Keir Starmer Sky News

[AppleJane]

Keir Starmer refused to confirm Lloyd Russell-Moyle will be sacked.

I’ve emailed Starmer and Marsha De Cordova. I don’t expect a response but I figured we need to tell them how annoyed this issue makes us then hopefully they can’t keep sticking their fingers in their ears and pretending they don’t hear us.

But he sacked Long-Bailey (a woman), albeit he probably had no choice. Under Corbyn the party was gaining a reputation for harbouring anti-Semitism, so he'll have felt an immediate need to deprive that one of oxygen.

Yet Long-Bailey dashed off a max. 280 character tweet, whereas Russell-Moyle published a carefully considered, reviewed and edited article with the unpleasant underlying message that women who have been sexually abused or assaulted should embrace the privilege of shutting up about it. That's the message Starmer is endorsing by not getting rid of this man - a man whose repugnant views I see as an active danger to women.

Message from Labour is therefore that racism is unacceptable, but sexism (even that of a non-casual nature) is perfectly okay). And the irony isn't lost that it's the female who lost her job whilst the male kept his.

What an era to be alive, and just when it looked as though women were making some progress. Now also joining the ranks of the politically homeless.

Yes it does affect white MC women, but not to the same extent it effects women from marginalised backgrounds. I'm a white MC woman myself and although I am afraid for my daughters future, I know that we are somewhat insulated from it. If I or my daughter ever need hospital treatment we can afford to go private and get a private single sex room. We are unlikely to ever be homeless or in prison. We are unlikely to find gender neutral language to be a barrier in us accessing health information. We can afford to change schools or hire legal representation if we encounter a problem there. If I was only speaking for myself then I probably wouldn't have too much to say on the matter. The feminists pushing the idea that TWAW are, from my observation, coming from the same place - they are almost exclusively white MC highly educated, well off, and highly privileged. They look at the social and policy changes involved in the TWAW idea through the lens of their own experience and conclude that they don't think it affects them - and many of them will be right, many of them never will be affected by it. They analyse the situation using a version of feminism that only centers their white MC experiences. They do not look at it through an intersectional framework. If they did they would immediately see how it affects women from less priveldeged backgrounds. This is what is commonly referred to as "White feminism" and its a label often but incorrectly applied to GC feminists. I am not denigrating white MC women, I'm simply pointing out that an intersectional analysis of TWAW leads you to a GC position, whilst those who can't see a problem are usually looking at it through the lens of their white MC experience.

Russell-Moyle published a carefully considered, reviewed and edited article with the unpleasant underlying message that women who have been sexually abused or assaulted should embrace the privilege of shutting up about it. That's the message Starmer is endorsing by not getting rid of this man - a man whose repugnant views I see as an active danger to women.

Imagine if Russell-Moyle had written an article accusing a black person of weaponising their experience of racism, or a Jewish person of weaponising their experience of anti-Semitism. He'd have been out of the door before he'd had time to draw breath.

Women, though? Nah, that's different.

I thought the new head of Stonewall, Nancy Kelley, was good on this subject.

“There is a lot of debate on the theory of gender and sex, it’s all terribly interesting and there are a million PhD theses to be written about it,” said Kelley, “but for the experience of trans people’s lives to be more positive, and for them to have lower levels of hate crime, better access to health services and more inclusive schools and workplaces, we don’t need people to agree on what constitutes womanhood.

“We must come back to the basics of building empathy for the idea that we want our fellow humans to experience a dignified, positive life. And there are things that as a society that we can change to make that more likely.”

It's from The Guardian

She also said: “The general public as a whole – and women in particular – are not anti-trans or really worried about trans inclusion. There is no real evidence to suggest that.

“What you see instead is that the overwhelming majority of people [83%] don’t see themselves as transphobic and don’t agree with transphobia. And the majority position around things like bathrooms is that women feel fine about it.”

What do you think?

I like to think of myself as politically interested - campaigned against Brexit, support BLM. Call me naive but I have no idea what most of the issues being discussed here are about?

you single-issue feminists are tedious

Actually people like you who trivialise this into a petty single issue are tedious.
If women have no clear definition and are simply reduced to a feeling, then the loses are way more than a single issue. It will impact over half the population in pretty much every area of society. From jobs, to safeguarding, to hospital care, to sport, to education. It further impacts on the rights, health and safeguards of young children, leading to confusion, mental health issues, infertility, heart disease, brittle bones, risk of heart attack, and reduced life expectancy. You think this is a tedious single issue? We see clearly what you are.

I think it’s deceitful and disingenuous. Once people realise what the real issues are and what the agenda is, they are horrified.
Happened to me and I know many others on here.

That was to TantieTowie

single-issue feminists without women there cannot be feminism. If it is declared that anyone can be a woman then feminism is redundant.

Tante paraphrasing what you posted, "Stop talking about whether TWAW, be nice, if I keep repeating the idea that people are fine with men in women's spaces perhaps it will be accepted as fact"

ByGrabtharsHammerWhatASavings

You’re problem is the fact that you’re viewing the women in here through your white middle class eyes. Your background and the circles you mix in have obviously given you a very narrow view of feminism, or you wouldn’t come on here spouting such absolute bollocks. I’m a working class woman from a traveller ancestry, so sorry if I don’t fit your bigoted viewpoint of women who are GC. You might want to deal with that unconscious racism that you’re projecting onto others. Imagine the arrogance of assuming that only white, middle class women are GC and only white, middle class women post on the FWR boards. Shame on you.

