Boris has nailed colours to mast

[Ridcully82]

On gender transition at PMQs:" biology overwhelmingly important", preceded by urging respect for those feeling they need to transition. Sounded calm, respectful,and kinda where we were on course before the TRA actions.

The problem is that Labour’s stance on the gender issue is an existential threat to women and children, including very vulnerable ones, immigrants, disabled women, etc, as posted upthread. What price government support for women if a man can be a woman on his say-so

Nice re write of history, Cameron got us Brexit and 2 further Tory PM's got us a shite deal, which also effects women too.

Lots of Tory policies impact women, i have to say in my work place, no one gives a 4X about trans, they worry about 3 women a week being murdered by their partners, sexual assaults going un investigated, misogyny, pay rates, women in caring roles getting £67 per week.

Anyway, what we are seeing with Trans in womens sports, prisons, trans rapes, single sex spaces etc is happening under a Tory Govt... once again Boris's words do not match the facts.

@whitecreambluejug I haven't rtft so not sure if anyone has already said, but your post about slavery reminded me of Blackadder. I can't find a clip but one of the manifestos included compulsory asparagus at breakfast, free corsets for the under 5s and the abolition of slavery

Incidentally, another one here who will no longer vote Labour

I'm beginning to think MN / GC feminists should stand for election.

I don't think I could do it (health issues) but I would be willing to support a GC candidate in any way I can.

@ChiefInspectorParker

I agree that David Cameron gave us Brexit. My point was that the Tory govt & PM weren’t telling people to vote Leave, but Remain. Labour didn’t exactly cover themselves in glory over Brexit, did they.

Corbyn has always been critical of the EU, the ironic thing perhaps is that if he had followed his own line of thought rather than tow the line he would have probably had a fair amount of support.

@Alonelonelylonersbadidea

Yes that's the sad thing. I cannot vote Tory. But this is big enough for me to not vote Labour. The Greens are awash with this as are the Lib Dems. I don't have to agree with a party on everything, but I have to agree on more than one thing so I can't vote Tory.

This.

I'm pleased with what boris has said (for once!) but I can't vote Tory. Too many other issues.

@JacquelineCarlyle

Where does that get you though *@FrecklesMalone*? I'm not a Tory fan but at least they seem to know what a woman is, which is an amazing feat these days!

But then their leader says black people are piccaninnies with watermelon smiles, and Moslem women wear letterboxes, so what does that say about them?

@Joystir59

I will vote Labour because people get treated better under labour, especially women and children. The Tories are great at catching in to the zeitgeist of popular opinion- remember the Brexit strap lines anyone? ' Take back our borders' etc. But the Tories profoundly lack compassion. They always have been the enemy of the common people. I will vote Labour. I cannot not vote. I am offended to my core by Labour's ridiculous stance on gender. But. Labour is the better option for the nation as a whole.

I dislike Labour and may not vote for them for other, personal reasons. But generally speaking this makes sense.

The idea on this thread seems to be that if you really care about women, it's much more important to make sure they won't have to see a transwoman in a changing room, than that they can eat, heat their homes and feed their children.

(Which is not for a minute to suggest the former is not important).

@ChiefInspectorParker

I agree that David Cameron gave us Brexit. My point was that the Tory govt & PM weren’t telling people to vote Leave, but Remain. Labour didn’t exactly cover themselves in glory over Brexit, did they.

It’s part of the reason we got brexit because Labour would not be clear about what they wanted .

Lots of Tory policies impact women, i have to say in my work place, no one gives a 4X about trans, they worry about 3 women a week being murdered by their partners, sexual assaults going un investigated, misogyny, pay rates, women in caring roles getting £67 per week.

Exactly this.

Anyway, what we are seeing with Trans in womens sports, prisons, trans rapes, single sex spaces etc is happening under a Tory Govt...

Good point. Reminds me of some wag's summary of the Tory approach to the last election: "The only people you can trust to fix the things we've fucked up so badly for the last 10 years, is us".

once again Boris's words do not match the facts.

I'm shocked. Shocked I tell you! But he's funny and doesn't comb his hair, like my favourite uncle!

