RLB on Marr this morning

[Cwenthryth]

He’s got it completely and is tackling her head on about signing the trans pledge. He’s quoted Jess Philips, Karen Ingala Smith and Laura Pidcock at her. She really doesn’t understand. She doesn’t even know what she signed. And now she’s just cited suicide rates. 🤦🏻‍♀️

I agree with Michelleoftheresistance, Starmer parrots the trans rights are human rights slogan & no one probes him on it.

I'm beginning to wonder something. There is sexism and misogyny in both the Labour Party and the Tory Party but might there be something about the particular form the sexism and misogyny takes in the Labour Party that means that women, for example RLB, feel a much greater need to obey what they're told by the men?

As far as I can tell, Kier wants to win. For all the comradely back pats in debates, this is competition between ambitious people.

Whatever Kier thinks about women's rights, he can clearly see the complete mire his rivals have got themselves into, and has made the judicious decision to side step that particular swamp.

That's all there is to it. It is not possible to take anything from his actions and statements so far as an indication of anything more concrete than his much, much better politician's instincts.

I think she really needs to meet with the leadership of WPUK and LGBA. She’s making it very clear she has no idea what she is talking about or who she is talking about

She's had the stonewall training......but she never once attended any of the select committees or sessions in parliament at which MP's had the opportunity to meet with representatives from women's groups on the issue of Self ID.

Wow. Again left wishing Andrew Marr had more of a handle on the issues

The problem is most interviewers, political correspondents and reporters don't have a grasp of the full extent of the issues. It is all just hearsay.

I found it chilling when she said "it's right to talk about the safety of women ... but not at the expense of trans rights

What her own statement should have taught her, on reflection, is that this is an issue unlike any previous issue i.e gay rights. that there is an absolutely fundamental clash of rights - inherent in trans ideology. but to recognise that -you have to recognise an ideology when you see one....That is not to deny people's feelings about themselves or their own personal struggles....but to realise that personal feelings do not laws make - and especially when they impinge on already protected categories. Politics is about managing conflicts of interest - not about being " salespeople for Socialism"

I often wonder what these politicians really think about self ID when they're sitting at home with a cup of tea and not campaigning for positions of power.
As an example of silliness coming from leading Labour front benchers. Does Dawn Butler really believe that giraffes are gay? I think they are so far distanced from the realities of nature and so urban. I could tell Dawn that male sheep shag each other up the arse in the absence of females.
Human males and females are born gay however because of a much more sophisticated biology and psychology imo. Homosexuality has existed for millennia.
www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2015/jul/24/gay-genes-science-is-on-the-right-track-were-born-this-way-lets-deal-with-it

Gay people have fought hard to win acceptance and for decriminalisation of their sexuality. But people are now conflating this struggle with the 'rights' of trans people. And it's a mindfield.
There is one thing which is plain and simply true. A man cannot be a woman by believing he is one. It's genetically impossible.
We should support trans people and be kind but not trample over the rights of natal women in the process.

I'm wary of posting here since you're all so well informed. If I have caused offence I'll ask for the post to be removed.

Give it a few weeks, Derxa , you'll be soaked in data: the information is coming in thick and fast daily at the moment to evidence pretty much every point you've made. I don't disagree with any of them.

"It's right to talk about the safety of women.... but."

Ah, we're in the 'but' territory. I see.

"I'm not racist... but."

"I've nothing against gay people... but."

"It's never right to hit women.... but."

"Women matter too... but."

She has literally, and openly, just said that women's safety matters less than male feelings. That's next level internalised misogyny. Transwomen pose identical statistical risks to any other males. And she doesn't care.

Magic does not exist. Self-ID is not a spell. You can't change sex by declaration, and we have single sex provision for a reason.

She's unfit to lead a pub crawl.

Having seen endless twitter bios from trans activists over the years I'd say a substantial proportion do identify as being disabled.

Indeed. I wonder if their "assessments" are handled more... sensitively, for fear of accusations of transphobia.

No, it's right to talk about the safety of women. No-one would discriminate anybody in our party for doing that, but it's not at the expense of trans rights

Dear god. The misogyny is jaw dropping.

That's all there is to it.

I completely agree Floral. I think he would have signed it except he's enough of a lawyer to spot defamation when he sees it. The one he has signed is shockingly awful too and it's only because this one is so much worse that we're not discussing the other one.

The choice is between three misogynists, one of whom is vaguely competent.

Just watched Marr on iPlayer.

