Andrew Marr questions Angela Rayner and Jo Swinson on SelfID and EA2010

[WhereYouLeftIt]

Wow, the BBC are on a roll! After yesterday's interview of Laura Piddock by Justin Webb on R4's Today programme, today on the Andrew Marr show he was interviewing Rayner, Swinson and Michael Gove on various electoral issues. His last question to Rayner and Swinson were on SelfID and the Equality Act.

www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000bqht/the-andrew-marr-show-24112019

Rayner's response is at 33.56, Swinson's at 52.58.

makemorenoisemanc.wixsite.com/mysite/post/trans-widows-and-the-spousal-veto-a-modern-fable-of-male-entitlement

Worth noting another terrible libdem policy - getting rid of the spousal veto on acquiring a GRA . Also, funnily enough, homophobic as it forces lesbians with a partner who transitions into a straight marriage without their knowledge or consent.

CBA to defend her further, she was being an insensitive idiot at best.

And yy the spousal "veto" thing is terrible all round. Both the trying to get rid of it and the language used to try to pretend it's something it isn't.

I've emailed my Labour candidate to ask how he would manage the conflict between preserving single sex spaces for vulnerable girls and accommodating trans students. As a teacher I gave an example of how this conflict could play out with students from a particular demographic. I emailed him very recently so I don't know if he'll reply or not. I live in a Tory area but the Lib Dems are definitely gaining ground. Yesterday I thought that his response would be the decider on whether I voted for him or not.

What Angela Rayner said in this morning's interview really worries me as a woman thinking about the future. That she is Shadow Education Secretary is terrifying for me as a teacher thinking about my present circumstances. Teachers often vote Labour. The situation is surreal. How can any teacher be reassured that Rayner's views promote the safety of either their majority or minority students in any way? I'm wondering if she's been in a school recently. Of course there is no way I can vote Labour now unless someone urgently wades in to clear this up

I absolutely cannot understand why Labour put anything about sex-based rights in their manifesto if this is how the politicians who have been put forward to answer questions on this point are responding.

Rayner was awful throughout the interview. She did all the politicians tricks -

• picking a neutral phrase from the question to repeat at intervals ('at the moment')
• using the interviewer's name at intervals
• swerving every single question to repeat a pre-prepared spiel

But she's really bad at it and it was far more obvious than when many other politicians do it.

To be fair, most politicians have come up through posh schools and unis and spent a lot of time in debating societies, whereas Raynor left school at 16, trained as a care worker and entered politics via her trade union.

It's disappointing because we need more proper working class women in politics, but there's not much point if they're just going to do the same gamesy bullshit as the posh ones but not do it as well.

Yes it is a real let down. To put it mildly!

Well, the election gives us a window of opportunity to write to three or more would-be party representatives, demanding that they spell out their policies.

Give it up, thirdfiddle. Jo Swinson used a homophobic trope regularly trotted out by extremist genderists on national TV. If she doesn't know it's a homophobic trope - that's even fucking worse. That makes her a homophobe and ignorant.

Jo Swinson is an utter disgrace to women. I know the pool was small but picking a woman of her interlectual calabre is an insult to women. and Labour are not much better.
my feeling is someone very highup (john mcdonnell? - i know some have said he is on our side) has obviously explained the implications of self id at the manifesto meeting and they have opted for the now famous labour fudge but the spectical of women labour mp umming and erring on the issue is depressing and embarrising in equal measures.

I wish a broadcaster would say to Jo Swinson, "If being a woman is just a feeling, how did you get pregnant, twice?"

It’s a real shame that Ed Davey didn’t win the LD leadership. Swinson is awful and the LDs will be lucky to end up with 20 seats whereas a few months ago there predictions of getting 40-50.

Oh well...

Is LGB Alliance onto this naked homophobia yet?

Have to say I now have a new understanding of what Liberalism looks, and feels, like. My experience having tried to engage with Liberals, is that there is an odd disconnect between heart and head; no real passion; and a total focus on individuals and their rights.

The issue of Self Id has really brought this to a focus for me. I have voted Lib-Dem on a couple of occasions, always imagining, for some reason, that they were left of centre - but without some of the 'class baggage' of the Labour party. But now I see Liberalism as devoid of any real analysis of the causes of oppression for different groups ( unless that group is the latest, trendiest, most fashionable cause).

It is just about being 'nice' and treating people equally. That there may be various conflicts of interest is never really dealt with.

Someone is going to have to explain to them, really slowly, that by admitting male bodied people into female spaces means that many women from different ethnicities are going to be excluded from those spaces as a result.