How people think his words mean anything at all still is beyond me.

'The idea on this thread seems to be that if you really care about women, it's much more important to make sure they won't have to see a transwoman in a changing room, than that they can eat, heat their homes and feed their children.'

This is reductionist. It is very important to me that my elderly mother in a nursing home is able to insist on female care. It is very important to me that there are no 'non-binary' male adults sleeping in my daughter's school trip accommodation. It is very important to me that no female prisoner has to share showers or a cell with a male. It is very important to me that we collect accurate information about the world, to inform social policy. It is very important to me that our politicians are able to tell the difference between a male and a female. It is very important to me that male three year olds are not encouraged to 'tuck', and told they are girls. It is very important to me that nobody is criminalised for saying a male person is a man.

I could go on.

It’s not true to say voters would ignore other problems. Just because of this issue. Labour are in a safe position to say they would throw money at certain areas because they are not holding post pandemic purse strings .

The sums have to add up and it is not as easy as taxing the “rich “ or those you consider to be rich because many of them are directly or indirectly employers.

Then you fundamentally misunderstand the issues fifteentoes

Expanding the definition of women to include men, and on the basis of their own declaration which is what Labour unacceptably want to do, destroys any hope of evidence based policy making

Want to tackle issues around woman’s pay or violence against women or the under representation of women in politics or womens poverty or improving woman’s health? How do you do that when you don’t know if you counting biological women or including men who feel like women? Whose testimony are you listening too - biological womens or men who feel like women?
And the evidence of the last years shows us that there is nothing women have that TW won’t try & get in on. Programmes to increase womens representation in politics & STEM , sport, the menopause & even still birth ffs

It’s not just that we will be forced to include TW in all women related things, it’s that they will be privileged over women because they already are. Witness how rules and guidelines everywhere are being torn up in the face of objections from women to appease them

Men no matter how they present are not women & I will not vote for any party whose MPs are hell bent in paddling such patent fucking nonsense

@tabbycatstripy

'The idea on this thread seems to be that if you really care about women, it's much more important to make sure they won't have to see a transwoman in a changing room, than that they can eat, heat their homes and feed their children.'

This is reductionist. It is very important to me that my elderly mother in a nursing home is able to insist on female care. It is very important to me that there are no 'non-binary' male adults sleeping in my daughter's school trip accommodation. It is very important to me that no female prisoner has to share showers or a cell with a male. It is very important to me that we collect accurate information about the world, to inform social policy. It is very important to me that our politicians are able to tell the difference between a male and a female. It is very important to me that male three year olds are not encouraged to 'tuck', and told they are girls. It is very important to me that nobody is criminalised for saying a male person is a man.

I could go on.

Exactly and the demonising of criticising the ability of voters to make their own choice does not help .

All Tory voters are not posh bastards . And they don’t all live in the south anymore either .

We know Boris is a habitual liar. Kier Starmer however is not,

Out of interest, how do we know what Keir Starmer is? He is only been in politics 7 years and the only position he's held is immigration and brexit - where he was a hardly a stunning success, was he? And he seems to have rowed back a lot on things he supported Corbyn over. So how truthful is he really?

Also did anyone hear what Liz Truss said about all the “pronouns” we have to use .?

Exactly @tabbycatstripy @Unsure33 it's reductionist.

If "woman" means "all people" then guess how long it'll take someone wielding a red pen over budget lines to decide which things "people" don't need any more?

Or how long it'll be before "people" means "people can do intimate care for people"?

This agenda shouldn't be underestimated. Just look at Canada.

@ResisterRex

Exactly *@tabbycatstripy* *@Unsure33* it's reductionist.

If "woman" means "all people" then guess how long it'll take someone wielding a red pen over budget lines to decide which things "people" don't need any more?

Or how long it'll be before "people" means "people can do intimate care for people"?

This agenda shouldn't be underestimated. Just look at Canada.

And if you can just change words, what other fundamental concepts can we change?

Parent?
Citizen?
Person?
Human being?

If 'woman' can be made to mean 'man', why can't - as seems to happen in China with their social currency - 'person' mean 'citizen who does what is deemed best by the authorities'?

