Gender nonsense will be the Tories secret weapon

[bellinisurge]

To my mind, the only way the Tories can get themselves out of their self made mess is to shine a light on gender woo woo in the Labour Party. I'm guessing that was behind Wes Streeting's tentative "maybe we shouldn't say burn the witch all the time".
How can they not see how vulnerable they are when Liz Truss has become a more appealing prospect for women's rights.
Jesus.

@Grumpyosaurus

I'd agree with *@SantaClawsServiette* about the shift to Idpol and it really troubles me. It's so divisive and reductive: everyone is to be described by the most obvious facet of who they are, and then expected to fall into line behind various (often self-appointed) 'leaders' of the community to which they belong.

It's as if some people are hell-bent on pulling society apart.

"What the trans movement is now doing, after Bostock, is not about rights. It is about a cultural revolution to dismantle the sex binary, to politicize biology, to deconstruct the family and to replace same-sex with same-gender orientation."

https://twitter.com/sullydish/status/1482080065240379398?s=21

Isn't this what happened with the former red wall seats?

Yes, absolutely. And it is also happening, in a less concentrated form, with other types of voters who have often voted Labour. They are losing people over this.

What's interesting to me though is that they seem to be completely blind to the fact that the traditional left and traditional conservatism have a lot of overlap. Partly they are confused by the fact that modern neoconservatives are really economic liberals and maybe they don't have much real exposure to traditional conservatism.

In truth though the traditional left and traditional conservatives are both anti-liberal economically and to some extent socially, they tend to see things like class as nested sets of social responsibilities as well as rights, they tend to be composed of somewheres rather than anywheres and see connections to land and place as important, and they tend to see nation-states as the most important location, in most instances, for political autonomy to manifest, they tend to see significant economic self-sufficiency and dignified work, at the level of families and geographical communities to be necessary for a healthy society and to allow real political autonomy for families and communities.

To a significant extent the disagreement between the groups is historically related to the change from agrarian to industrialized society, and how to give those who could potentially be exploited by those with more power in the hierarchy political autonomy and means to protect their interests.

A Conservative Party that tried to harness these elements while jettisoning some of the liberal elements could be very powerful. The latter might be a battle, but there are other reasons that economic liberalism may be on the wane.

they tend to see things like class as nested sets of social responsibilities as well as rights, they tend to be composed of somewheres rather than anywheres and see connections to land and place as important, and they tend to see nation-states as the most important location, in most instances, for political autonomy to manifest, they tend to see significant economic self-sufficiency and dignified work, at the level of families and geographical communities to be necessary for a healthy society and to allow real political autonomy for families and communities

I think this is spot on, thanks Santa. It also explains the appeal, as I know many people who would tick every single box.

I'm gender critical and agree with most of the views here, but I'm not convinced the proportion of the electorate outside the MN bubble that feels similarly is large enough to have the kind of effect people are claiming. I converse online and off with plenty of women who are actively in favour of the continued expansion of trans rights. I'd be interested to see survey results on the subject but in lieu of them, I'm not convinced the gender critical are in the majority.

Then you have to consider what proportion of pro- and anti- self ID women are likely to vote Labour anyway. Presumeably pro- attitudes are more likely to correlate with being young, living in cities and various other demographic factors that indicate likelihood of voting Labour. Whereas anti- are more likely to correlate with being older, socially conservative and likely to vote Tory.

I say "more likely" advisedly - there are of course socially liberal, urban, natural Labour voters who just happen to be gender critical (I'm one) and vice versa. But then you're talking about a subset of a subset and I just don't believe that subset is as large or influential as the people in it think it is.

A lot of people here say they can't vote Labour because of the gender woo, but if you keep reading there are plenty of other reasons why they won't vote Labour too. People basically won't vote Labour until they align with all of their values and priorities and have a credible program for achieving all of the most ambitious things they want, while simultaneously making them feel safe by not changing anything or raising any tax rates ever. I doubt Starmer is under any illusions that opposing self ID is going to be some magic bullet.

The Tories will definitely continue to play the culture war card, of which trans rights will be one part, and probably ramp it up going into the next election (particularly as they now have so much corruption and incompetence to compensate for). Starmer knows this and is getting his ducks in a row, being lukewarm on Black Lives Matter etc. He'll probably just be lukewarm on everything to try and minimise the effect of it without offending anyone. And he's a shameless and inveterate liar so it's not like anything he says about what they'll do makes much difference anyway.

I think the point is that if Labour are going to overturn an 80 seat majority they're going to need a lot more than the votes of people who would have voted for them anyway.

