Chair of LGBT APPG complains that deals worked out behind the scenes not adhered too

[Kit19]

“In privately agreeing a way forward with the wider LGBT+ lobby both in parliament & outside”

Nice to have it confirmed that this was all being sewn up behind closed doors

@merrymouse

The effects on other people of those ideas or policies being for other people to consider and advocate for.

And why wouldn't they - aren't they best placed to advocate for their own rights? That doesn't mean any group should disregard other people's rights.

I'm not suggesting that a men's rights organisation needs to be going out and lobbying for women's rights issues, for example.

But if they are going to lobby for a particular right for men, because having thought about it they think it would be good for them or solve some problem men have, they need to be considering what the wider effects of that policy would be. If it would mean more children in poverty for example, or less recourse for domestic abuse, or create bias in career hiring, that's a problem and they maybe should consider that their idea is unfair, however good it is for men as a group.

Even at a theoretical level, I am all for isolating ideas for thought experiments, even disturbing ones, but when you do that and someone says "actually, if we accept this idea about men, it would imply (some awful thing) about women and are we really willing to say that, even if it seems right when we are only thinking about men" - that's an important point. And not only in terms of fairness but in terms of gaining true understanding. It points to a problem that has been missed somehow in the thought process.

It's very rare that you can isolate a phenomena and analyse it without reference to the larger landscape without creating errors. Usually you even need some expertise about other system elements to get it right. Maybe that's the whole problem with the identity politics approach, it silos things to the point where the information results of analysis are warped.

@merrymouse

In the example we are talking about, (and generously giving him the benefit of the doubt) Crispin Blunt seems to think that he has considered women's rights. Unfortunately he doesn't have a clue.

Possibly he's just an idiot, and also an asshat. A bad combination.

But many people have adopted the interest group approach to policy, it's been demanded pretty strenuously by progressives for some years. I think without really anticipating the results.

It's very rare that you can isolate a phenomena and analyse it without reference to the larger landscape without creating errors. Usually you even need some expertise about other system elements to get it right.

That is why law makers should listen to a variety of view points.

For example where I live there is sometimes conflict between people who want to hold cycling/running races and people who have the right to keep their animals on the land where those events happen.

It should be possible for the needs of both groups to be considered, but I wouldn't expect either group to fully understand the other's needs.

@merrymouse

It's very rare that you can isolate a phenomena and analyse it without reference to the larger landscape without creating errors. Usually you even need some expertise about other system elements to get it right.

That is why law makers should listen to a variety of view points.

For example where I live there is sometimes conflict between people who want to hold cycling/running races and people who have the right to keep their animals on the land where those events happen.

It should be possible for the needs of both groups to be considered, but I wouldn't expect either group to fully understand the other's needs.

For sure, and the lawmaker is meant to be a kind of arbiter.

But both the people in a conflict like the one you mention need to have a sort of awareness of effects on the other group don't they, and an appreciation that their needs also count? As a running group, you may not be terribly aware of all the ways your race might cause a problem, but there is kind of a moral and practical necessity to try and think how you exercising your rights will interact with the rights of others. It's not as if each group should present their desired outcome to the political decision maker with only reference to themselves, and that mediator tries to find the right compromise. The mediator may not be very expert in terms of either concern. If both groups can try and think how their needs and wants can best relate to the others needs and wants, they are more likely to find a way forward that is satisfying or at least works.

Blunt apparently wants Liz Truss sacked for her unwillingness to do his bidding.

mobile.twitter.com/janeclarejones/with_replies

Wrong link.

Here's a screenshot.

[quote Escapeplanning]Blunt apparently wants Liz Truss sacked for her unwillingness to do his bidding.

mobile.twitter.com/janeclarejones/with_replies[/quote]
"Why won't the nasty woman do what I tell her to? Whhhhhyyyyyy? I have a penis and everything and she still won't be told!"

It’s interesting he appears to be choosing this hill to die on

Clearly facing down the lobby groups with “look it’s not everything but we got most of it” is much harder than having a go at Liz truss

And yet the LD have told us we must not be bad women & suggest there’s anything like a trans lobby....

I'm impressed with Liz Truss at the moment. Showing grit!

