Insider's story of how trans activists in the Labour Party were seeking to undermine women's rights

[stumbledin]

Had difficulaty reading this, very long, and may benefit from being more familiar with Labour insiders. But the conclusion is a real worry:

" ... it dismayed trans people, according to Heather’s account and the actions of pop-up people like Ellie-Mae and her ilk. It dismayed the pop up people and LGBT Labour because it was the removal of the established legal rights of women that interested them.

Nowhere, ever, have I seen any recognition from any of them of the astonishingly bold, tangible and very expensive commitment that we gave to improve the lives of trans people by ensuring adequate and much improved access to health care services.

It’s not because they didn’t know.

It’s because that’s not what they’re interested in."

medium.com/@lachlanstuart/the-confessions-of-a-transphobe-b4942c06e6e4

Heather Peto?

April 2018
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3236275-Heather-Peto-is-slagging-off-Mumsnet-on-Twitter

Agreed - the piece could have done with an editor and it was self-indulgent in spots.

The actual story was interesting and it's worth skimming the first half or so of the piece and getting down to it and the conclusions.

That was incredibly hard to follow but I think it's the last couple of paragraphs that are pertinent.

But what interests me more than Heather’s occasionally erroneous account of events is the emphasis of what matters to the comrades of LGBT Labour.

The whole unnecessary fuss — and the subsequent media-determined narrative — arose from their utter discontent that the Labour Party had committed to the continuing legal entitlements of women (and men), as defined by the protected characteristic of sex, to be allowed service provisions on the basis of their sex when — and only when — it was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim to define access to such services on the basis of sex and not on the basis of a differently defined ‘gender’.

This may well not be the policy of LGBT Labour but it is long standing Labour Party policy. It was not changed when we introduced the Gender Recognition Act in 2004 and it was explicitly underscored by the Equality Act in 2010. It has never been changed by decision of our Conference, or by a decision of the Courts, or by a statement from any Party Leader, or by the wording of any election manifesto, or by any policy announcement. It wasn’t even considered controversial until after the 2016 report of the Westminster Parliament’s Women and Equalities Select Committee, which itself did not accept the recommendations along similar lines submitted in the evidence provided by trans rights lobbyists including Stonewall.

But it dismayed trans people, according to Heather’s account and the actions of pop-up people like Ellie-Mae and her ilk. It dismayed the pop up people and LGBT Labour because it was the removal of the established legal rights of women that interested them.

Nowhere, ever, have I seen any recognition from any of them of the astonishingly bold, tangible and very expensive commitment that we gave to improve the lives of trans people by ensuring adequate and much improved access to health care services.

It’s not because they didn’t know.

It’s because that’s not what they’re interested in.

"It’s because that’s not what they’re interested in."

Whether it is what they're interested in or not, and some argue that it is, what they are achieving in the UK and USA is the destruction of the Left as a viable force in parliamentary politics.

Very revealing insight into machinations within the Labour Party, the never-sated demands of lobby groups and their surprising ignorance of existing legislation. The Greenpeace example was mind-blowing. I have always assumed that Stonewall's persistent misrepresentation of current law is due to deliberate attempts to mislead. Is it possible that, at least sometimes, they are "economical with the actualité" out of sheer incompetence??

Lachlan Stuart's Medium article has been archived here, should it be disappeared by the usual suspects:

archive.ph/i0S45

is it possible that, at least sometimes, they are "economical with the actualité" out of sheer incompetence??

While I have no doubt that some people absolutely have bad intent, I have long held that most of this utter shitshow is driven along by a toxic mix of laziness, complacency and total incompetence. I know people see conspiracies everywhere, and I don't doubt that there are a few deliberate bad people pushing it all on, but we really need to accept that humans just have this whacking great flaw of large scale complacency and stupidity and I think it causes far more of our ills than anything else.

I think it might save some of us who get very frustrated from having long term blood pressure problems, tbh.

