Janice Turner thanks the LibDems

[TimeLady]

Great column from Janice today:

"Jo Swinson chose wokeness over women’s rights"

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jo-swinson-chose-wokeness-over-womens-rights-jm26ldx35?shareToken=1bb1b5a3e627aa308f03953a99c59666

I might send Jo Swinson a bunch of flowers. My card will read: “Thank you for making reform of the Gender Recognition Act a flagship Liberal Democrat election policy, thus finally giving journalists permission to expose the consequences for women’s rights and safety.”

LangCleg, that is exactly how I feel. I may be in the polling booth some time as I try to decide whether to spoil my vote by scrawling Woman isn't a Feeling with a sharpie or actually, unthinkably, vote Tory because the Tories do seem to have been reading Janice Turner and the Telegraph and the Spectator and they seem to realise this is a vote-loser.

This is one of the most important elections to be held during my lifetime and there is no one I can vote for with good conscience. Do I vote Tory in the hope that they'll turn their backs on self-ID and in doing so vote for further misery for millions, or do I vote Labour and then fight for the rest of my life for the right to exist as a GC woman?

What they don't do is argue for "no debate" or no platforming.

So, while appreciate there are people who as you say try and make the argument, I think it's becoming less common with all kinds of things, including abortion, SSM, and other areas.

More and more, this "no debate" approach is becoming the go-to. here in Canada we seem to be on the forefront of much of this, and abortion in particular has in the last few years been a particular example, where the history of the law has actually be rewritten by not only activists but people in government, in order to try to simply sidestep any questions, even about areas where there are real differences of opinion. All of the political parties here, except the Conservatives, no will allow no one to run as an MP if they even tolerate questions in these areas. It's a concerted attempt to shut down any discussion before it even begins. The same thing happened here in the SSM debate when legalisation was being discussed - it was presented as a right, therefor no debate - including debate about whether it was a right. Totally arguing in a circle.

This is a technique that is infecting all areas of public discussion, everyone with apolitical agenda is now trying to present it as a rights issue.

and also maybe too little critical examination of the whole model of human rights

Goosefoot, that’s an excellent point. The current environment in which people are expected to meekly accept assertions without any challenge or debate is suffocating freedom of speech and thought. Also, the failure to grasp the inevitable unintended consequences of ‘good’ intentions when they become policy. Accusing someone of bigotry, no matter how fatuous and inaccurate, has become an effective way of silencing any dissent. The entire paradigm which has created this environment needs to be rigorously challenged

There are some great comments on Janice’s article, too.

we had a lib dem canvasser on the door step yesterday. I (politely) sent him off with a flea in his ear. He did not know what to say about the self ID issue

I've just had one too.
Him: 'I'm wondering if our candidate can count on your vote. Our policy on Brexit is that it will be very damaging...'

Me: 'I agree, and you would have had my vote if it wasn't for your manifesto policy on self-identification.'

He said 'Ooh, well, that's something I don't know anything about. I expect it's up to the individual.'

I said, 'But it's in your manifesto and Jo Swinson was talking about it on the radio this week.'

Him: 'Not something I've heard of, really, but I'm too old for all that sort of thing, I suppose. [He was probably in his 60s] Is that sort of a thing among young people, then?'

Me: 'Have you really not heard about it even though it's in your manifesto? I'm genuinely worried about normalizing something that can be so damaging. It's led to radical surgery for at least two very young people I know, because everyone tells them they can change sex if they want to. [Him: 'Now, what a shame that is, oh dear!'] And it's led to mixed-sex changing rooms, and to gender neutral toilets everywhere at my son's university.'

Him: 'Oh, now, I wouldn't like that, so embarrassing if you walk in on a lady, like I did at the [XX]--'

Me: 'Me too, and I think it's worse than embarrassing, it's actually cruel to take single-sex facilities away from teenage girls, don't you think? Right, shall we talk about Brexit and climate change? But if you could feed some of that back to your party...'

I'm abbreviating somewhat! I think I said 'manifesto' several more times and rambled about Jo Swinson quite a lot.

Poor chap regretted knocking.

I did explain I was talking about gender ID rather than leaving him completely at sea! (Hats off to anyone who can actually remember precisely what they said in a conversation.)

Dh has been looking at the LibDem manifesto, and as far as he can see, their only mention of LGBTQ+ policies is in the section on promoting human rights and equality around the world - which many people will not spend time reading it because foreign policy may be of less importance to voters than domestic policy and Brexit.

Dh used to be a compliance manager, and he says that this is a prime example of how to hide something you don’t want people to examine in any detail.

.. a prime example of how to hide something you don’t want people to examine in any detail

Isn’t that interesting? Because that’s one of tactics explicitly identified in the Denton report and referenced in Janice Turner’s article. This is how this lobby operates. Deliberately secretive. Policies by stealth

Once in power, a party would then have an oven-ready trans legislation programme. Ideally, says the report, because gender identity remains “a more difficult issue to win public support for” it should be shrouded by a “veil of protection” afforded by “more popular reforms”: notably in Ireland, where self-ID was bundled in with same-sex marriage

There will be, of course, a very tiny number of individuals who will seek to exploit this to behave as violent criminals towards women and you need a separate route for these people.

Why do you need a "route" for violent criminals at all? Why is the answer in those cases not simply "no" regardless of how woke you are?

