Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Angela Rayner says you can only be a Labour member if you believe TWAW

358 replies

jadefinch · 11/02/2020 13:36

And has effectively also said that Women's Place and the LGB Alliance (essentially groups for women, gays and lesbians to meet and discuss women's, gay and lesbian issues) are hate groups and them meeting are hate crimes

Angela Rayner says you can only be a Labour member if you believe TWAW
Angela Rayner says you can only be a Labour member if you believe TWAW
Angela Rayner says you can only be a Labour member if you believe TWAW
OP posts:
Thread gallery
12
GCAcademic · 13/02/2020 10:55

The FB piece says that one of Raynor's staff was part of that group of protestors banging on the windows and screaming and throwing liquid at women at the Brighton WPUK meeting.

Justhadathought · 13/02/2020 11:07

Quite right. Labour is a hate group, riddled with misogyny and anti-semitism. You can add class hatred to that to - both towards the rich and the problematically unwoke working classes

Yes, that is the irony......with Owen Jones, for example, demanding expulsion and scorn for anyone who dares to voice a different view ( no matter how well considered, articulated and formulated) and claiming it is they who are intolerant and bigoted.

We are in a post truth world; where everyone makes up their own. The politics if identity and individualism gone insane.

bellinisurge · 13/02/2020 12:08

Maybe they should start giving a shit about the catastrophic consequences of men defining women. Trigger warning on this article about a woman who was told women can't have pets. Not in this country but part of women's "lived experiences ". Afghan sports coach says she will flee after dog shot dead www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-51449514

littlbrowndog · 13/02/2020 12:17

I can see it. Am not on Facebook.

It’s a great piece

Clymene · 13/02/2020 12:26

Here you go Errol:
"Given recent events I have updated my post on the state of the LP leadership contest.

The absolute state of the Labour Party leadership contest in relation to women's rights! Shocking. Worse than that even.

Long Bailey and Thornberry have turned off women on Mumsnet, the place where the most earnest and woke politicians go to die. Long Bailey with her virtue signalling, thought terminating cliche "no debate" and her insistence that every question about women must be turned into an issue about transwomen lost her sympathy. Her response implies women are irritating and neurotic for raising concerns. "No debate" from an elected politician? Does she really think that is reassuring from someone who is elected to a place to debate? She said to a question I asked in Camarthen that she also supports single sex exemptions for women which was a clear commitment in the Labour Party manifesto after all, however the "no debate" two word slogan hardly reassures that she understands what the exemptions are for and how they might be applied in such an intolerant climate. "No debate" means no vote from me. Whilst I thought self ID alongside single sex exemptions might be a compromise I could live with during the General Election, it is not now. As someone said, it is speaking out of both sides of the mouth.

Thornberry is worse. She could have made a grab for women's votes by subtly signalling an understanding of our concerns and acknowledging a respectful debate needs to take place. Instead on Mumsnet she banged on about the awfulness of prison for transwomen. Now, I'm sure prison is awful for transwomen, but I assume they're there for a reason and that reason might make them very inappropriate for a move to the female prison estate. It's not an acceptable response to say they must be in women's prison, which are full of very vulnerable women, and are awful places for women too, the vast majority of whom should not be there and are suffering after effects of PTSD. Turning questions about women's rights into a discussion about transwomen (and interestingly it is transwomen not transmen that seems to be the concern of most of the leadership comrades) is a speciality of the Labour front bench. It's almost as if they've lost sight of women entirely turning every question about us into a discussion about the rights of another group.

Starmer is sitting on the fence to such an extent that he will get splinters in his arse. So many women I know will vote for him because he hasn't said the catechism "transwomen are women". The bar is set very bloody low. This is positively fabulous after the shocking volt face of Clive Lewis, who having previously been clear he thought transwomen are male ( a biological fact after all), made a full apology and uttered the required mantra TWAW falling dutifully into line. This didn't help him though as I assume a lot of people spotted his cowardice and he hasn't made the ballot paper.

