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/

I'm not trying to tell anyone what they should find important and which issues they should prioritise, which is what you were doing upthread.

As others have stated on this thread, it would be so easy for Labour to win our votes by putting women's rights and children's safety first if they want to.

I suspect that the real point is that the removal of women's rights doesn't bother you too much. That's great, good for you.

We all think differently.

I doubt any of their constituents would see attending a surgery to carry out their duty to them as an excuse.

I won't be voting for anyone in Britain because I don't live there. I appreciate all the arguments regarding trans, although I don't necessarily agree with all of them. But I really do wish that volume of effort was put into helping women and children who are suffering now, who are in danger now. Rather than expending all this energy on future evil trans people. Help the people who are actually suffering and in danger.

And what about the arguments in relation to women's rights? How many times do you need telling that's what it's about?

I don't need telling at all. And you're straying into patronising territory there, you have no idea of my history. So just be mindful.

Your history has no relevance as to why you're misrepresenting us as discussing trans issues when we're discussing women's sexual based rights.

So, let me get this straight, while you're busy purporting to represent women's rights, you're going out of your way to dismiss my personal experience of violence as a woman? That seems somewhat incongruous.

What has your past got to do with the fact that you keep telling us we're discussing trans issues when we're actually discussing women's sex based rights? I'm struggling to see the link between the two.

I'm not dismissing anything (bearing in mind you hadn't mentioned it until now), but I also don't see its relevance to why you're misrepresenting what we're discussing.

Because you're presuming to represent all women. You don't. And tbh you're quite aggressive with it. I'm sick to the eye teeth of transgenderism being a tinderbox. It should be possible to talk about it without mud slinging.

Misrepresentation again. We're not talking about transgenderism, we're talking about women's sex based rights.

And where do I claim to talk for all women?! Do you struggle with comprehension generally?

Yes, yes I do. I bow down before your superior intellect. I disagree with you, and I don't like your manners at all. But that's probably because of my 'struggles' eh?

And just by the by, if I did struggle with comprehension generally, would you feel good mocking me about it?

The problem with these derailers hogging these threads is that it makes discussion impossible, which I suppose is the intention

There was great discussion when they weren't here. Respectful, even if disagreeing.

If you're referring to me ( and I apologise if you're not) I have very few posts here

Yes I am, to you and the others who duplicate your theme, repetitive and doesn't further any discussion or thoughtfulness , in fact it's a turn off , not only to the thread but also to any point you may be trying to make.

This morning in the HoP.

We know you prefer your echo chamber on FWR. If you bring your trans issues onto general boards, you’ll be challenged. That’s what discussion is all about - not a bunch of people all agreeing with each other.

People can post where they like. Obviously some are committed to trying to stop discussion on women’s rights but whatever

‘Trans issues’ is just a male focus, it shows pretty quickly where someone stands

You know perfectly well where I stand. It’s no secret. It seems that those who want to close down discussion are posters who are unable to tolerate disagreement.

I notice the same posters on threads trying very hard to keep women’s rights from being mentioned.

They obviously care that women should stop speaking up. I find it utterly bizarre but there you go. Luckily I can see so many intelligent and reasoned posts from other women it’s best just to skip past and focus on the good

If you bring your trans issues onto general boards, you’ll be challenged.

This post is about women’s sex-based rights. If a person wishes to discuss trans issues, they can of course, however it is not the point of this post. But you know that.

You've missed all of the polite discussion and disagreement on this thread then? Wilfully ignoring it more like, as it doesn't suit the narrative.

You've missed all of the polite discussion and disagreement on this thread then? Wilfully ignoring it more like, as it doesn't suit the narrative.

It wasn’t me who said the thread was being derailed. 🤷‍♀️

I agree with you @NoWordForFluffy, it’s been one of the more reasoned and intelligent threads on the subject.

I don’t know if any body is following parliament this morning.

Private members Bills are being discussed. They haven’t got past the first bill yet, they’ve been talking since 09:30 it’s now 13:15.

Labour MPs are prolonging the first bill (animal welfare, which I totally support, however they are dragging it out on purpose). They keep trying to widen the debate.

A Conservative MP just raised this - that Labour are prolonging the first discussion so as not to get into Private Members Bill about single sex spaces - and was told to stop by the deputy speaker.

This is a disgrace. Live on Freeview 232 (or audio only).

**