Even if all the red wall voters return (or at least don't vote Tory) I doubt that would be enough. Surely Labour need to win over people who either voted against them or didn't vote at all last time? Would a commitment to self ID help sway those voters? Can't see it - I imagine the voters who want it are already in the bag.

So while I agree about it not being a defining issue in its own right, I don't see it as a vote winning issue either, which is what they really need.

I'm guessing Starmer thinks the same which is why he's desperate not to talk about it.

I wouldn't say "the gender critical" are in the majority, because that people who have it as a primary issue and are ideologically attached to it, and I think most people don't give it that much thought either way.

Repeatedly surveys have shown both in England in Scotland that people aren't in favour of legal self ID, and they don't want male bodied individuals in spaces such as toilets and changing rooms. They're not in favour of males competing in women's sports.

They are in favour of "trans rights" when it's phrased as a fluffy "do you think people should be able to identify as another gender" meaningless statement.

And yes, lots of women are "actively in favour of the continued expansion of trans rights" but that's a fairly meaningless statement without a definition of what they are for and against. Do they believe there are no issues at all? Do they, like many people, believe that MTF trans people have had a "sex change" operation and are a tiny minority group?

Not to disagree with your main points about the political influences and demographics though.

I'm a former Labour member who won't vote for them based on this issue and the contempt they have for women, but I won't vote Tory either for many reasons, so the Tories haven't swung me to them.

People basically won't vote Labour until they align with all of their values and priorities and have a credible program for achieving all of the most ambitious things they want, while simultaneously making them feel safe by not changing anything or raising any tax rates ever.

Really?

Fifteentoes if you think voters are unreasonable in their demands of the Labour Party, how do you explain voters whose entire voting history is Labour, Labour, Labour - for years - until suddenly they can't vote Labour any more? Have those voters suddenly become too demanding, or had Labour lost the plot?

'It is wrong to say that only women have a cervix'.

Who else does then Keir? Are we delving into the animal kingdom again then or are we talking about humans?

Lifelong labour voter here but how can I vote for this idiot?

I've said it before, by while I am pretty aghast at Labour's approach to the gender identity thing, for me it's bigger than that.

It's the fact that these politicians have been so desperate to stick to the line they think they should stick to, that they have made some terrible judgements, said some ridiculous things, dangerous things even (eg. Lisa Nandy and prisons), things that they cannot possibly truly believe. They seem to have abandoned all critical thinking and lost their minds on this issue in their desperation to be seen as 'the good guys'. It's only now that the like of Wes Streeting are finally backtracking, but so much damage has been done. It just discredits them as politicians for me, and I just think, if they are capable of losing such basic common sense on this issue, what else are they capable of?

That's in @Omicrone, their credibility is shot as far as I'm concerned. Either they believe what they're saying or they're trying to appease a particular group. Either way it's not good for women. I will not vote for that.

@Omicrone

I've said it before, by while I am pretty aghast at Labour's approach to the gender identity thing, for me it's bigger than that.

It's the fact that these politicians have been so desperate to stick to the line they think they should stick to, that they have made some terrible judgements, said some ridiculous things, dangerous things even (eg. Lisa Nandy and prisons), things that they cannot possibly truly believe. They seem to have abandoned all critical thinking and lost their minds on this issue in their desperation to be seen as 'the good guys'. It's only now that the like of Wes Streeting are finally backtracking, but so much damage has been done. It just discredits them as politicians for me, and I just think, if they are capable of losing such basic common sense on this issue, what else are they capable of?

It's either that they don't believe what they're saying and want to look progressive, or that they do know what they're saying and they believe the consequences of genderism aren't a big deal and we should all shut up. If it's option A they're untrustworthy ("what else are they capable of" indeed) and if it's option B they're untrustworthy (having made a particular demographic untouchable and another invisible).

It really doesn't matter if they believe it or not. I don't care how many colleagues support Rosie Duffield in private or are secretly horrified at what's happening to vulnerable women in prison. They're not fucking saying anything!

Whether I vote for someone else or not, I won't vote Labour while this is their angle. I imagine all the genuine anguish on here from women who desperately want to vote Labour is just sneered at by Labour activists who have a sweepstakes running on where exactly the tipping point will be. "They'll vote for us, they always do" doesn't work in Scotland any more, it doesn't work in what was the red wall in the North of England, is it going to still be the case that teachers and social workers and the like still vote Labour by default? Are women going to vote Labour by default? Can Labour just continue sneering at people for cheering on a football team (Thornberry's infamous tweet) or believing there are two sexes and actually expect the people they treat with such distain to vote for them - out of a sense of duty?

Imagine trying to sell a car this way. Glossy magazine adverts, minute long adverts on prime time ITV, except the actual copy is something like "We think you're stupid, so you need our car. You better buy it, because the alternative brands are worse. Hurry up." Nobody is going to buy the fucking car.

