Another Labour misogynist.....

[FattyCat]

So Michael Cashman CBE has been twittering away today and publicly asking for people who signed the Jo Cox "Spartacus" letter, initiated by mumsnet, to be dealt with in some way by Labour.

He's the LGBT Global Envoy apparently. And co-founded Stonewall. I love it that I'm being spoken for by a women hating nob head like this.

Lesbians don't matter to LGBT. We fought against clause 28 and wiped the arses of people dying of AIDS in the eighties before it was a sexy clause and now we are expendable.

Women don't matter to Labour unless they have cocks.

30 odd years an activist for women and LGBT and all the fight has gone out of me.

Time for Dykes to get the "L" out of LGBT I think

He’s not just a CBE. He’s a member of the House of Lords and therefore votes on legislation, has access to Ministers etc.

I do know him from a previous job. On a personal level he is very warm and kind and fair. My work with him never led me to see any misogynistic tendencies.

JaneWonder the things he has been posting on twitter tonight have made me lose all faith in the Labour party. And yes, he has been misogynistic. And anti-lesbian.

Why then does he have CBE on his twitter account?

NO ideas why he kept his Account as MichaelCashmanCBE. Maybe he didn’t want to change his Twitter handle after building up a name on that platform, or maybe he though pointing out he was a Lord in his handle would make him look like a dick.

I don’t know enough about Trans debates to judge his tweets. I’ve only just looked back about 10 tweets and those to do with trans seem to be him upset at women saying all trans men-to-women have a certain “fetish”.

Wow, I tweeted one thing at him, and he already blocked me.

Lots of men are naice until you question them or their privilege ...

In one of the tweets he says 'administrative action must be taken- such views are not compatible with the Labour Party '. He's talking about female Labour Party members tweeting about AGP and men wanting access to women's spaces to carry out their fetish. The tweets by these women say most Trans women have AGP, which is going too far in my opinion. I think it's probably a significant number though!
However, he seems to be wilfully ignorant that there are such people out there. And why should he bother to consider there are many perverts who will take full advantage of this? As a man it will not affect him in the slightest.

I think he’s saying any Party members who make and publish blanket statements accusing all Trans women of having deviant fetishes should be kicked out. That’s how I read it.

Yes I think that is what he's saying.
I wonder what his view is on people who say that some of them have fetishes.
Are those women allowed to speak?

"Are those women allowed to speak?"

I suspect women are allowed to speak as long as they believe what Michael Cashman CBE believes. The rest of them are bigots and should shut up.

I don’t know guys. The fetish point doesn’t help those making the argument for womens’ spaces. It doesn’t need to be said, doesn’t strengthen the argument and makes the person talking about fetishes look bigoted thus weakening the argument and strengthening the hand of those that oppose women only spaces.

amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/09/what-would-it-take-for-labour-moderates-to-revolt?__twitter_impression=true

Nick Cohen piece on how the crazy part of the left are actively trying to silence its own.

I agree the fetish stuff isn't needed, Jane. I think what irritates me is he's done the standard liberal male 'owen jonesy' thing of making a statement about intolerance and transphobia, but then refuses to reply and engage when women put forward clear, logical arguments, as these women have.

he's done the standard liberal male 'owen jonesy' thing of making a statement about intolerance and transphobia, but then refuses to reply and engage when women put forward clear, logical arguments

He's now also done the textbook "saddened" by the hate in the responses he's had to his tweet and he will stand firm

But has shared the Nick Cohen piece linked upthread(!). I'm assuming he has yet to think this through, and is responding to the imaginary debate with nasty haranguing feminists vs. kind brave shy trans people.

twitter.com/mcashmanCBE

The AGP stuff is really tricky. It's offputting to people when you mention it and in that sense I agree it's not helpful.

But it's the elephant in the room, isn't it?

A lot of TIM DO have this fetish and it's a huge part of why many of us want women's spaces reserved for those of the female sex. It's why arguments such as 'there are already laws against sexual assault so you can just report anyone doing that in the ladies' so spectacularly miss the point.

When looking at the statistics that are coming out about trans prisoners, I don't see how we can talk about that without mentioning AGP.

If men with AGP were removed from the 'trans umbrella', I wonder how much of a problem we'd even be left with?

I'm not happy with a situation where we can't name the problem of AGP. If we pretend that it doesn't exist I think our argument looks weaker that way, and our fight to keep female spaces doesn't carry so much weight. Because if we pretend MTF trans are all delicate little flowers who just want to pee, people don't see a problem with them being in women's spaces. And they reject the "slippery slope" argument of other men taking advantage as "unlikely" and not a reason to deny trans women their rights". We do need to talk about AGP and raise awareness.

If men with AGP were removed from the 'trans umbrella', I wonder how much of a problem we'd even be left with?

I first came across AGP here. I mean I'd read about it before, but hadn't really grasped it. My fear is about the largely younger crowd of TIMs who identify as 'trans', 'queer' or 'non-binary' (or similar) and who don't present as female (or who have tokenistic coloured hair and a set of protest badges,) but who claim to be women. These are thugs who call 'old-style' transwomen 'truscum' and who (IMHO) are frequently violent little misogynistic shits who are using trans as an excuse to be abusive to women in politically correct (or at least sanctioned) ways.

violent little misogynistic shits who are using trans as an excuse to be abusive to women in politically correct (or at least sanctioned) ways.

That's it. It's socially unacceptable for men to be violent to women. However, if you are the kind of man who rather likes to beat women up, you can get around that by dehumanising (dewomanising?) women, giving them a new label - cis, terf, - while simultaneously positioning yourself as far more vulnerable and oppressed than any cis-terf has ever been.

There's a guy called Paul Elam who runs a site for MRAs, and who once wrote about how much he'd like to repeatedly punch women in the face, but he wasn't allowed to. He must look at these men and wonder why on earth he didn't think of this first.

^ Yep. And I don't want those men in my spaces any more than I want AGPs.

Nope, me neither.

Also, as you mentioned, these men aren't allies of trans people, they loathe them as much as they loathe us.

If men with AGP were removed from the 'trans umbrella', I wonder how much of a problem we'd even be left with?

I don't think I would have so much of a problem with it actually. As removing AGP also means removing the calls to 'trans' children too. And the majority of 'transactivists' who are just angry young men with fetishes.

Those are my main issues with the whole thing. Fetish, the violence and silencing, and kids.

But I am not sure how it would be possible to remove that aspect, given its widely accepted that anyone who says they are trans IS trans.

I guess though, if you were left with just the 'homosexual transsexuals' then there would not be calls for legalizing males entering female spaces and such.

I reckon the entire 'transgender' label needs to go, and only 'transsexual' remain.