Nandy is proving that she is part of the metropolitan intelligentsia no matter her careful positioning trying to indicate working class sensibility on all other matters. Her total lack of concern that she might be alienating herself from her constituency also speaks to how she has paid no attention, none at all, to what is happening in the membership of the party and the thousands of women in the membership who do not agree with her. She believes TWAW, empatically, that we should not be ashamed to say it, that a 14 year old in her constituency has been waiting too long to transition (thus supporting the medicalising of children) and she equates this liberal, individualist movement with the movement for race equality in the 70's positioning all feminists raising concerns on the wrong side of history.

Raynor has promoted a horrible TRA on her timeline even during a period of complaints raised about their sexist, harassing behaviour. Her office staff member was on an aggressive, intimidating demonstration harassing our Woman's Place meeting in Brighton without any censure from her. She has now signed up to a slanderous pledge naming WPUK a hate group. Just in case you missed her good intentions her Twitter account is festooned in rainbows and cartoon unicorns. You see being a socialist is nolonger about being a fierce intellectual but about embracing an infantlilising ideology.

The shadow women and equality spokesperson Dawn Butler has already said she will not stand by the LP Manifesto to protect women's rights even during the GE campaign period. Her brand of politics is corporate self help and glittery awards sponsored by global capitalist giant Amazon.

Burgon gets support from women because his campaign manager is Laura Pidcock who knows exactly what we are going on about but in reality I doubt that he personally has paid much attention. He needs to start doing his homework rather than riding on Laura's coat tails. Only Laura has made it clear that the Labour Party should be tolerant of debate, recently coming in for extreme criticism for suggesting women should not be 'no platformed', an extremist tactic when applied to democratic discourse, that looks like blatant misogyny when used by the Party against women members. For sure the party is missing Laura's principled intelligence and feminist back bone in parliament and I hope she's back there soon. The loss of her seat is a tragedy on top of the awful defeat over which we must all properly consider the real significance. No sign of that amongst our leadership contenders.

Why does it matter? During this pantomime the Tory's have stood up in parliament and said the government will protect women's rights. The abysmal response from our leadership team? The sight of Dawn Butler vigorously shaking her head from side to side mouthing no. No? The LP don't want women's rights? It is not lost on our opponents that there's advantage to be had here. They of course will not support women's rights in entirety, they will refuse the necessary funding for one thing, but I think they understand better than we do that politics is about the war of position above all else.

Lord Ashcroft has recently reported on why Labour lost the election. It is an interesting read; "Partly because of this, some also felt the party had come to embody an excessively politically correct or “woke” culture, which would be intolerant of what they considered sensible, mainstream views: “They’re classing themselves as liberals but won’t let anyone else have a different viewpoint;” “You’re a bigot if you don’t agree there are 125 different genders;” “They can be woke, but they can also be vitriolic. I’ve heard them say things to Conservatives where I thought, ‘well, that wasn’t very nice’;” “The other day Jeremy Corbyn even did his pronouns! He said, ‘my name’s Jeremy Corbyn and my pronouns are ‘him’ and ‘his.’ You can Google it!” Quite!

The disdain of our politicians for women's concerns is emblematic of a lack of care or consideration for working class communities in general. It's almost as if women need to come along and say "Raise your game. Women are more than 50% of the population and we do not have to vote for any of you" as was just demonstrated. "

Ruth Serwotka

AlunWynsKnee · 13/02/2020 13:24

Labour have emailed me inviting me to vote for a rep on the NEC if I identify as BAME.
It's very tempting to do so as a Caucasian ex Party member. Presumably I can identify as a party member too.

littlbrowndog · 13/02/2020 13:28

Identify as what you want Alun.

Then do a pledge and make everyone sign it

Then expell the ones that won’t. After very extensive questioning

That’s how it works in labour

R0wantrees · 13/02/2020 13:58

Burnham and some other Labour mayors, inc. Sadiq Khan and that horrible Liverpool misogynist, co-signed a letter to the government urging them to implement self-ID, I think.

