Keir Starmer can’t keep hiding in the gender wars

[Igneococcus]

Janice Turner in the Times:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b8d1103c-8b78-11ec-8600-c48a9935f856?shareToken=eb2987a03a02d570441b1ca67209f0b8

Thanks for the share @Igneococcus . Interesting to see his son's point of view quoted too. Is it in the Times tomorrow? Tempted to buy the paper to read the TB interview and support Janice.

Blair's son?
"Blair says his son Leo, 21, has told him to keep out of the gender wars, because “there are feelings and there are facts, but right now feelings are more important”."

It just went up on the website so I assume it will be in the Saturday paper edition.

What a fucking ridiculous think to say.

Feelings are more important than facts? Only if you are a man.

Another nail on head piece. Thanks for sharing.

I think it's charitable to suggest Starmer hasn't nailed his colours to the TWAW mast. The Labour Party are paying lip service to protecting single sex spaces whilst simultaneously punishing any women in the party who speak in favour of women's rights. I don't think for a second Starmer believes in gender ideology, it hurts his credibility to pretend he does and reveals him to be a weak leader. How could you trust a party to deal with a complex issue like climate change if you don't even understand basic biology? We know where they stand and, like every other party, it's not on the side of women.

Janice really made Labour's problem with women explicit there and it's even worse than I thought. From what she says women throughout the party are being systematically silenced. Chilling.

I cannot stand Tony Blair, but I give him a star for at least saying something.
Maybe now labour will at least get off the fence. I still wont vote for them for the last several years of shite.

"Blair says his son Leo, 21, has told him to keep out of the gender wars, because “there are feelings and there are facts, but right now feelings are more important”."

I think he is alluding to the notion that feelings are superseding biological facts and one can claim to feel unsafe^ and this has taken on an all powerful meaning in the gender/sex debate.

Blair has been fairly consistent about the Labour party being hurt by identity politics.

I have some real issues with Blair and I think you could actually accuse him of being the guy who allowed id pol to gain a foothold - I think in some ways that's what Trevor Phillips was arguing in his film. But that's perhaps something seen in hindsight.

For all that though Blair has very good political instincts overall, and I think he also understands and cares about what is necessary for a functioning liberal democracy.

I suppose though, he isn't really telling them how to extricate themselves from the position they've created for themselves. I suspect Starmer may not know how to do it, not in a way that he can actually make happen

Well, I feel very unsafe with a stance that feelings (i.e. men's feelings and notions) are more important than not only facts, but women's feelings, safety, dignity and fairness.

That'd be my tuppence worth to any canvassers.

I’m hopeful that this may force Keir Starmer to set out his position in response?

I think that, above all else, Tony Blair understands electability. He gets it that women will not vote for a party who can’t define them.

There are a lot of issues where Starmer is resolutely sat upon the fence. His inability to actually make a stand on an issue has put a lot of people off.

I'll never understand why either political party won't take this on, head on.

You could make absolute public mincemeat of politicians supporting this ideology.

Rapists in women's prisons, can't say mother, cervix havers and chest feeders. You could go to town on this almost like no other issue.

All you'd have to do is claim that the other party doesn't understand the definition of 51% of their voters, never mind their rights.

Asking MPs what a woman is would be job done.

Politically, it's a gift.

Yes, I wonder that too.

If it were made clear what's going on the vast majority of people would not accept the current gender rhetoric. Some of it would cause widespread shock and horror.

I suppose, thinking about it, in part it's because there has been a change in the way the discourse operates, not just for this, but for other things.

In the current political climate, the great horror for all is to be accused of being some kind of bigot, or some specific type of bigot, a misogynist, homophobe, racist, transphobe, antisemite, ableist etc. That is the ultimate sin now in our culture. It's so potent that even people who are dead sure that it is not true feel deeply upset to be called one of those names, groups immediately back off when there is a threat of such a label.