So RLB is at best gauche and naively signing up to things she hasn't read, or possibly stupid enough not to understand that a pledge to fight against specific groups means fighting against specific groups, and at worst, she is a brazen liar who signed up to a McCarthyite pledge to purge questioners with full knowledge and knows that she can only squeak that past the wider public by mendaciousness.

Couple that with the astonishing response to the facts about trauma response in women victims of male violence of "Yes, but that must not be allowed to affect the rights of people to simply say they are the opposite sex and demand the things set aside for that sex, and that's what I will support."

The woman is openly going to campaign for an end to single sex provision.

What she is essentially saying is "it's ok for women to have rights, but not at the expense of men", and she hasn't realised it yet.

I am definitely to the right of politics. If Labour carry on like this with these awful candidates they will be out of power for a generation.

Do they not recognise this? They are still discussing why they lost. We need a strong opposition to keep everyone on their toes. Come on - throw out Momentum, take a stand on being anti Semitic. Come down hard and throw the offenders out.

Get the best candidate for the job, stop getting distracted about having a women leader.

Imagine RLB on the world stage, is this the best they can do??

I think Keir is doing the only sensible thing right now. To say TWANW at this stage would completely derail his campaign. He'd still win but would begin under a glittery unicorn shaped cloud and possibly never escape it

Agree. I can't understand why posters on FWR want him to declare his position on self-ID. I don't. If he declares a position during the leadership contest he is bound to support self-ID, because he is trying to appeal to the ultra-woke Labour activists. Once he has won the leadership, he can use the need to appeal to the wider electorate as cover for adopting a more nuanced stance.

But he has declared his position. He signed another pledge that backed self ID. He’s no friend to women.

Once he has won the leadership, he can use the need to appeal to the wider electorate as cover for adopting a more nuanced stance.

I agree that Starmer is, ostensibly, the least openly anti-women's rights (while still being far too anti-women's rights for me, ta muchly). As I've said, his cards are close to his chest, relatively speaking.

But I think any Labour member who thinks that once Starmer is leader they are going to have anything other than a knock-down-drag-out battle to gain even the slightest nuance in policy in favour of women is charmingly optimistic.

Look at the hard, hard work to achieve the merest sop to single sex provision in the manifesto, and the howls of protest from Labour front benchers about how anti-trans it was.

I want to be wrong. I want a strong Labour party, ready to challenge structural and class inequality, fully cognizant of material reality and leaving behind the purely capitalist and consumerist mindset of Identity Politics.

But I don't even think we're in the foothills...

Independent article published this evening.... RLB doesn’t come out well

Rebecca Long-Bailey says women's refuges must accept trans women and urges Labour members to 'stop having this debate'

FloralBunting, I fear you are right but, faced with 4 candidates who have signed a pledge to remove women's right to free speech, and one who hasn't, I know who I will be backing.

And let's remember that, 2 years ago, it looked inevitable that Maria Miller & co would persuade the Tories to back self-ID. The risk of that has receded, as the Tories have realised the toxicity of the issue. All the big Tory-supporting papers- the Times, Telegraph and Mail - have consistently taken editorial lines that are anti-self ID, since the issue started getting MSM attention. Readers' comments run at least 95% against self-ID. It is hard to imagine the Conservatives, even in their current kamikaze state, ignoring such strong evidence of the electorate's views.

Over the last few days, we have perhaps seen the first stirrings of awareness in Labour and the Guardian that self-ID is a massive vote-loser. If the next Labour leader is someone actually prepared to give some thought to winning the next GE, we might see Labour adopt a more nuanced stance on self-ID.

Oh I agree, there is precious little option. But there it is. Labour - the new vanguard in the battle against women's rights. It comes to something when batshit Johnsonism in government is a marginally safer bet than a progressive party currently arguing that child rapists should be housed with women and there shouldn't be protected single sex spaces any more.

I want to hibernate, and not just because of the wintry weather.

Just a quick thought for the future. None of these current crop of politicians can say "i didnt know"
When the shit hits the fan, we can at least hold them to account. No excuses.

That Independent article is damning. Rightly so.

It was put to Ms Long-Bailey that female victims of domestic violence have spoken of their “debilitating terror” and of the vital importance of a woman-only refuge.

But she replied: “We can’t use that as an argument to discriminate against transpeople.”

Let's translate that. The debilitating fear of vulnerable women in refuges is not important as allowing males blanket access because they feel like women.

Males who feel they are women have feelings that must be validated, and must trump the debilitating fears of female victims of male violence.

I never thought I'd see a female Labour leadership candidate put it so plainly that she is going to actively legislate against women's rights. She's completely betraying all women.