C4 now labour leadship hustings question on trans pledge

[stumbledin]

Not a very strong question. Just more is this going to divide us.

Lisa Nandy again going on young consituency.

Can watch on C4+1

I thought they were all very weak on most issues.

Rebecca Long Bailey just bored me. Can't remember a single point she made that could not have been made by Corbyn.

Keir Starmer is absolutely humourless- I don't think he smiled once. Lacks any personality.

Lisa Nandy gave the same answer to ever question. 'We are a better country than this..........We can have xxxx and xxxxx (safe spaces and inclusive spaces, pro-palestine and not anti-semitic, sex-offending trans women in women's prisons and no danger from that). Her response to the trans question and her personal example where she provides support for the family otherwise fearing they can not continue to exist was totally over-egged to the point of becoming a bit ridiculous. She kept trying to widen the trans issue into a 'issues we all face'- bullying, mental health, people requiring support in society.

I thought the woman who asked the question was uncomfortable trying to find the language to ask it , and all 3 candidates were uncomfortable and pussy-footed around answering it- symptomatic of where we are with it as a society. People ate scared to use the 'wrong' word lest they be accused of discrimination/bullying/hate / non PC.

It really takes the biscuit for those three to talk about civilised debates etc.
It is now two years since Corbyn promised to meet with Linda Bellos to discuss the issue, and Linda is still waiting...

Although painful for the Labour Party, there is undoubtedly a silver lining.

The timing of this misogynistic pledge and Harry's verdict hitting the front page this week will have given many judges, civil servants, headteachers etc an insight into what might be going on every time they look to stonewall or mermaids for help.

Fucks fucking sake I am furious. Have just hadone a male friend act all surprised that I'm pissed off about the Nandy/rapist issue and surprised that this issue has become so charged and polarising. FFS! how come even nice kind men don't fucking get it?!!

Other countries have gone further, we can go further", Starmer sai

This is Kier Starmer. This is what he would do if he had to......and don't think otherwise just because you want to be able vote for someone.

Starmer hasn't got a clue what he is talking about.....and he totally blanked requests for clarification into his not signing 'the pledge'.

Yes, "let's go further", like some other countries, Kier: countries and states which are now starting to ban puberty blockers; like countries in which girls are having to sue because they are losing out on scholarships and medals due to the presence of male people in their sporting competitions; or perhaps countries like Canada, where poor immigrant women are being taken to court for refusing to wax someone's girly balls; or where long standing women's organisations have been closed down altogether.......Great idea!

This is all turning out to present us with one of the most salutary tales of our era: how a society; its rulers and law-makers, can be so utterly captured and in thrall to an ideology; an ideology that dares not be examined......for the plain and simple truth that if it should be so examined, it would be found out to be just another version of 'the Emperor's New Clothes'. It is simply astonishing what is happening.

Yes, let's have a civil debate. One which examines ,in detail, the facts and claims of transgenderism; and let's take an honest look at the full range of outcomes that arise because of its implementation. And then put it to the people.....because right now they still have not got a clue...as was pretty evident last night; which was, in effect, a non debate about how to avoid an actual debate.

...and also the talk of how dehunmanising and bureaucratic the GR process is. For goodness sake...that is the nature of bureaucratic procedures, and we all have to tolerate them on any number of occasions.

And changing your legal sex is hardly a stroll in the park is it...nor should it be. The whole "trans rights are human rights" talk disguises the fact that trans people, like everyone other citizen, already have equal rights in law. what the trans lobby want is additional rights to everyone else. To be able to move in and occupy the legitimate spaces of others - without their permission ( colonisation); and to be able to self identify in any way they want and have the law of the land take that seriously.

In order to accept the above people are going to have to realise that 1) it is possible to change sex 2) that it is possible to be born in the wrong body 3) and that trans women really are women 4) ...that giving puberty blockers to children is a social good 5) and also the very profound implications for everything and everyone in any society - that this all implies.

It's fucking awful isn't it. I'm sorry for the constant swearing, it's just I've run out of words to express how grim this is. And if one more bloody bloke tries to msnsplain women's rights to me I am going to sodding scream.

...if one more bloody bloke tries to msnsplain women's rights to me I am going to sodding scream.

(Dons tin hat and tiptoes in)

So with Rayner a shoe-in for deputy, it looks like Starmer is the least worst option.

We Need an opposition to this bunch of entitled clowns, and we need it now.

One of the best hope we have is that things start to unravel, even more quickly, in other countries in which " things have been taken further"....before Rebecca, Lisa, Kier, Dawn and Jeremy ever get a look at power; and also, that the current government kicks the whole thing into the long grass for the forseeable future.

I'm afraid I'm going to save my "let's do something about this dehumanizing, stressful process" energy for tacking Universal Credit, or disability benefits.