People are not only afraid of the consequences of such an accusation, they are afraid of the moral implications. It's like a preacher threatening his flock with hellfire to keep them on the straight and narrow.

Thank you for posting that. Janice Turner put that all so well.

What a loss to the party.

I particularly liked the way she ended:

“Stonewall plans to take its claim that the Equality and Human Rights Commission is politically biased (now that it’s no longer chaired by an ex-Stonewall CEO) to the United Nations. Neutrality is no longer an option.“

Notice the way this onslaught on women and even children is reduced to a 'gender debate'. I wish journalists would think of something else. For instance, why not refer to Blair's views on transgender or the campaign for self identifying as a woman or man? There are better ways to characterise or frame it.

As for his views, he glibly refers to equal rights and that this doesn't mean you can't talk about women. Therein lies a problem. What does it mean? Equal in what way, to what or to whom and what rights follow from that? You can't just trot out 'equal rights' without thinking into the implications of that and its effects in all sorts of ways. The implications are already seen to be substantial. It can't just be a phrase and a standalone statement.

@DdraigGoch

There are a lot of issues where Starmer is resolutely sat upon the fence. His inability to actually make a stand on an issue has put a lot of people off.

Yes, he is not a leader. He does not lead. He is letting OJ and junior activists lead him. If he doesn't believe this stuff, but is too cowardly to say it, and stand up for female party members who are being hounded by party trolls, he's not worth voting for, and if he really does believe it, he's not worth voting for either.

I quit the party, and withheld my vote in the last election.

Not an expert in this, and introduced to these ideas by reading this forum - but the balance between feelings and fact - is this not due to postmodernism ideas and identity politics that have been discussed by others more knowledgeable than me in this forum?

It's too late for Starmer for me. This issue has made it clear that he doesn't have strength of character to tackle difficult issues.
Even if he completely reverse ferreted on this particular issue now, I'd still not trust him.
If he becomes Prime Minister, and another difficult issues arises - which it will because that's the job - Starmer has made it clear that he will sit on the fence and wait for it to go away, counting on other people to fix the problem, take the political risk and put in the work. And no matter how bad it gets, he'd rather let it escalate and let everyone else deal with the fall out rather than get his hands dirty.
You might as well put my cat in charge. In fact, that'd be better.

It's a great shame, really. He was promising. I had high hopes for him. I was hoping for a sharp legal mind and sensible pair of hands. What a massive disappointment he's turned out to be.

I must admit I am not a Tony Blair supporter, but hey even he know what a women is.

I was a Labour supporter all my life, but I will never put another cross next to their name, until they support the 50% of the population and can clearly state what a women is in biological terms.

'It's a great shame, really. He was promising. I had high hopes for him. I was hoping for a sharp legal mind and sensible pair of hands. What a massive disappointment he's turned out to be.'

Completely agree.

@TheGreatATuin

It's too late for Starmer for me. This issue has made it clear that he doesn't have strength of character to tackle difficult issues. Even if he completely reverse ferreted on this particular issue now, I'd still not trust him. If he becomes Prime Minister, and another difficult issues arises - which it will because that's the job - Starmer has made it clear that he will sit on the fence and wait for it to go away, counting on other people to fix the problem, take the political risk and put in the work. And no matter how bad it gets, he'd rather let it escalate and let everyone else deal with the fall out rather than get his hands dirty. You might as well put my cat in charge. In fact, that'd be better.

Agreed but my cat would be better in charge. Although my cat does sit on the fence a lot, so maybe not.

@Whatsnewpussyhat

What a fucking ridiculous think to say.

Feelings are more important than facts? Only if you are a man.

Leo is just reflecting what is going on atm. I think he is spot on. It is all about feelings: I feel unsafe, I feel like a woman, I don't feel like a man/boy or a woman/girl and on and on. Whilst we talk about facts of sex based inequality/violence/discrimination the genderists talk about how it makes them feel.

I think he's summarised the problem quite well.