuff. They’ve been infected with this ideology for years and I do fear what a Labour government will mean for single-sex spaces. I guess the question is whether this is a deal-breaker when set against the appalling Tories. There are no easy choices - it’s shit vs shit. But I think it is a deal-breaker actually and I will hold my nose and vote for the Tories as the least worst option for women.

[Lion400]

@CaterhamReconstituted

It’s hardly news that Labour are unreliable on the trans stuff. They’ve been infected with this ideology for years and I do fear what a Labour government will mean for single-sex spaces. I guess the question is whether this is a deal-breaker when set against the appalling Tories. There are no easy choices - it’s shit vs shit. But I think it is a deal-breaker actually and I will hold my nose and vote for the Tories as the least worst option for women.

Yes. I think I agree 💯. It’s women rights stuff and they don’t support women at all.

[SiobhanSharpe]

I'm hoping to be able to vote for the SDP if they put up a candidate in my constituency. It doesn't seem to have been infected by the gender cult.
The 19th century American Feminist Susan B Anthony said 'No self respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her sex. '
As true today as it was then.

[BlackThumb]

@CaterhamReconstituted

It’s hardly news that Labour are unreliable on the trans stuff. They’ve been infected with this ideology for years and I do fear what a Labour government will mean for single-sex spaces. I guess the question is whether this is a deal-breaker when set against the appalling Tories. There are no easy choices - it’s shit vs shit. But I think it is a deal-breaker actually and I will hold my nose and vote for the Tories as the least worst option for women.

Please explain to me how the Tories are good for women?

You are being completely blind if you think the Tories will do anything good for women, while also decimating all public services.

While I agree single sex spaces need to be protected, if I’m dead or my quality of life is so reduced as I can’t get treated on the NHS then I’m not even able affected by this.

[CaterhamReconstituted]

@BlackThumb

Please explain to me how the Tories are good for women?

You are being completely blind if you think the Tories will do anything good for women, while also decimating all public services.

While I agree single sex spaces need to be protected, if I’m dead or my quality of life is so reduced as I can’t get treated on the NHS then I’m not even able affected by this.

I completely agree with you. The prospect of a Tory government fills me with dread. There do seem to be some saner voices in the Tories on the trans question though. It really is a lesser of two evils calculation for me.

[lightinthebox]

Personally I can’t vote for a party that has been deliberately underfunding essential public services including our children’s education.

Are you deliberately ignoring how the Tories are making it increasingly difficult for women in terms or child care etc, so purposefully using policies to attack women.

This is just more fear mongering to increase trans hate and irresponsible.

[Acapulco12]

@Lion400

None of the text is exaggerated. It’s all factual.

The style of the article is very exaggerated though.

The wording is very over-the-top - e.g. ‘tyranny in drag’, ‘authoritarianism wrapped in euphemism’, and calling transgender people ‘a dangerous cult’. I agree with some of the author’s points - e.g. how do you decide which spaces are available to transwomen?

However, his writing style is so dramatic that it puts me off and makes me less likely to support him.

I’ve also seen that they’ve mentioned at the bottom of the article that he’s written a book called ‘A heretic’s manifesto: essays on the unsayable’. It hasn’t been reviewed by any major papers, apart from The Australian (paywall-protected), which makes me think it doesn’t have many helpful or noteworthy things to say.

And even the title alone is something chosen to provoke and goad the reader.

I agree with freedom of speech, but this book - and the article - seem to be less about freedom of speech and more about trying to shock and irritate people with the way he puts across his views. He could communicate in a much calmer, more intelligent way, but chooses not to - because he knows he’ll get more attention with his current method.

[CaterhamReconstituted]

@Acapulco12

The style of the article is very exaggerated though.

The wording is very over-the-top - e.g. ‘tyranny in drag’, ‘authoritarianism wrapped in euphemism’, and calling transgender people ‘a dangerous cult’. I agree with some of the author’s points - e.g. how do you decide which spaces are available to transwomen?

However, his writing style is so dramatic that it puts me off and makes me less likely to support him.

I’ve also seen that they’ve mentioned at the bottom of the article that he’s written a book called ‘A heretic’s manifesto: essays on the unsayable’. It hasn’t been reviewed by any major papers, apart from The Australian (paywall-protected), which makes me think it doesn’t have many helpful or noteworthy things to say.

And even the title alone is something chosen to provoke and goad the reader.

I agree with freedom of speech, but this book - and the article - seem to be less about freedom of speech and more about trying to shock and irritate people with the way he puts across his views. He could communicate in a much calmer, more intelligent way, but chooses not to - because he knows he’ll get more attention with his current method.

Edited

Brendan O’Neill is very good on this question. The transgender ideology (not people) IS a dangerous cult. It promotes, at the very least, some contested claims about the nature of gender and it has real-world implications for the safety and dignity of women. And it is authoritarian. India Willoughby recently reported JK Rowling to the police because she corrected referred to him as a man.