What do we want?

an intelligent opposition

When do we want it?

Now!!

I know being a 'Labour party person' is in the blood of may people, and is an integral part of their identity...but I really think all of that needs to be seriously re-examined. Looking at the Labour party these days is like reading a text that is a cross between a social history encyclopedia and an Orwellian book of 'truths.' It's finished.

Ha Mockersisrightasusual - you're all right, you didn't mansplain :)

I tend to agree that keir is least worst, but he's not shown his hand and I don't trust that - he could believe in anything.

I think Justhadathought is right - we need to have a good think about whether this party is worth supporting. I fear it has become like ones favourite bra that has developed massive holes - we cared deeply for it but it no longer does the job. We can try to patch it (sunk cost fallacy) or we can bin it and try to find a new bra.

The problem is that all the other bras in the drawer are full of holes, too, and we can hardly go try on a new on at Mark's Suspenders.

I only watched the answers to the trans questions. I thought they were all appalling. Nandy was particularly dreadful because she tried rowing back from her bald statement that a rapist should be allowed into a women's prison while simultaneously attempting to give the impression that she wasn't rowing back. Talked about the importance of risk assessments and other waffle.

Nandy once again brought up the trans child in her constituency who seems to be in a more dire plight every time she mentions them. Yet no mention of women - none of the thousands of women in her constituency who must have experienced domestic abuse or sexual violence. It's all about the single vulnerable trans child.

She also had the sheer brass neck to talk about the importance of compromise and measured debate, after having called for the expulsion of people who disagree with her.

Keir Starmer was shit. Trans people are the most vulnerable group of people in the entire world blah blah, nothing about women.

Didn't even have the guts to say that he refused to sign the pledge because he was opposed to expelling people with entirely reasonable views. He could have put clear blue water between himself and the other two, but refused.

Can't remember what Wrong-Daily said but it was pretty much an amalgam of the other two.

If this is the best the main government opposition party can offer, we are absolutely screwed.

Politicians don't usually go for vote losers which this issue obviously is, not only among women but their own socially conservative Labour voters who can't stomach wokeism.

TheProdigalKittensReturn that is sadly very bloody true!

Do you all reckon they don't realise this is a vote loser? That they are so insulated in their woke bubble they don't even see it? Not that that excuses anything.

I think some of them at least didn't realize that the public wasn't onboard until the blowback on this happened. Starmer might have, which is why he's been trying to hedge his bets. Doesn't mean he's any less likely to commit to a horrible policy than the rest of them, just that he's brighter.

Do you all reckon they don't realise this is a vote loser

I think they think it is a minority opinion and concern. and as long as the real full and open public debate happens it will be......Get the GRA rushed through before anyone knows what on earth it implies.

It is really odd to see otherwise thoughtful people gripped by an agenda they did not create, nor one that they truly own.

until the full and open public debate happens

Lisa Nandy is especially compromised - because of her involvement with - as she keeps mentioning - vulnerable women and children's groups. She must surely understand safeguarding.

It’s a bit like the Labour Party thought momentum and corbyn was a good idea and the nation were behind them

They haven5 learnt a thing tbh

Very true - I don't trust him at all on this.

And to top it all now I'm feeling guilty for my somewhat blunt retort to Mr mansplainer this morning. Bloody societal conditioning of women to be "nice"

From twitter

Just picture it @DawnButlerBrent, @lisanandy & @RLong_Bailey rushing in at the end of each day. "How did we do boys? Did we say the right things? Did we throw enough women under the bus?" And elbowing one another out of the way to be the one that gets the coveted pat on the head.

On reflection I think they way they responded to the question made them realise the Trans pledge and particularly them saying that WPUK and LGB Alliance were hates groups were a step too far.

So they agreed a strategy to deflect away from that saying the problem was about not having a civilised debate (nothing to do with us Your Honour calling people hate groups). Hypocrites.

And if that C4 presented wasn't such a total numpty he would have asked them to prove they were have groups.

We've had all this publicity about Tory cabinet advisors making off the wall remarks, but here we have 2 potential leaders of the Labour Party signing false statements. Who would trust a politician like that?

It says far more about the inner factions in the Labour Party than any concern for voters.

And I suspect that still for the vast majority of people (in or out of the Labour Party) they just dont think it is an important issue.

I will be very surprised if Kier Starmer doesn't win the vote because I think people will be looking at who the general public will vote for. And given existing prejudice against women, I think they will think he is a better prospect.

It wont even necessarily be about who is more or less a Corbynite.

According to some reports many ex members have rejoined to make sure a more middle of the road person gets elected, and of the 3 he is it.

I think the issue of trans rights vs. women's rights will just be viewed as a niche issue.