August 2018
OP RadicalFern wrote,
"Andy Burnham, Mayr of Greater Manchester, has hired an advisor, Carl Austin-Behan, to help him think of what to do about "the row" over All-Women shortlists. Austin-Behan's solution? Party members who campaign against trans women being fully accepted as women should no longer be allowed in the party."

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3329447-People-Who-Oppose-Trans-Rights-Have-No-Place-In-Labour-Says-The-First-LGBT-Mayoral-Adviser

AlunWynsKnee · 13/02/2020 14:08

A pledge you say littlbrowndog? Why, let me get my crayons...

PronounssheRa · 13/02/2020 14:14

mobile.twitter.com/lloyd_rm/status/1227668323862798336

LRM confirming he hasn't got a fucking clue what self Id actually means. How have we ended up with such inept politicians.

Angela Rayner says you can only be a Labour member if you believe TWAW
Michelleoftheresistance · 13/02/2020 14:23

He knows exactly what it means. He's lying, deliberately, loudly and vigorously, aiming this at people not in the know who are wondering, in Jane's words, what women are making a fuckton of noise about. His hope is that they'll go 'oh just a bunch of feminist harridans, it's fine' and wander off again.

Then once self ID has been forced in under the cover of such lies, he'll look smug when people say 'but you said...' and point out it's the law and too late now. And we've always been at war with Eurasia. And it's hate speech to question.

We've seen these tactics over and over and over, they're absolutely intentional. Not innocence. Not stupidity. It's to achieve the wanted aims under cover before anyone has time to realise and protest.

We have to point this out, over and over and over again, that he is lying and here is the evidence, and not let it go in despair. No matter how bloody irritating his beard and sulky glares are.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 13/02/2020 14:31

I agree, he's lying. He's being disingenuous, like when he switched from talking about "trans women" to suddenly (when no one was talking about them) give the typical TRA example of an FTM trans person when it came to toilets. Because he knows that males in women's toilets doesn't play well with most people.

R0wantrees · 13/02/2020 14:45

Thu 18-Oct-18 OP (I) wrote, 'Stephen Whittle influential TRA asserts 'We know we have Labour behind this one, so will simply do our best to get them elected' & Corbyn seems to confirm this at Pink News'

(extract)
"Yesterday on a thread condemning Stephen Whittle's use of predicted suicide, he joined and commented confidently:

In the end we will pull ourselves together and continue the campaigning – as we have always done. We know we have Labour behind this one, so will simply do our best to get them elected. As I tell the community “we have always lost more battles than we have won, but we only ever need to win the big one”.

I hope that clarifies matters.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/a3397010-Guardian-article-on-MPs-concern-with-GRA?msgid=81891984#81891984

Last night at Pink News party, Jeremy Corbyn apparently confirmed Whittle's belief:
'PinkNews Awards 2018: Jeremy Corbyn vows support for transgender reforms' (continues)

thread: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3398127-Stephen-Whittle-influential-TRA-asserts-We-know-we-have-Labour-behind-this-one-so-will-simply-do-our-best-to-get-them-elected-Corbyn-seems-to-confirm-this-at-Pink-News

moggiemonster · 13/02/2020 15:47

Am I alone in wondering whether I have missed something and am wrong in my views? I can't get my head around why people are performing such mental gymnastics. I don't know what to say, so many friends (educated middle aged professionals) don't see the erosion of any distinction between the sexes as a problem - no issues in cycling and rowing between men and women I have been told. I am seriously wondering if I am missing something. There doesn't seem to be a middle ground or grey area it is one extreme or the other. Life isn't like that. So, it is only the Conservatives that appear to protecting single sex spaces. I have given up trying to discuss outside of MN. My union's SM posted about a child's medical transition and this was seen as positive. But yet we're meant to be on the watch for FGM. Is it only me who can't see the hypocrisy?

