JK Rowling responds to pathetic Labour MP

[BaronessSnippyPantsofCroneArmy]

twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1277263814552100866?s=20

Bloody good woman

@BigBadVoodooHat

Brilliant that Russell Moyle issued an apology

I saw a frantic, arse-covering attempt at mitigation, but not much in the way of actual apologetic sentiment or acknowledgment of why what he said was wrong. 🤷‍♀️

He’s a man in fear of losing his job who has asked for the evidence of his misogyny to be removed from public view. Pathetic coward.

Absolutely agree, I don't think for one minute that Russell-Moyle is sincere in his apology. I think it's brilliant that he issued an apology because it suggests a real change in the Labour leadership. I doubt he would have bothered if Corbyn was still leader.

I am hopeful that Starmer can see that the tide is turning and he will fence sit on this issue until key events occur, such as the Tavistock court case. He's bright enough to see that parroting TWAW is a massive vote loser with the electorate.

I am disappointed with KS. I know that he sat on the fence slightly during the leadership thing and he has to be careful not to upset the hard lefts but I'm wondering if I will ever be completely comfortable voting Labour again.

Starmer is as high on the kool aid as Rebecca Wrong-Daily et al were. He just had less integrity than they did, and wasn't willing to be up front about his values because he knew it would lose him votes. I had considerably more respect for and trust in the women who's views I found insane and misogynist, but at least they believed in being honest with their voters about what they would do when in power.

No, I won't vote Labour until it's a very, very different party the one it is now.

A quick point about shifting the Overton window.

In Labour the Overton window on this issue shifted to a position where TWAW was the only acceptable one. Anyone who didn't agree was wrong. But this was done quietly and without consultation and under the radar. Any dissent was purged or crushed through exerting fear very quickly.

To reverse this, the opposite isn't possible. Mainly because of the climate of fear that has built up.

So what has Keir Starmer done today?

He has pushed the Overton window back from where it was with no debate. He has said that this is open to debate and this must occur in an environment which is free from fear.

This might not be enough for most of us here.

However even the splinters in his bum are about pushback and moving the position of the Overton window within Labour.

This hopefully makes it easier for others to speak out and challenge the TWAW orthodoxy and to better reflect wider opinions in society.

This of course will be hated by trans activists as they know this means they have lost momentum and control of the narrative.

What's important here is the direction of travel. Its not necessarily sitting on the fence in quite the way it might appear.

Some reflection on this would be useful.

Just saw this:

www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv-radio/1302398/piers-morgan-GMB-keir-starmer-itv-host-labour-latest/amp

RedToothBrush that’s a very interesting take on it, thanks. I think you’re right that he won’t have gone far enough for the TRAs.

I thought so too. Baby steps back to sanity, hopefully.

It’s refreshing to have a Labour leader who’ll actually do interviews.

It’s refreshing to have any leader who will do interviews. I think you’re absolutely right @RedToothBrush. Starmer’s an excellent strategist.

I think Starmer first and foremost want to increase the quality of members of his front bench. He can tolerate a variety of views, as he recognises that the party includes a diversity of views. However he does want members of his team to possess a level of political nous. People who can avoid foot in the mouth moments.

Its political stupidity that wont be tolerated not policies or leanings. This way he is not accused of a witch hunt. A more talented team should then be able to develop policies without resorting to knee jerk or slogans. Or that must be the hope.

I actually cried when I just read her tweets. She so gets it! I know a lot of us wondered what her view was on all this and it's obvious she's been following this debate and her courage has brought it out into the mainstream. So grateful to her.

Starmer did support a pledge that demands self ID, just not the same one the others signed (the one that called various organisations ''hate groups''.)
<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20200213092010/twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1227878854183792642" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">web.archive.org/web/20200213092010/twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1227878854183792642

He also told Piers he thinks there should be a debate about womens sports, even though thats an exception allowed by both The Equality Act and the GRA.
Even with a GRC, a man who has transitioned does not have the legal right to participate in women's sports.

I'm not political and it's not my language but RedToothBrush has described it really well.

This can't be a single party position. As currently it's vaguely Tory = we side with women and the others = TWAW.

So less critical thinking Tory hating types are going to go with the others.

Yes he's sitting on the fence personally speaking, but he's answered it well by not picking "a side" and throwing it back to be debated, critically as a cross party problem.

He's right that it's a football and women are being battered by it within the current situation. And being framed as fussing feminists aka not important. Or siding with the religious right which we know causes further issues, as we've seen within the GC movement.

I was annoyed he put women second in every answer but at the same time, I recognise someone who's potentially being very clever about appearing neutral.

RedToothbrush that is an interesting perspective. I think you are right. It is a significant change in position.