Lachlan Stuart's expose is starting to be covered by the MSM:

Mail on Sunday
"Labour’s civil war over transgender rights descended into even deeper bitterness last night after one of Jeremy Corbyn’s senior aides called leadership hopeful Rebecca Long Bailey a ‘virtue-signalling coward’ for threatening to expel feminists from the party – and a crowdfunded legal challenge was mounted against the party.

Ms Long Bailey, the favoured candidate of the Corbynite Left, is one of several senior Labour figures who last week endorsed a controversial ‘trans equality’ manifesto calling for anyone with ‘transphobic’ views to be thrown out of the party.

But Lachlan Stuart, a personal friend of Corbyn who co-wrote the Labour manifesto, said Ms Long Bailey was ‘not fit to lead’ because of her views on trans." (continues)

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8008729/Labours-civil-war-transgender-rights-erupts-jibe-Rebecca-Long-Bailey.html

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3824276-Virtue-signalling-coward-Labours-war-escalates

see also:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3824781-Lisa-Nandy-says-child-rapists-should-be-in-women-s-prisons-if-they-identify-as-female

Lachlan

That's really alarming. And sadly, all of a piece of what we've been saying.

It was long, but a fascinating insight into the political process. The discussion about the pledge to improve mental health services was both interesting and utterly frustrating. There were so many good elements to the Labour manifesto, but they were buried in all the controversy.

I wonder again though, how are these people wielding such power? Where they fail to get their own way, they are obviously willing to scupper everything. Why do political parties continue to enable their position when its toxicity is so apparent? It’s not a vote winner, so what is their hold over all these people?

I want to scream at the moment. Each time I feel we are making progress, something like this comes along. Men’s rights are in the ascendant, whichever way you look at it.

I wonder again though, how are these people wielding such power? Where they fail to get their own way, they are obviously willing to scupper everything. Why do political parties continue to enable their position when its toicity is so apparent? It’s not a vote winner, so what is their hold over all these people?

That is an excellent question. They have a scorched earth policy and the Labour party are doing themselves incalculable damage by pandering to these incoherent zealots. The only explanation I can provide is that Labour are dominated by such talentless, detached mediocrities that they think Twitter reflects public opinion. It doesn't. And while they keep ploughing this fallow field, electoral oblivion awaits.....

"It reminded me of the many times in the past that I had had to slap down Greenpeace or their ilk by way of providing them with the scientific assessments or other evidence they had ignored, or the case law and judgments they had forgotten, or the diplomatic protocols or international agreements that they had overlooked. Some organisations with a loud voice played a crucial role in civic society but they were, in my professional experience, always far too ill prepared to make a significant impact on the government policies for which I had oversight. It didn’t stop me sending them a monthly donation but Greenpeace was one such. And Stonewall was another. After my little contretemps with Greenpeace, I worried that Stonewall too would not do the read across and so would miss the significant commitment to accessible and enhanced gender identity services that we were making in our manifesto."

I think the problem is there^ in a nutshell. If NGOs are involved in policy-making, it should be through data and factual information. Instead they just make demands that are based on self-serving, emotive opinions.

I once worked in a job that brought me into contact with politicians. Some thoughts on why they are so easily influenced.

Many politicians don’t have the time ability or inclination to think hard.
They want to stand out.
The best way to do this is to adopt a radical new idea (or something that is perceived as such).
Male politicians are bored by women- they remind them of nagging mothers/wives.
Female politicians need to be seen as cool girls- that’s how they got accepted.
All politicians are very influenced by their spads who control the flow of information to them.
Their spads are very accessible to pressure groups- so long as they’re trendy.
Most spads are very young - little life experience & not parents.
Because women’s issues are so boring (see above) our pressure groups are boring too, and ignored.
Young people like sex, so a pressure group purporting tomorrow be about sexual self expression will be attractive to spads.
Result: a biased and incomplete flow of information to people who are desperate to stand out, bored by women, and haven’t the time or inclination to think hard.