clp Resolution. Help

[Terfmore]

Have any other Labour members had the resolution in their local party? If so how did you get on if you opposed the resolution?

This CLP believes:

 That the Labour Party is the party of social justice & equality

 That social justice and equality cannot be achieved without full support and solidarity for minorities, including but not limited to LGBT+ people and women

 That trans men are men, and trans women are women

 That Ireland and other EU countries have moved to self-declaration to recognise a person’s gender. And this is part of Labour's 2017 manifesto commitment

 That both trans men and trans women should have equal access with cis counterparts to stand for, and participate in, all party programmes and roles within the Party and in government

 This includes, but is not restricted to allowing trans women equal consideration for allwomen shortlists, officer elections and programmes aiding women such as the Jo Cox women in leadership programme

 That denying a person, recognition for their self-declared gender, is abusive, oppressive and discriminatory.

This CLP notes:

The Stonewall School Report 2017, which states that 45% of transgender pupils in UK schools have attempted to take their own life
The increase in transphobic abuse on social media and at meetings.
The pretence by some transphobic abusers that their comments are free speech and debate, when it is fake news and hate.
At the 2017 Labour Party Conference the Party amended its disciplinary rules to say it brings the Party into disrepute to make transphobic comments about a person's gender reassignment or gender identity
This CLP resolves:

To urge the Party to have zero tolerance for abuse of transgender people and their right to selfdeclare their gender.
To take disciplinary action against those members who participate in transphobic abuse.
To include in its submission to the Labour Party Democracy Review the sentiments expressed in this motion, specifically that trans women are women and that trans men are men, and as such trans women should be allowed to fully participate in any capacity available to their cis counterparts

Hats off to you for staying in and for trying to fight. I see it as pointless. Let them eat themselves. Have some popcorn out here with us in the sunshine and fight for women unrestricted.

Is this the bullshit ghostwritten for the Madigan infant?

Thankfully, my CLP hasn't done this yet, it would be my final straw. I wouldn't be able to vote positively on that because trans women aren't women, they're trans women and having a bunch of well meaning people in cardigans say they are isn't going to change the fact that they aren't.

If so how did you get on if you opposed the resolution?

Are you considering not opposing it because you are scared of what they'll do to you?

Ha

Fucking

Ha

Clearly the LP do not want

WOMEN
WHO
DON'T
POSSESS
A
PENIS
TO
TALK.
HOW
FUCKING
DARE
WOMEN
WITH
NO
PENIS
BULLY
POOR
LITTLE
MEN WOMEN
WHO
WERE
BORN
WITH A PENIS
WHICH
MAKES
THEM
LITERALLY
MORE
FEMINENE
THAN
WOT
I
IS

Tell the men to get Paris, Lily and Monroe to help out whilst you get on with your life.

They will fall asleep listening to Lily, be ignored by Paris who wants to shag Tory men and I dread to think what Monroe will do to them after reading the latest from the fail.

That is a load of shit and lies and every woman should leave the Labour Party because of it.

It is no longer the Labour Party. It's a shadow, a facsimile, a parody and an insult.

Can you mandate belief?
Can you codify into law the idea that some people can mind over matter themselves out of material reality and into the opposite sex, and must be treated accordingly?
It is like transubstantiation. A belief that no one actually believes.
Will you allow people to drug and mutilate children based on this belief that no one believes?

If you want to go softly softly i would move an amendment to the suicide bit.

I'm so glad I'm not a member of the Labour Party any more. Out of all the injustices in the world this is what they are fixating on.

Try challenging the language in the resolution. Say the key terms need defining. Such as 'woman' and man'. Say that you define them as adult human female and adult human male respectively, so you can't support the resolution. Then demand that those who do support it provide their own definitions of men and women. Press them on it. (Spoiler: they won't be able to.)

Say, 'if you are so sure that TW are women, then surely you must have a definition of woman. What is it?'