All the issues that you’re pontificating on can’t be resolved, if the words women and female cease to have any coherent meaning. How can women from all backgrounds be protected from abuse, if the word used to describe those of the female sex is simply an ‘identity’? As so many like to say nowadays, check your privilege.

Has anyone asked Boris Johnson where he stands on Women's rights? Or whether he thinks TWAW?

It's the Conservative Party that were all for throwing women's rights away in their proposed self-id legislation and he is the Prime Minister. So it's very odd that he gets an easy ride on this with no-one ever asking him questions

To be fair to Boris, it was Teresa May who was going to reform the GRA, I think she thought it was a good way to appeal to young voters, Boris just kicked it straight into the long grass, it’s obvious he has no time for it, it’s too contentious.

I don’t know why nobodies straight out asked his opinion like they have with the other parties.

As far as I’m aware the conservatives have never made a statement calling women ‘un-men’, or calling for women to be expelled etc, which is why I think it garnered interest in the Lib Dem’s and labour with the MSM.

I also think the conservatives were the only party to put the feelers out on throwing away women’s rights, the other parties had it set in stone.
Any other party in power, and I believe self ID would be a thing in law by now.

*your

i am no fan of ks, particularly after his stance on RLB, but can you imagine Boris handling this line of questioning any better ?

“What you see instead is that the overwhelming majority of people [83%] don’t see themselves as transphobic and don’t agree with transphobia. And the majority position around things like bathrooms is that women feel fine about it.”

What do you think?

I find it deeply offensive that the new head of Stonewall doesn't understand the issues.
So what if majority of women are 'fine' with it (and I doubt they are when they realise that the group of men who want access are mostly intact males, some with disturbing antipathy towards women)? They can't consent on behalf of women who want and need single-sex provision.
The new boss is same as the old boss, and it's clear that Stonewall isn't going to stop its quest for the removal of women's sex-based rights.

I said yesterday on another thread I'd be very surprised if he got the sack, and here we are. A half assed faux apology and it's all swept under the carpet. The boys club, same as it ever was.

Agree 100% with what RoyalCorgi said.

Listened to R4 interview. Tbh I can't see that at this stage that he could have said anything else.

There is no way he wants to open himself up to the backlash that would come from suggesting he agreed with Liz Truss. It would be counterproductive and distracting especially with so many woke MPs in the party. He has a 4year plus game to play here.

Corbyn, RLB, Nandy et all all said TWAW. Starmer has not said that. Until he does I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. He also can't sack two cabinet members in one week.

We just need to keep the pressure up, keep the high moral ground and let him know that issue is not going away.

It is certainly getting close to the time for a campaign to repeal the GRA to shift the Overton window a little bit further. The he might adjust his rhetoric from suggestions of improving the GRA.

People who currently whole-heartedly believe TWAW say so and mean it.

More people don’t believe that TWAW but say it anyway.

But there isn’t a single person saying that trans women aren’t women who don’t mean it.

The authentic public feeling on this is very much that it’s a nonsense, we just need to wait for the walls to crumble.

My message to

Sir Kier

My family have always voted Labour (my parents, my grandparents) but at the two previous elections I have spoiled my ballot paper because Jeremy Corbyns weakness allowed all kinds of non-labour factionalists into the party and thereby destroyed the heart of labour.

Labour has never been brilliant at women’s rights and it is now glaringly obvious that women are second class citizens and that you appear to accept that against all scientific evidence, trans women are women. Whilst protection for this group should be high on any agenda, it is against the rights of women, that our rights can be thought of little significance when balanced against those of men.

I had high hopes, I am let down and so are all of my friends, I am politically homeless.

“There is a lot of debate on the theory of gender and sex, it’s all terribly interesting and there are a million PhD theses to be written about it,” said Kelley

I think this was at best staggeringly stupid, and at worst a deliberate and calculated attempt to minimise the needs of the many women who need rights because of their sex, regardless of privileged people pontificating in a PhD thesis.

www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/29/coronavirus-lockdown-could-lead-to-214000-extra-babies-in-the-philippines

The consequences of lack of access to contraception are not academic.

God you single-issue feminists are tedious.

I tell you what's tedious - having to have the exact same conversation with my DC over and over and over again as to why humans cannot change sex, why it is offensive and harmful to claim that anyone not trans is fine with the sex stereotypes and sex role stereotypes society imposes on someone us based on our sex, why being kind to some men and boys on this issue does indeed cost women and girls dearly.

And it's tedious to have to keep pointing out that campaigning to defend and uphold our legal rights may seem like a single issue, but the gradual erosion of these same rights by stealth has already negatively affected many different aspects of many women's and girls' lives. Without a single-minded focus on our rights from a lot more of us, the world will be a far worse place for our daughters and granddaughters, including in countries where we have rights in law. That's not a legacy I'm willing to leave them.

Notassigned

He could have spoken about violence against women. He didn’t

He could off said that what that mp said was totally unacceptable

He didn’t

He said wrong question

I don’t have a higher moral ground as I don’t know what the lower moral ground is

I don’t tell men to suck my lady dick or die

I don’t care about the Labour Party

I care about the leader of opposition does not take a stand against violence against women 🤷‍♀️

ByGrabtharsHammerWhatASavings

Slightly confused by some of the replies to your posts, but I agree very much with your last post. I agree that many 'intersectional feminists' have a very limited understanding of the lives of other women.

Kit19 honestly sprouts i get the anger I really do. I would love him to come out and say he thinks the whole TRA agenda is nuts but it would be political suicide to do so when Labour is barely held together as it is

Really? That's a position coming from being cowed. Or he could be a man of principle because this would be an ideal opportunity to say new leader & I'm welcoming women into the party?