Yes, I think for many it's what it says about their judgement.

I don't really care about personal oddity - Canada used to have a PM who received policy advice from his dead mum and dead dog. But it was pretty good policy advice.

@barleybadminton
And this is the biggest GC self own ever - the idea that these law changes which predominantly took place in 1979, 1999, 2003 and 2011 were so secret that nobody even realised they had happened until 2017"

A disingenuous remark to say the least. Perhaps you can indicate which laws you are referring to. Perhaps you care to produce news articles up to 2003 regarding those laws. Which newspapers would have reported on these laws? Even up to 2003 the internet is nothing like it is today so probably only those affected would have been aware of any laws regarding transgender rights. I would argue that up until 2019 or thereabouts most people would have thought any law dealing with trans would only affect a infinitesimal number of people so wouldn't have paid much if any attention.

@newnamesa: Its so tiresome to face reality when you can lecture women on how they should SERVICE MEN BEEEE KINNNDDDDD!!!!!!!

LOL! Absolutely brilliant!

@ArabellaScott In case you or someone else haven't seen this compilation of remarks made by LP politicians voicing support of trans rights at the expense of women here's the link.

twitter.com/ripx4nutmeg/status/1442783035389325313

@goatsaregreat: You've gotta love an advocate for male supremacism trying to paint women as the extremists.

Nail meet hammer!

@barleybadminton

Women (and men) are absolutely sick of this crap. High profile idiots who are spouting all the genderwoo stuff on Twitter are getting completely ratio'd.

They are, there is quite the angry mob on twitter at the moment. The thing is they don't change anyone's minds, quite the opposite. All that ranting against Girl Guides, or Oxfam or John Lewis does, and accusing them of all manner of horrors, is completely alienate them from the gender critical cause. More and more people, including Wes Streeting are now acknowledging the viciousness and bullying that comes from some parts of gender critical social media, and all these targets have friends, colleagues, often people with significant power.

Every new target brings things closer to point of critical mass when the gender critical movement has attacked so many different groups and individuals, and often so baselessly, that nobody will want to associate themselves with it. And that's really reflected in a lot of people I know, who did have some sympathy a few years ago but have seen how extreme and nasty the movement has become and now condemn it outright. Don't mistake twitters pile ons as victories, all that's happening is the GC movement is making more and more enemies.

What I see on Twitter is an increasing joining if hands of writers, journalists, doctors, psychiatrists, policy makers, women's groups, parents, de-transitioners etc etc - from all walks of civvie, professional and political life - some LGB, some trans - all coming together, from different countries, sharing information and support. Perhaps, @barleybadminton, you might be hanging out with the wrong crowd? There are areas where venom and spite abound, but mostly from TRAs, who seem to be increasingly ignored, because people learn there is no point engaging.

Twitter pile ons?

Extremist trans activists: posting memes with ‘die terf’, issuing rape threats, doxxing threats and other vile and disgusting things. No evidence to support anything except that humpy graph for sex is a spectrum and the American Scientisf blog.

Women: posting the words ‘no thank you’, or ‘sex matters’, asking for evidence, pointing out biological differences, or saying ‘I disagree’ in various forms.

Oh! And those ‘pile ons’ are actually women (and some men) simply having their say. The sheer quantity of replies supporting women’s rights are being dismissed as ‘pile ons’ and are dismissed as abuse, flying monkeys whatever.

Because those expressing the opinions that are being disagreed with, have been told that people who disagree with them on twitter are trolls. When they are just people who disagree.

‘No debate’ is a dead slogan, but some trans activists act like it isn’t.

Oh! And those ‘pile ons’ are actually women (and some men) simply having their say. The sheer quantity of replies supporting women’s rights are being dismissed as ‘pile ons’ and are dismissed as abuse, flying monkeys whatever.

It's just another form of DARVO.

It is indeed Eresh.

[quote DontLikeCrumpets]@ArabellaScott In case you or someone else haven't seen this compilation of remarks made by LP politicians voicing support of trans rights at the expense of women here's the link.

twitter.com/ripx4nutmeg/status/1442783035389325313[/quote]
They come over on that thread as such a bunch of craven idiots.

I'd rather not be ruled by idiots, but at the moment there's not much choice. Idiots right, left and centre.

Not forgetting the dishonesty and all the other crap.

I'd like a political party with some bloody backbone and some morals.

They are, there is quite the angry mob on twitter at the moment. The thing is they don't change anyone's minds, quite the opposite

These are all the people whose minds have been changed.

It's just another form of DARVO.

Indeed. Desperate floundering.