There will be push back from the TRAs and if he had stood up and said I agree with JKR there would have been an almighty shit show.

He does also need a competent front bench. This was a massive problem for JC as he fell out with so many people he had a very limited field to choose from. KS is more competent and is trying to build bridges.

This is a toxic issue for the party but the debate has moved to the point where we can have a debate. Many people are not aware of this and they are in the areas Labour needs to win back.

For Starmer to win an election he has to rebuild trust. Thats not an easy process.

He has to play a long game and not go for easy wins nor engage in too many confrontations.

He has to go down the nuance road. The 'it's a bit more complicated than that road'.

He's got to 'build a case' to 'sell to the jury' through the prolonged presentation and build up of evidence.

I could be proved wrong about where he ultimately wants policy in this area to go, but for the time being he's pushing for civilised conversations on this, which puts the ball very much back into the court of women to throw away the opportunity they are being given here.

Even comments about 'bricks being thrown' in a bothsiderism way, is something that is about 'proving it': to reference Maya Angelou.

I think it's a case of just keeping on making noise in a sensible, considered and intelligent manner.

Arguments that rely on emotion and ideology can move quicker than those that rely on logic, reason and considered thought. But the truth of material reality is something than can only be suppressed for a period before it eats itself in the weight of what it costs to maintain the facade.

I think we have little choice but to give it time as whoever pushes back on this whatever their political allegiance will have to do it bit by bit. Nature of the beast.

What's important now is to keep up the pressure and follow and support JKR.

I think Starmer first and foremost want to increase the quality of members of his front bench.

In which case, any debates or analysis eg womens sports or Tavistock stuff will include rigorous scientific evidence, which has already been and is being collected.

I think he is strategic. I'm not saying he personally has the right opinion on this; I wonder if he has spent much time looking at it. Or he has and realised he has to throw it open to be critically publicly analysed for the woke to listen. He knows a large section of momentum types don't like him.

He was really interested by the triggernometry episode describing how the tories under Cameron really listened where labour weren't interested, when presented with the same set of research. It strikes me labour can't make this mistake again:

Yes the long game. Well said red. And yes, ongoing support for JK.

If there's a proper debate, he can allow himself to be persuaded by the arguments? Makes sense.

Couldn’t love JKR any more than I do. Gaun yersel’, hen!

I think you’re right that he won’t have gone far enough for the TRAs.

He hasn't. Check out Owen Jones's Twitter feed.

The issue with Starmer playing the long game is that it will play into the Tories hands - if BoJo brings this up at PMQs this week then Starmer will be a sitting duck.

Equally the Tories could very easily push a lot of stuff out now and in the next few months that will please feminists regarding stopping the reform of the GRA and when/if Labour later speak in agreement the Tories will be able to play the “we came up with it first/we’re more in touch with what women want” card.

The tories need to drag the issue out over a prolonged period, rather than actually come up with a solution and to fix it, because the culture war demands the issue to be ongoing. The Tories don't want to fix issues. They want the culture war in order to cover for all the other dodgy things they are doing.

I think @RedToothBrush is right though - he has to play for the long game. Although there is only one side 'throwing bricks' as far as I can see, nothing will change if the current situation contines.

Starmer seems big on taking the heat out of things, facilitating debate and discussion and coming up with mutually 'acceptable' solutions. Ultimately, there is only a way forward if both 'sides' can claim they have 'won' (at least in some areas).

As we know, TRAs will hate having to sit around a (virtual) table and present their 'evidence/ research' and have a sensible, adult debate. Who would they even agree on to 'send' to represent them ?

There are some areas of the debate which I'm sure people would be less wedded to. For example, I'm less incensed about gender neutral loos than I am about transwomen in women's sport or on women's shortlists.

Bodies like Stonewall and Mermaids do need to be challenged via high profile court cases however and hopefully be stripped of their influence and shunned by big business as a result.
Starmer needs to do enough to roll things back (using legislation as an excuse/support) to reassure women and the GC but not so much that the TRAs can't feel that they are being listened to.

Of course, in reality, the best solution is to make a BIG FUSS of the narcisissts in the TRA movement to make them feel ever so successful and special, but to DO NOTHING of any significance or importance to advance their agenda. It's all about pandering to egos.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

I think you’re right that he won’t have gone far enough for the TRAs.

He hasn't. Check out Owen Jones's Twitter feed.

I can’t. He blocked me ages ago. He’s a complete diva.

I agree with RedToothbrush. Starmer can't just come out and say the TRAs are talking bollocks, even though he must know they are. He has to play the long game. In the meantime, he has shifted the window of acceptable discourse just a little bit. He has said there must be a debate. That is a definite change from treating gender-critical women as beyond the pale.