R0wantrees · 13/02/2020 16:06

So, it is only the Conservatives that appear to protecting single sex spaces.

No the Conservatives havesnt protected women's spaces & in fact under their successive governments most of the public policies such as prisons, NHS wards, schools have been adopted.

Much of the current policy mess can be traced back to Maria Miller MPs January 2016Transgender Equality inquiry recommendations. Miller, the Women & Equality department & APPG did not do due dilligence and were steered by many of the same TRAs now directing the Labour Party.

Prof Kathleen Stock analysis of the failings: medium.com/@kathleenstock/womens-place-talk-full-text-house-of-lords-oct-10th-2018-b1f3d70c4559

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3391330-Prof-Kathleen-Stock-WPUK-speech-at-House-of-Lords-Important-disection-of-the-key-issues-for-MPs-policy-makers-etc-with-ref-to-The-Trans-Equality-Report

July 2017 Janice Turner's interview with Maria Miller MP
(extract)
"Maria Miller gathers up her handbag and makes to leave: “I don’t think I’m happy about this. I think I’ve finished . . . I didn’t realise this was such a stitch-up.” I’ve been questioning Ms Miller about a report on transgender rights she produced last year as chairwoman of the women and equalities committee. The government has just announced that it will go to further consultation this autumn.

Many of its recommendations, to redress hate crime against transgender people, to improve access to NHS services and stop discrimination in employment (as seen in President Trump’s cruel, summary banning of up to 6,600 transgender US military personnel), are widely supported. But one proposal that seeks to change the very definition of “man” and “woman” has far-reaching implications.

Justine Greening, the equalities minister, announced her support this week for changes to the 2004 Gender Recognition Act, echoing calls by Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader. At present a person who wishes to change gender legally must be 18, demonstrate they have lived in their chosen gender for two years, have a diagnosis of “gender dysphoria” (a mental disorder whereby a person feels they don’t feel they belong in their biological sex) and be questioned by an expert panel.

The heart of the controversy is the view, espoused by Ms Miller’s report, that switching gender should instead merely be a matter of “self-definition”. A man need only “declare” that he is a woman. Your gender is what you feel it to be: there would be no requirement even to take female hormones or have surgery — about 70 per cent of trans women still have intact male genitals — or even “present” as a woman to be legally female. (Some older trans people are troubled by this, believing that it trivialises and delegitimises their struggles to live in their non-birth gender.)

Furthermore, if the law changes, “gender identity” is likely to become a protected characteristic under equalities legislation: ie if you deny a person is a woman or a man when they claim to be, you are guilty of discrimination or hate crime.

When Ms Miller, 53, released her report in January last year she was surprised that criticism came not from conservatives but, as she put it, “women who purport to be feminists”. This may be because feminists, well versed in sexual politics and long-time supporters of gay rights, are among the few people who can penetrate the arcane, confusing terminology.

Many see potential loopholes and conflicts of rights that put women at risk, giving men access to rare female-only spaces such as single-sex wards, changing rooms and domestic violence refuges, designed to keep them safe and private. Maria Miller gathers up her handbag and makes to leave: “I don’t think I’m happy about this. I think I’ve finished . . . I didn’t realise this was such a stitch-up.” I’ve been questioning Ms Miller about a report on transgender rights she produced last year as chairwoman of the women and equalities committee. The government has just announced that it will go to further consultation this autumn.

Many of its recommendations, to redress hate crime against transgender people, to improve access to NHS services and stop discrimination in employment (as seen in President Trump’s cruel, summary banning of up to 6,600 transgender US military personnel), are widely supported. But one proposal that seeks to change the very definition of “man” and “woman” has far-reaching implications.

Justine Greening, the equalities minister, announced her support this week for changes to the 2004 Gender Recognition Act, echoing calls by Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader. At present a person who wishes to change gender legally must be 18, demonstrate they have lived in their chosen gender for two years, have a diagnosis of “gender dysphoria” (a mental disorder whereby a person feels they don’t feel they belong in their biological sex) and be questioned by an expert panel.

