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.

It isn't just women of faith, it's disability too. MNetters with Autism have talked on the FWR board about how difficult it is to see factual evidence and yet try to consciously use contradictory language and responses, that it is stressful and at times impossible which causes fear of what will happen when mistakes are made. Women with Tourettes. Women with dementia. Women with PTSD from sexual assaults, rapes, traumas. The list goes on and on.

There is a clash of protected characteristics, there is currently nothing in law stating (as is being mooted) that gender identity trumps all other needs under all circumstances, and if tested in court it would seem very likely that a judge would find that such a clash of interests requires a third way, because of the exclusion of some females and that such exclusion and discrimination is against the law. Third spaces. Which meets all needs instead of subordinating one group to another.

Sadly this requires well funded and very brave and resilient individuals to stand up and make the legal cases.

Lang, I'm usually a fan but I'm not happy with a narrative that says homophobia to shut down discussion any more than I'm happy with a narrative that does the same with transphobia. I'm sorry if I'm being stupid and missing something, but you can be sure the liberals are going to need it explained in baby steps where the homophobia lies too. I find it difficult to reason from what I see as false premises (TWAW) so maybe I'm just getting lost. (In logic, false implies any statement at all.)

To be homophobic, her argument needs to in some way imply that lesbians and men are a similar risk to women, doesn't it? Her argument as far as I can see it goes

1. Single sex refuges are there so that women can go somewhere their abuser can't follow. (Implication majority of abusers male.)
2. In cases where abuser is same sex, refuge needs to take precautions to ensure that particular individual does not come in. (Implication that this is rare so can be handled as an exception.)
3. TWAW so TW abusers should be treated as 2.

What I can't see there is any implication that lesbians are a risk in general. Please can someone spell it out? There's nothing implied about the relative likelihood of 2 and 3, it's not implied that the lesbian already in the refuge in 2 is a risk in any way, and it is implied that male abusers much more common. Or is it just the TWAW that's homophobic generally?

I will say again that I don't think it's a good argument. Importantly that women recovering may need a space fee of males in general not just free of their abuser (hence female staff etc). Also that male abusers lie and manipulate to gain access to victims, and if you let in TW you are potentially letting in any male abuser who lies about his gender identity, or male more generally who lies to gain access to vulnerable women. You wouldn't just need to take care if you had a woman in the refuge fleeing from a TW partner, it would actually increase risks across the board.

Both of them embarrassed themselves hugely in this issue. They really think women won’t base their vote on an issue that has a negative effect on more than half the population. They are deluded. I don’t trust any party on these issues. None of the seem to be able to speak openly and believably about this. It’s making me mad.

third fiddle why are you continuing in trying to decipher Swinson's comments on refuges, there is no logic to her train of thought and it is homophobic to bring up lesbians in a context where they are least likely to be. Refuges are about mvaw not lesbians, ffs.

I want our side to stay the side that explains things. You have to understand someone's train of thought to redirect it.

I want our side to stay the side that explains things. You have to understand someone's train of thought to redirect it.

She was blindly regurgitating the parts of the Woke script they plagiarised from MRAs - "women do it too". She's either a homophobe who's looked into it and believes it or she's an ignorant homophobe who regurgitates Woke-via-MRA talking points because she doesn't give a shit about lesbians.

It's not my responsibility to gently lead a politician into not spouting overt homophobia on national television. It's her responsibility to avoid homophobia so she's in with a chance of my vote.

Why would I perform female socialisation on behalf of Jo Swinson who not only wants to remove my rights but goes on TV and uses homophobic tropes?

I would ask Swinson why lesbians were brought up at all - in a question about biological males gaining access to women's refuges. Lesbians are female - therefore totally appropriate for her to seek help from a women's shelter.

The question was about whether biological males should be entering women's shelters.

Bringing lesbians into the debate is an outrageous (and homophobic) comparison - suggesting that women's refuges have all sorts of problems about who they let in already - "take the example of lesbians..." - says Swinson earnestly...

Lesbians are not a problem for refuges, or for other women in refuges - biological males are.

She thinks TWAW, of course she thinks a woman victim and her TW abusive partner are lesbians. Thing is she's saying that TW abusive partner should be excluded on an individual basis. I say they should be excluded on a class basis because women need a male-free environment to recover. Separate provision is needed for TW victims.