Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Catherine Bennett in the Observer

28 replies

DurtySarf · 16/02/2020 08:20

Wonder how long this will be allowed to stay up.

Hope this is clicky:

amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/16/labour-pledges-to-fight-transphobia-stifle-debate

OP posts:
OP posts:
DurtySarf · 16/02/2020 08:34

On the pledges that the leadership candidates signed up to:

"Perhaps a large body of opinion does expect public figures, such as Nandy and Long-Bailey, to denounce public conversation about self-ID and women’s sex-based rights, to prohibit mention of biology, and condemn as a “hate group” – categorised, then, with far-right terrorists – any disobedient voices. But the case for such unique protection must surely begin with something more reasoned – and democratic – than the 12 pledges."

OP posts:
TorchesTorches · 16/02/2020 08:43

Thanks for the link to this. She lists the candidates who have signed the pledge, and Kier Starmer isn't on it. I thought I saw mention on here (FWR) that he had signed it.

Can anyone clarify if he has or if he hasn't.

TheShoesa · 16/02/2020 08:46

Keir Starmer signed a slightly different pledge. I'll see if I can find a link

WorkingItOutAsIGo · 16/02/2020 08:49

He signed a different, less extreme pledge.

VortexofBloggery · 16/02/2020 08:55

Keir signed a different pledge from another LGBT Labour group.

Floisme · 16/02/2020 09:06

Thank you, Catherine Bennett.
I remember her getting a pile-on a year or so ago and being told to go away and educate herself etc etc. And clearly she has.

nonsenceagain · 16/02/2020 09:10

Good. More sunlight. I suspect OJ will not be happy!

DurtySarf · 16/02/2020 09:19

nonsenceagain never mind OJ, wait until the east coast of the US wakes up...

OP posts:
bluehighlighter · 16/02/2020 09:26

.

NotAssigned · 16/02/2020 09:30

The house of cards still stands but the wind is starting to get up.

We always said overreach would be the undoing of this ideology and the uncritical signing of the pledge (created by a self-appointed, newly-arrived LGBTQ group) by all the female Labour leadership candidates qualifies as significant overreach.

Part of the reason that this issue had not made sufficient inroads into the public consciousness is that the public didn't really believe seemingly incredulous things were really happening - like biology being transphobic, people with a penis being lesbians or men being allowed to compete in women's sports. The more they realise it is, the more it will all unravel.

I know CB has ventured into this territory before but there will be second and third level brave journalists (Janice Turner is first level brave) who will now be thinking it might be safe to come out of the shadows.

The next battle is Stonewall.

Onwards and upwards.

Violetparis · 16/02/2020 09:43

Good, reasoned article, Labour are doomed if they shut down debate on this issue and continue to have high profile MPs label people as transphobic bigots for wanting to discuss implications for women. I've always considered myself as left, liberal, if I am having serious doubts about Labour over this, how on earth are they going to win over those in the centre and right of politics who they need to win a majority ? I am hoping Keir Starmer has a more balanced approach than the other leadership candidates, so disappointed in Lisa Nandy.

Violetparis · 16/02/2020 09:52

NotAssigned agree with you, the Labour Party will be seen as utterly ridiculous by the majority of the electorate if it doesn't pause/reassess where they are on the issue.

RoyalCorgi · 16/02/2020 09:59

The Observer also has this piece about the Labour candidates by Michael Savage:

www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/16/labour-candidates-called-on-to-justify-transphobia-claims

It's not bad. The Catherine Bennett article is OK too. I think the paper could have tackled this topic a bit more vigorously (and there's nothing at all in there about the Harry Miller and Kate Scottow cases) but at least it's not just pandering to the TRAs for once.

GCAcademic · 16/02/2020 10:08

The Observer has always been far more reasonable than the Guardian on this topic. Neither of those articles would be published by the Guardian. It will be woman-hating business as usual tomorrow.

xxyzz · 16/02/2020 10:11

Again, more reverse ferreting.

Wonder if the feedback from (ex-) readers has caused this, the results from Harry Miller's judgement, or finally listening to the voices of their more GC contributors?

All steps in the right direction, but not yet a full-throated apology or acknowledgement that they have been throwing women under the bus for too long.

RoyalCorgi · 16/02/2020 10:19

I don't think it's entirely reverse ferreting. The Observer has always been slightly less awful on this issue than the Guardian. Catherine Bennett has written gender-critical pieces in the past, though her articles tend, in my view, to be quite circumlocutory and less forceful than, say, Janice Turner's, so they have less impact. It was a mistake, for example, to begin this piece with a lot of stuff about the definition of anti-semitism rather than with the specific transphobia argument.

It would have been quite hard for the Observer to ignore what's going on in the Labour Party at the moment, given the extensive coverage it's had elsewhere.

There has to come a point, I think, where both the Guardian and the Observer have to realise which way the wind is blowing. My guess is that the Guardian's own staff have for ages been telling the management that there is "no debate" and that only extremists oppose self-ID. They are now belatedly realising that is not the case.

xxyzz · 16/02/2020 10:58

Not all staff - Hadley, Suzanne Moore (?) etc will have been sending out a different message.

RoyalCorgi · 16/02/2020 12:36

Yes, of course - not all staff. (Suzanne is freelance, though.) But I think there is a fairly substantial pro-trans lobby at the Guardian, mostly made up of younger staff.

womaninblue · 16/02/2020 12:48

See, OP, I find this:

Perhaps a large body of opinion does expect public figures, such as Nandy and Long-Bailey, to denounce public conversation about self-ID and women’s sex-based rights, to prohibit mention of biology, and condemn as a “hate group"

problematic. Because all the evidence is that a massive majority of ordinary people and voters, as well as those of us who come from a feminist perspective, don't want to see the end of 'woman' as a sex category, don't want to see the end of women's sport, don't want boys and men in women's changing rooms and hospital wards and lavatories. Until Catherine Bennett stops hiding behind ironic speculation ('Perhaps a large body of opinion...') I'm not going to be celebrating a U-turn at the Guardian.

NeurotrashWarrior · 16/02/2020 12:52

It was commented last week, after a similarly good article in the observer, that it's as if the guardian lot have a day off and the observer lot get in all the sane pieces, before business resumes as usual on Mondays.

I note there's another reasonable article today too.

Xanthangum · 16/02/2020 14:05

Owl on twitter: Journalists, you can't write about transphobia if you aren't trans yourself.

That's journalism dead then.Hmm

Catherine Bennett in the Observer
Michelleoftheresistance · 16/02/2020 14:11

Nice desperate try Owen.

If I said to you no one but someone born female can talk about womanhood, femininity, feminism, misogyny or the lived experience of woman your head would explode.

SentimentalKiller · 16/02/2020 14:11

Strange how Owl doesn't give the same rights to women Hmm

Tombakersscarf · 16/02/2020 14:14

Notice owl doesn't include a woman writing about sexism in the list of examples Hmm