The heart of the controversy is the view, espoused by Ms Miller’s report, that switching gender should instead merely be a matter of “self-definition”. A man need only “declare” that he is a woman. Your gender is what you feel it to be: there would be no requirement even to take female hormones or have surgery — about 70 per cent of trans women still have intact male genitals — or even “present” as a woman to be legally female. (Some older trans people are troubled by this, believing that it trivialises and delegitimises their struggles to live in their non-birth gender.)

Furthermore, if the law changes, “gender identity” is likely to become a protected characteristic under equalities legislation: ie if you deny a person is a woman or a man when they claim to be, you are guilty of discrimination or hate crime.

When Ms Miller, 53, released her report in January last year she was surprised that criticism came not from conservatives but, as she put it, “women who purport to be feminists”. This may be because feminists, well versed in sexual politics and long-time supporters of gay rights, are among the few people who can penetrate the arcane, confusing terminology.

Many see potential loopholes and conflicts of rights that put women at risk, giving men access to rare female-only spaces such as single-sex wards, changing rooms and domestic violence refuges, designed to keep them safe and private. It is these concerns I put to Ms Miller in her Basingstoke constituency." (continues)

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/2993425-Maria-Miller-interviewed-by-Janice-Turner-full-text

Michelleoftheresistance · 13/02/2020 16:14

Is it only me who can't see the hypocrisy?

I'm as baffled as you are.

I've read everything I can find for years, and talked here trying to work out what the hell is the reason this can seem reasonable to someone supposedly intelligent and sane, but there never is an answer.

In all the threads here, on Twitter, in articles, you'll never find an answer. Other than first lies and misinformation. And then mantras. And then rage, intimidation and threats. And then flouncing.

It's like being trapped in some holiday cottage over Christmas with the MiL from hell who has rampant narcissism, with everyone else frantically indulging her in the hope she won't be vile to them. Except it's being trapped in a country MiL appears to be running, with her flying monkeys in tow.

ArranUpsideDown · 13/02/2020 16:14

Nothing to add to R0wantrees ' summary except that now that Suella Braverman is Attorney-General it looks like there will be a full-on assault on the Human Rights Act and Judicial Review etc.

twitter.com/AdamWagner1/status/1227970279370035200

twitter.com/HelenArmet/status/1227989163401732102

Thermidorean reaction in 3-2-1...

ErrolTheDragon · 13/02/2020 16:18

Thanks , Clymene.

Mockersisrightasusual · 13/02/2020 16:19

Patel and Braverman.

WANTED: Two more horsewomen for the impending apocalypse.

#gettheapocalyspedone

ThePurported · 13/02/2020 16:28

That's a great piece by Ruth Serwotka.

You see being a socialist is nolonger about being a fierce intellectual but about embracing an infantlilising ideology.

Amen.
Burgon can piss off, he calls women 'cis women'.

ThePurported · 13/02/2020 16:38

Am I alone in wondering whether I have missed something and am wrong in my views?

You're supposed to embrace sexist stereotypes and plastic surgery as a form of 'empowerment', that's all.

moggiemonster · 13/02/2020 17:44

Clearly it is worst than I thought. I naively thought the Tories were stalling on GRA. I am almost inclined to give up and watch us eat ourselves. The ones who will suffer the most are the groups of females we try so hard to reach.

Imnobody4 · 13/02/2020 18:04

It's been said they (the gov) intend to announce something 're the consultation next month. Anyone know anything?

littlbrowndog · 13/02/2020 18:12

Thanks again rowan.

Miller 🤷‍♀️🤦‍♀️ Idiot

theflushedzebra · 13/02/2020 18:17

Why have they never published the consultation?

Penny Morduant was clearly wanting to get this through, and gloated at Pink Awards that she'd seen the results of the consultation - so why not publish? If it went the way she hinted, then that's justification to make the changes to the GRA. But they haven't.

Swipe left for the next trending thread