Clearly facing down the lobby groups with “look it’s not everything but we got most of it” is much harder than having a go at Liz truss

Removing sex based rights from women was the one thing they wanted. Liz Truss could have given them that and dumped everything else including the healthcare stuff and they would have called it a massive victory.

Lachlan Stuart when writing about his experience of putting together the 2019 Labour manifesto pointed out that despite carving out a considerable budget for trans healthcare all the activists in the party cared about was removing sex based rights from women.

But it dismayed trans people, according to Heather’s account and the actions of pop-up people like Ellie-Mae and her ilk. It dismayed the pop up people and LGBT Labour because it was the removal of the established legal rights of women that interested them.

Nowhere, ever, have I seen any recognition from any of them of the astonishingly bold, tangible and very expensive commitment that we gave to improve the lives of trans people by ensuring adequate and much improved access to health care services.

It’s not because they didn’t know.

It’s because that’s not what they’re interested in.

medium.com/@lachlanstuart/the-confessions-of-a-transphobe-b4942c06e6e4

She won't be sacked because of this loon, will she?

He's got a nerve saying she's unfit because she's 'already made her mind up', whilst he is in bed with lobby groups and has shown he has no respect or interest for women.

After his sneaky meetings, and his behaviour having not gotten his own way, it's him who needs to go. Urgently. Who does he think he is trying to get a woman sacked for not obeying a man??

This has been quite an interesting week or so. The lib dems confirms how far down the hole they have gone by confirming to anyone that even suggesting that women’s rights would be impacted by something like self is is phobic. Liz Truss confirms that the intention of single sex spaces are for females and males can be excluded even with certificates. A Blunt tool confirms that stonewall lobbyists had control of a government advisory panel and that backroom deal WERE being done to ignore the work of the team seeking to find a way to forward to balance needs of transgender people and women and children. And now he is declaring himself as unable to understand that the ethics issue involved by pushing for a minister in his own party who is taking a considered and balanced approach to be sacked.

And mermaids has wrapped itself in knots trying to deny they were dangerously advising teachers to educate kids that they might be in the wrong body if they like playing with toys stereotypical of the other sex. ....

What’s tomorrow?

mobile.twitter.com/angelaeagle/status/1309185422451449861

Angela Eagle supports blunts calls for Liz truss to be sacked.

People like Blunt screaming for Liz Truss’ scalp will just bring this issue to a much wider audience. So much for burying this on Tuesday... You think someone would have had a word with Blunt before today’s Q&A. Still, gives is all a breather on the consciousness raising front. Go Crispin!

And Angela!

Looks like he's back pedalling now too..

Blunt still wants her Ministerial responsibility as Minister for Women and Equalities to be transferred to another Minister, he just doesn't want her sacked

mobile.twitter.com/CrispinBlunt/status/1309190173331255297

Does my right hon. Friend the Minister understand the crushing disappointment of trans people with the content of her statement on Tuesday, set against the consultation on which it was based?

I think Blunt needs to get back to the crushingly disappointed half million trans people and ask them why only 7,000 of them completed the consultation. He needs the sack if he can only get 1.4 percent of the people he claims to be talking for to take part in a consultation.

Crispin Blunt couldn't care less about empathy, he is just cross that Liz Truss has shown empathy to the wrong people.

What a nerve. Liz Truss is Minister for Women and Equalities. The fact that she sees things differently to a raging misogynist makes her ideal for the post.

Mr Blunt added: “Her characterisation of this as a clash of competing rights betrays a fatal misunderstanding"

Of course its about competing rights. Even if single sex spaces weren't an issue, this would be about competing rights because the concept of self ID makes it impossible to define two other protected characteristics.

What he means is "This woman did not do what she was told, therefore I will threaten her".

Well of course Mr Blunt doesn't see a clash his rights will not be affected will they?

Lashing out in this way is not a good look. Also he has declared he doesn't support half of the people he is supposed to represent. In which case, if he cannot support or emphasise with women then he is not fit for office to which he was elected.

Part of the problem is that you can't go around chanting 'TWAW' and then pretend you understand the concerns of women who realise that 'TMAM' doesn't work in quite the same way.