They use gender instead of sex throughout the whole darn thing -- 'tackle bullying on the basis of gender, sexuality,
gender identity, or gender expression' ; 'gender pay gap' ; 'discriminated against on the basis of their gender, race, age, sexuality, gender identity, or religion'.

Maybe they mean something different by 'gender' and 'gender identity'. Maybe they use it instead of sex to be polite, or possibly to make it much harder to tell what they are talking about. Who knows?

This thread has been helpful, I'm emailing all the PPC in my constituency about women's rights. But with the Lib Dems I'm just going to explain why I will never vote for them. I'm in a marginal and will vote according to the replies I get.

How do you tell which is which?

If we could tell then there would be no idiots with male violence globally.

Don't hold your breath servalan7. I wrote to the Lib Dem candidate here two weeks ago explaining why they were at risk of losing my vote: endorsement of men in women's single sex spaces, spousal consent, and one other issue. I kept it concise. Didn't hear a dickybird back. This is also a marginal.

I expect I'm now on a list.

" Zanahoria, this tells you everything you need to know about this academic’s contempt for freedom of speech"

I don't care how many degrees she has, the woman is a plain fool.

I'm not spoiling my ballot and voting for the least bad party on this issue.

To come back to the point about human rights - in academia, there are lots of human rights sceptics and human rights critics. If the Essex historian who has smeared other scholars as transphobes before they even had a chance to present their research knew anything about her subject, she would realise that invoking 'human rights' no longer has quite the cachet it once had.

Dh has been looking at the LibDem manifesto, and as far as he can see, their only mention of LGBTQ+ policies is in the section on promoting human rights and equality around the world

From the Lib Dem manifesto, under the heading "Our Plan for Freedom, Rights and Equality"

● Complete reform of the Gender Recognition Act to remove the requirement for medical reports, scrap the fee and recognise non-binary gender identities.
● Introduce an ‘X’ gender option on passports and extend equality law to cover gender identity and expression.
● Ensure accurate population data on sexual orientation and gender identity by including a question on LGBT+ status within the 2021 Census

● Complete the introduction of equal marriage, by:
– Removing the spousal veto.
– Allowing those marriages that were dissolved solely due to the Gender Recognition process to be retrospectively restored.

Just had a look again at the article and the comments are on fire. Hundreds of men and women commenting with lots of them evidently coming to this for the first time. Finally the message is getting through with people actually understanding the issues - and the Lib Dems come out of it terribly.
Thank you Jo Swinson indeed.

Janice Turner has really changed gears with this article. After reading it, nobody can be in any doubt about the seriousness of the issue. It can still be very dangerous to be openly critical of gender ideology, though, at work and among friends. However, politicians don't have that excuse!

I'm fairly sure after speaking to her that my Labour MP 'gets it' - but she is just another coward, sticks to the party line and I'm not giving her my vote.

• University humanities department said: “This speaker is part of the anti-trans platform. Free speech is one thing, but trans rights are human rights and we shouldn’t be debating human rights."

Zanahoria, this tells you everything you need to know about this academic’s contempt for freedom of speech....*

And also tells you everything you need to know about their contempt for women's rights. (goosefoot has analysed the failure of some people to be able to deal with the idea of conflicting rights)

I am a Lib Dem member

Some poor spod from a local constituency (a marginal) rang me the other day in an effort to scrape together a few foot soldiers. I said that I had a few issues with the manifesto. Oh yes, he said, what were they?

Self ID for trans people, I said. I stressed that I was not anti rights and equality for trans people, not at all, have a trans relative who I love dearly, but that self ID really concerned me.

Oh, says spod, why would that be?

Because it would let any pervert who said he was a woman into women's spaces. And I am NOT saying that trans people are perverts, but it allows perverts to present as trans and that will put women and girls at risk.

Ah, said spod, there will sadly always be loopholes.

!!!!!! I said. I work in education, mate, we spend our bloody lives closing loopholes, we're all checked before we can get near the kids, data protection, safeguarding, and here you are opening a loophole a mile wide, and every sexual predator in the country will be through it. Like a ferret up a trouser leg, I thought but didn't say.

He coughed a bit and we closed the call.

And thinking about it, I am seriously contemplating phoning them on Monday and telling them where they can stuff any chance of me coming canvassing if 'there will always be loopholes' is the best they can say about the safety of girls and women. The more I think about it, the crosser I get.

Sorry, that was long.

Janice Turner has really changed gears with this article.

She’s been getting angrier on Twitter for a while. Or more visibly angry maybe. Either way, I approve.

No need to duck GrumpyMiddleAgedWoman . Many of us joined the Lib Dems because of their initial stand on Brexit - only to discover that despite their cuddly image, the misogynists had control of their LGBT section and women are only seen of as envelope stuffers and to validate certain people's identities. Very sad.

I read it as less Turner getting angrier and more her getting more confident that she has the public on her side and the tide may be turning (sorry). Hence the tone of this article - Swinson's TV interview just put the issue right into the public domain, and her clueless assumption that of course the electorate are onboard with all the gender stuff meant that she actually said some of what the plans were, which as the Dentons document made clear wasn't meant to happen until it was too late. Swinson basically proved that Turner has been right all along, in public, on telly, in front of a massive audience - I'd be gleeful too!

I read it as less Turner getting angrier and more her getting more confident that she has the public on her side and the tide may be turning (sorry)

Don’t be sorry - I think it’s great either way!

The sorry was for the unintended pun!