[MrsOvertonsWindow]

It's so easy for Labour to sort this.

Recognise (instead of denying) that there's a conflict between women's expectations of privacy and safety from men when undressing, sleeping in hospital wards, prison cells etc and the demands from transactivists to access women in these situations.
State that you'll tackle this instead of bullying and demonising women speaking out. Start insisting on 3rd space discussions etc.
Speak out about what's happened to children being gaslit into thinking their bodies are flawed and changing sex is the solution. NHS England with yesterday's ban on puberty blockers for children, the Cass report & the proposed new school guidelines make it easy for Labour to engage in the discussions and to prioritise safeguarding children
Starmer says he now supports no transwomen in elite women's sport (think he said it's common sense?) So now explain why it's not common sense in grassroots sport where elite women come from?

This is not going to go away. His previous comments (don't say only women have a cervix, 99% of women don't have a penis) means that he'll always be on the back foot with this.

Like countless women, I'd like to give my vote back to labour. But it's not happening while they remain in thrall to transactivism.

[SecondHandFurniture]

In the words of The Heavy - Oh, no. Not you again.

[ThisQuickFinch]

A very overblown article, at least in terms of differences between Labour and the Torries.

Both parties want to ban conversion therapy :
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/sunak-conversion-therapy-gay-trans-b2432375.html

Labour want to make transphobia an aggravating offence, not a “new” crime in and of itself (so something like misgendering wouldn’t be a crime, but committing a ‘regular’ crime against someone - motivated by the victim being trans - would be). The article does seem to acknowledge that it’s making a leap, on this issue (and glosses over the that transphobia is already part of ‘hate crime’ legislation- as an uplift under the Sentencing Act). The effect of these proposed changes, as opposed to the current law, seems marginal.

The only other difference in policy seems to be changing the 2 doctor requirement for a gender recognition certificate to a 1 doctor requirement. Whether 1 or 2 doctors are needed is far too niche an issue to influence my vote and hardly deserving of the apocalyptic language in that article.

Although the Tories bang on about this a lot, since Labour’s pivot under Starmer, it seems to be more about noise than major policy differences.

[DanielGault]

The constant debate about trans this or that is completely taking away from more basic and important stuff. Food, housing, heating. NHS. I understand that trans is hugely important to people on both sides, but it should be a few rungs down the ladder after the above mentioned.

[CaterhamReconstituted]

@DanielGault

The constant debate about trans this or that is completely taking away from more basic and important stuff. Food, housing, heating. NHS. I understand that trans is hugely important to people on both sides, but it should be a few rungs down the ladder after the above mentioned.

Sex-based rights are incredibly important. This is not some eccentric or fringe issue.

[DanielGault]

@CaterhamReconstituted

Sex-based rights are incredibly important. This is not some eccentric or fringe issue.

And which sex do you think suffers most from food, poverty, housing disadvantage etc etc. the constant focus on trans is removing attention from these issues to the detriment of women and children. Trans stuff should by all means rumble on in the background, but not distract from these real issues that affect actual people today, tomorrow, next week.

[Perfect28]

I wouldn't choose who I vote for on a single issue, especially when there are much much more important things at stake (education, healthcare, environment)

[CaterhamReconstituted]

@DanielGault

And which sex do you think suffers most from food, poverty, housing disadvantage etc etc. the constant focus on trans is removing attention from these issues to the detriment of women and children. Trans stuff should by all means rumble on in the background, but not distract from these real issues that affect actual people today, tomorrow, next week.

I agree with all that except the bit that says the debate over sex-based rights should rumble on in the background. This needs to be a fight in the foreground - because the trans lobby won’t be forgetting about it, that’s for sure. The state of public services and the economy are of course fundamentally important, and so is this.

[EasternStandard]

@CaterhamReconstituted

I agree with all that except the bit that says the debate over sex-based rights should rumble on in the background. This needs to be a fight in the foreground - because the trans lobby won’t be forgetting about it, that’s for sure. The state of public services and the economy are of course fundamentally important, and so is this.

because the trans lobby won’t be forgetting about it, that’s for sure

Very true. Any gains made can easily be fought against by males

As with majority vote yanbu op

[JessS1990]

This may help posters realise they are not alone.

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/prediction_main.html

[DanielGault]

@CaterhamReconstituted

I agree with all that except the bit that says the debate over sex-based rights should rumble on in the background. This needs to be a fight in the foreground - because the trans lobby won’t be forgetting about it, that’s for sure. The state of public services and the economy are of course fundamentally important, and so is this.

I'd have to disagree there tbh. It's a bit like with a toddler having a tantrum, don't feed the beast. Certainly not to the detriment of actual critical issues that are happening now and for the last god knows how long. I am not anti trans, but I do feel it's somewhat fashionable in some cases ATM. So don't give the attention. Keep fighting for mums and kids and their rights wrt housing/food/heating/food/schooling, and don't get derailed by the trans issue. Which is probably a lot cheaper for the government than dealing with wider societal issues.