James Kirkup defends Laura Pidcock

[BovaryX]

Laura Pidcock has been denounced as transphobic for making the following anodyne comment:

The women's movement needs the space to talk about sex and gender without fear of being "no platformed"

Those who specialise in weaponising grievances have taken exception to this and are accusing her of treachery to the socialist cause. James Kirkup makes the point that whatever else Laura Pidcock might be, she certainly isn't Conservative. And he cites the tactical use of 'far right' to denounce anyone making any tremulous suggestion of debate on this issue. Every day, the contempt for freedom of speech, independence of thought and critical analysis is made explicit. It's all very Robespierre.....

I often wonder whether identity politics is affluent white mens solution to the modern capitalist world

Isn't your analysis an example of identity politics with its constant repetition of race and gender? And why would affluent white men require a solution to capitalism?

Goosefoot, few policies are now made without consultation with "stakeholders" (a word that always makes me think of forks in a Berni Inn).

However women are clearly stakeholders when considering policies, such as the withdrawal of single sex spaces, that affect women. Why was there no seat at the table. Presumably because Stonewall pushed the #nodebate. TWAW were women, this is what their equalities and diversities training was teaching policy makers. So it was fine to only to consult transwomen.

Now she is not longer with Stonewall it would be great to have Ruth Hunt here for a webchat. I wonder how she sees her legacy? I wonder if she has any feminist friends, and how she explains it all to them.

Thanks to Laura and James.
Your voices matter so much, during these times of #nodebate and culture of fear and McCarthyism.

'Stakeholders' is just another meaningless corporate phrase like 'lessons learned.' It's just 21st century Newspeak for the establishment agenda

Ruth Hunt is now Baroness Hunt, and her tune hasn't changed. She advocated for the removal of the spousal exit clause in her maiden speech in the House of Lords.

Shame that Pidcock lost her seat, she's worth a hundred Butlers, Thornberries and Long-Baileys.

Great article!

"This impact should be debated and considered. The women who worry about the impact should be able to raise their concerns without fear of abuse or worse, and they should be listened to by their representatives.

The position I’ve just set out should not be controversial or even require a description since it is just the normal functioning of democratic politics and governance in Britain. That is not left-wing. It is not liberal. It is not conservative and it is not right-wing. And Laura Pidcock proves it."

Why was there no seat at the table.

No debate is surely part of this, but it points directly to the question of why that was accepted. I think there was first of all a widely help assumption that an organisation that was dedicated to protecting the rights of LBG persons would also of course be dedicated to protecting women.

But maybe more than that, so many people seem to accept, intuitively if not explicitly, the idea that "rights are not a pie". They assume that fighting for rights is always right, that what we identify as rights really always are rights, and that pursuing these cannot contradict other rights. It all fits together very neatly and there is no possibility of erroneous identification of "rights".
People are also extremely naive, at least on the left, about the possibility of members of marginalised groups seeking personal advantage or power by trading on attempts to rectify improper treatment and oppression, including at a macro level.

All these limitations have meant that there was no immediate push back or analysis of claims by groups like Stonewall.

Yes I think we do, Bovary although I might be doing her a disservice as I have a vague memory of her speaking up for women before. Can anyone remember?

Floisme My memory is that she was on the Today programme during the election supporting Labour policy on separate spaces for women and girls. It was very anodyne and, as some posters pointed out, did not clarify how trans women with a GRC would be treated but to some activists it would clearly count as previous form.

I think the point made by James Kirkup that she spoils the narrative of the Christian right is spot on. I know she was a mental health support worker at one point before she became an MP. I wonder if that experience had any influence on her views. I think women with mental health problems who are receiving in patient care can feel very unsafe in some hospital settings.

Yes - GC - spans left and right.

AND the TRA narrative is a bedfellow for Iranian theocracy. Lovely...

I love coming across a Kirkup article. Always so concisely and thoughtfully written.

Thanks nettie, I thought I'd seen or heard something about her but couldn't remember where.

Pidcock is still involved in the party, thankfully.