There is a local council run swimming pool, which has separate, curtained off swimming sessions for Muslim women...to enable them to partake and enjoy swimming. What would be the scenario, I wonder, if a M to F trans ( with fully intact male body) wanted to go partake in one of these sessions?

What would Jo Swinson say, then, I wonder?

Do you think they may have one set of rules for Muslims - allowing them to discriminate in favour of sex, but a different set for other groups?

I suspect that some of them may try to come up with a policy that makes exceptions for religious women after the first few high profile cases of women who can't share spaces with men for religious reasons hit the media, and those people will then be attacked by the "no exceptions or excuses" wing of of their own parties

I suspect that some of them may try to come up with a policy that makes exceptions

I suspect that this step by step unavoidable presentation of obvious conflict and issue - in terms of real life incidents and examples - is going to have to be how this whole business proceeds back towards truly single sex protections.

The conflicts of interest, when they arise ( & they will, and already are) will have to be faced at some point. This will expose the radical TRA ideology for what it truly is. This whole business is so retrograde it's unbelievable.

that makes exceptions for religious women

This is the muddle people like Owen Jones find themselves in now. Berating black, lesbian and asian women for being 'phobic' in order to cover at least one of his unsustainable/competing or conflicting bases.So he finds himself supporting right wing, ex - UKIP, Muslim speakers, against Asian, feminist, Labour party members.

It’s so elitist as well

None of them women will ever have to use a refuge

They are in high paid jobs.

Do they never consider the life’s of ordinary women ?
They will never know what it’s like to feel powerless yet they happily give women and girls rights away

They allow schools to teach children that you can change sex

Erasing girls boundaries

They will never get put in prison

They just don’t seem to have any thoughts at all for ordinary women and girls

This is the thing that gets me. If you think of yourself as a progressive, well, who do you think is going to be on the sharp end of these bloody stupid policies? Which ethnic groups in the UK are most likely to include women who simply cannot use spaces where someone might be waving a penis around? Because the answer is not "white".

My daughter's school (and her close friendship group) has its first transgirl as of last week. The same friendship group also has at least one girl that I know of who has been raped and wants single-sex facilities as a bare minimum.

Nobody wants to be the one to say to the 'new girl' that it would be massively insensitive of them and unfair to the girls to intrude: he was their friend before this started, after all, and they don't want to hurt him/her.

That means nobody is actively sticking up for the poor girl who has suffered serious assault.

He may well feel he has the wrong body for him. But it's also the wrong body for being in the girls' facilities.

He may well feel he has the wrong body for him. But it's also the wrong body for being in the girls' facilities.

Absolutely.

And it doesn't help when people like Paris Lees push the rhetoric that women and girls not wanting to share facilities with males are being "irrational" - Lees tweeted last year that it was like a "fear of escalators"

If Paris finds Parisself being groped or assaulted by escalators then I think Paris is using them wrong.

I've just posted this on the R4 Today thread - but it's v relevant here too.

Have the Libdems never heard of AGP?

Have they never heard Tara Hewitts training talk to the NHS confirming that some males do this as a sexual fetish?

Would someone from the Libdems care to explain to women why they should allow those male bodied sexual fetishists to get off by being included n women's spaces? Because as per Tara Hewitt, and Stonewall, they are included under the trans umbrella now.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=jD3RfsVu73Q

Tara's training course.

From 4:25 Tara describes trans being an "umbrella" term, including a range of different identities.

I'm supportive of trans people not being stigmatised, and being able to receive medical care with dignity - but I'm at a complete loss as to why this means vulnerable women have to share intimate spaces with male bodied people because of how they feel internally, or because of how they dress.

Tara, who is a transwoman, distinguishes between transexuals, drag queens, cross dressers who may be cross-dressing part or full time, and may be doing it as a fetish.

When the LibDems (and others) talk about this, I think they must only be considering transexuals - because I can't see why anyone would think male sexual fetishists should be allowed into women's spaces.

I live in an area where it will be a close shave between Labour and Conservative. The Labour candidate is female , but a total idiot who waffled on about Gay rights (?.?.?) when I asked about self id last election. She is standing for a second time and may just swing it, so I may vote Tory for the first time ever.

Interesting profile of Jo Swinson on the BBC website today. She opposed all women shortlists earlier in her career and it seems has been quite determined not to be defined by her sex. Yet at the same time has been quite groundbreaking, was the first woman to take part in Parliament whilst breastfeeding and has first hand experience of sexual violence towards women.
There seems to be a real push/pull around being a woman MP. The expectation you will understand women's issues (and care) yet also to be taken seriously (by men) and still having a 'normal' family life.