Highlight to others in the party that if you don't define women and men by biology, then the only thing left is sex-role stereotypes. Point out that this is sexist. Remind everyone that sex is a material reality that can't be identified into or out of, while 'gender' is sex-role stereotypes. Sex-specific programs and spaces exist in the first place because of the differences between sexed bodies, not because of how people relate to sex-role stereotypes.

Don't make it about self ID vs GRC. Then you are just reduced to arguing for a bureaucratic process. Instead, keep harping on the difference between sex and gender, and complain that the resolution conflates the two. Indeed, trans ideology depends on the conflation of sex and gender. Maybe be sly and say that you'd be OK with people 'self declaring' their gender if it is understood that gender means sex-role stereotypes, but the problem is that the document conflates 'gender' with 'sex'.

Point out that no one can 'self declare' their sex, anymore than someone can 'self declare' their age. Sex is an immutable biological reality and our laws and policies need to recognise that. People can 'identify' however they like, dress how they like, but sex is not a matter of personal choice, anymore than being adult or human is.

Don't get bogged down in challenging whether trans-identified people really are at high risk of suicide, etc. That just lets the gender ideologues make this all about their victimhood, being the most oppressed ever, etc. Instead, keep dragging the debate back to the ideology itself.

What is a woman? What is 'gender'? Force people to see the illogic and sexism of what they are endorsing when they unthinkingly support gender identity ideology. And by enshrining loyalty to this doctrine, they are demanding that party members deny material reality and submit themselves to a sexist and illogical belief system.

Draw parallels between the language in the resolution and that of religious orthodoxy, because what the resolution mandates is submission to an unevidenced belief system that denies material reality. Say you can't do it. Say that if you are forced to say that a woman is a metaphysical feeling, rather than an adult human female, the party is forcing you to lie in the service of a false belief system, and you can no more submit to this than you can go about repeating, 'There is no God but God'.

It is not abusive, oppressive or discriminatory to refuse to go along with gender identity ideology. It is not abusive, oppressive or discriminatory for women to refuse to lie in order to reflect a man's self-image back to him. Do not let them put you on the back foot and get defensive about your supposed 'bigotry'. You are not the extremist here. They are the ones pushing an extremist and harmful ideology that doesn't stand up to logical scrutiny. Go on the front foot and demand that they defend the illogic of their position that 'woman' and man' are merely metaphysical feelings, and then demand, once again, that they define what those 'feelings' consist of.

You'll almost certainly lose. But you may open a few minds too.

To take disciplinary action against those members who participate in transphobic abuse.

Given transphobic abuse appears to be denying that trans women are women and trans men are men, I'm amazed that this part is allowed to be part of the vote. Surely this sways the way people vote. Does it not make them think that if they vote the "wrong" way, they'll probably be suspended or watched closely in future for evidence they need to be thrown out? How can it be a free vote when this is here?

I wonder if it's worth bring up Marie Dean, OP, to highlight that the self id process is.open to abuse. Or that might backfire by making you look like a scaremonger. I have no idea anymore 🤐

Asking for a secret ballot rather than show of hands is wise, though will probably be denied, in order to allow people to vote freely on an issue that is so contentious.

There was a woman on twitter who was shut down halfway through her speech at her clp and published what she was going to say which was clear and concise. I can’t for the life of me remember who it was, but there was a thread on here too. I’ll search for it. If you can craft something similarly clear that might help? Bear with.

Pilgrim Tucker in a London CLP, by Bromentum.

Here you go.

Too small to read...

I'd include something along the lines of

"I cannot buy into a belief system that denies the existence of material reality and depends entirely on various personality traits or feelings associated with a person's "gender" which usually boil down to reductive sex-stereotypes"

Transwomen are different to women and deserve to live free from discrimination, have human rights, and all the protections in law afforded to everyone.
Sex is a protected characteristic and I believe should remain so.

Exactly - it's a belief system , not politics and not reality. I am surprised that the motion doesn't include burning people for heresy.
What's the difference between transubstantiation and 'a trans woman is a woman'?

I would do what donkey says and question the "this CLP believes that trans men are men and trans women are women"

It is the crux of the whole thing. Discussing why the CLP wants to mandate that as a belief and what they mean by the terms man and woman could take a long time.

Be prepared for the "is an infertile woman not a woman then?" Question

At the London meeting Anne Ruzylo offered support to women facing this in their CLPs. She tweets as @sargesalute. You could dm her.

I think I'll say I'm opposed to the resolution and ask for opportunity for it to be debated in full. There are too many assertions made in one document to debate it properly. It can't be dealt with in 15 minutes but needs papers to be submitted beforehand etc.
The way it is written means anyone who tries to speak against it as it is will be tied up in a pointless circular argument. It does not allow for open discussion which is what is needed.

It is very sad. As far as I can see it is being used by Momentum to piss off the Blairites. The hatred between the two groups locally is palpable in the clp meetings. I'm in the middle - I support Corbyn but can't see the purpose of Momentum now he is leader and the shadow cabinet is in place. It seems Momentum's only purpose is to bring about some kind of purge.

I've been thinking about this one, Terfmore, and I've come up with a cunning plan for you. It's inspired by a thread on reddit where radical feminists are discussing how to further the gender critical agenda on IWD. One of the points was to accuse people of transphobia when they make comments supporting trans. It's worth a read.

But anyhow, here is my cunning plan for you:
Say in the meeting: "In preparation for this motion I had a bit of a look at TERF hatespeech. It seems that their transphobia is centred around the idea of transwomen who have been put in jail for sexual offences against (cis)women (don't know if you can stomach the lingo), being put in women's prisons. Of course this is the most shocking transphobia. No matter what crime a transwoman has committed, and whether she identified as a man at the time of the crime or transitioned while in male prison later, it is horrifying that TERFs think transwomen aren't women if they are on the sexual predators register - I actually read a thread on mumsnet when that idea was being promoted. So offensive!
So I would like to move an amendment to clarify what TERF means. I would like to propose that the following point be added in between x and y: "This CLP condemns the TERF idea that transwomen who committed sexual crimes such as rape against women before they transitioned should be denied a place in a women's prison. Furthermore, this CLP condemns the TERF idea that a transwoman who is on the sexual offenders register is any less a woman than any ciswoman."

See if they can put their money where their mouth is.

I mean you could have a lot of fun with it:
TERFS seem to claim that women's sport was created because women's bodies are different. I move an amendment that reads:
"This CLP affirms that talking about biological differences between men and women is transphobic. Therefore, the TERF idea that women's sport needs to be segregated by sex is heartily rejected by this CLP. This CLP supports the latest scientific consensus that biology is bigotry and affirm that sport be segregated by internal gender essence."

This is the relevant bit from the reddit thread:www.reddit.com/r/GenderCritical/comments/81vzzp/lets_talk_activism_iwd_2018_how/

Undercover radfems.

Many of you quiet radfems (can't believe you're not butter!) may already be in liberal feminist groups on facebook etc. or in real life. Recently, undercover radfems have started raising alarms whenever they notice an event is on for men (as in adult human males) in these liberal spaces. The radfems shout 'transphobia' and this brings the transactivists out, who then proceed to bring on #PeakTrans moments en masse. It brings trans ideology into the public view, and TA's do the rest for us..

As undercover radfems 'Make your opposition live up to their own rules'. If TAs suggest medical transition is necessary, say "that is transphobic as it implies people are not [men/women] unless their body 'looks' female or male." Ask, "are you suggesting "non-op trans women" aren't really trans?" VERY 'PHOBIC.

Every time someone white talks about the allegedly high suicide rate for trans people, you could question whether white, typically rich trans people are using murder statistics of more marginalized groups (the homicide rates of young transfeminine Black and Latina are the worst) to further their own agenda (while doing nothing to help said groups).

'Trans identified caucasian people in the West are NOT murdered at a high rate relative to the general population (2). Please be careful not to harm the trans community with these false scare tactics.' Re: Suicide - the term “Werther Effect” is apt.