Why can't 'parent' mean 'person with responsibility for child'?

Why can't 'child' mean 'dependent'?

This is about whether it is important to retain the connection between language, concept, and underlying reality.

So let's say you have a male partner who has a drinking problem (not entirely out of the realm of possibility) and is in a state of serious physical dependency. Let's say there emerged a social movement that persuaded some people that, because they were dependent, they are actually quite similar to children, that the de facto relationship between them and their partner is one of parent and child.

He takes you to court. He succeeds in arguing that he is dependent on you. He succeeds in having his status legally changed to that of 'child' and yours to 'parent', through a one-sided legal process you have no say in. You now have parental obligations. You can be prosecuted for neglect. Social services come round to monitor your 'parenting' of the man-baby. (Nobody ever threatens you with taking your 'child' away, of course - they never explain this.)

I know this is far-fetched, but how many of us, even five years ago, thought people would be calling us 'vulva owners' to audiences of millions of people, and calling us bigots for saying we didn't like it?

We know Boris is a habitual liar. Kier Starmer however is not, so why won’t he be honest on this issue?

Because it doesn't serve his purposes, making him a selective liar I suppose.

The idea on this thread seems to be that if you really care about women, it's much more important to make sure they won't have to see a transwoman in a changing room, than that they can eat, heat their homes and feed their children

What would Labour do to improve my life as a single parent full-time unpaid carer? The current shadow chancellor has repeatedly thrown out divisive rhetoric. There would be no extra money for people in my situation. Currently all I hear from them is 'working families' said approx 4 times per sentence but my 70+ hours a week wouldn't count to them, nor would the people I care for who are profoundly physically disabled after a lifetime of hard manual work. Labour haven't led on free school meals, only jumped on the bandwagon AFTER the Tories caved in to Marcus Rashford. Labour said virtually nothing about the removal of the £20 UC uplift and were completely silent about those on legacy benefits getting it at all. So please don't insult me with fairy tales about how Labour are better. They're not. Cameron and Osborne, with their malice against poor people are long gone, now we have a Thatcherite Labour run by the sillier end of the privileged middle classes.

FWIW, given that Tory by-election losses have been to the LibDem protest vote and not a meaningful move to the opposition (who have even lost their deposit), I certainly don't fancy Labour's chances in an election.

[quote Waitwhat23]Mind you, I live in Scotland where reason left the building ages ago on this. Here, under the SNP, it's a 'hate crime' to discuss this in a non respectful way in your own house. Not even in public. In your house. Madness!

Yep -

"MSPs back criminalising hate speech at the dinner table | HeraldScotland" www.heraldscotland.com/news/19077579.msps-back-criminalising-hate-speech-dinner-table/[/quote]
I hate to invoke Godwin's law, but it's only a small step from this to encouraging children to rat on their parents' private conversations. A technique used by several of the 20th Century's most oppressive regimes.

Just general musing here, but what evidence do we have that Labour are better for women and the less well off?

I'm asking because I was given this mantra at school. Labour were in charge when I was encouraged into university. They were responsible for sending hundreds of us of to university to massage employment figures whilst we amassed personal debt, less than a year after we became adults.

When I came out of university I couldn't get a graduate due to a dearth of them. Labour were still in charge whilst I was working minimum wage jobs and if I ever got a bonus student loans chased me for it, for a degree I couldn't use.
Labour were in power the only time I have ever claimed jobseekers allowance and was treated like scum. They introduced a lot of unnecessary paperwork and half finished policies into the career I eventually settled on and made it an impossible job so I left, along with any chance of earning more.

I'm still poor. Still being chased by student loans under the conservatives.

I honestly can't see the difference but could tell you damage both parties inflicted on my sector.

So is labour actually better? Or is it just better in extreme pove

MyLittlePhonyPony: Labour treated disabled people and the unemployed dreadfully when they were in power. I'm not saying the Tories are any better.

But Labour seems to me to almost entirely ignore employment rights, people in poverty and people with disabilities that mean they can't work, in favour of identity politics. They care more about (and I don't say it isn't important, but it's not the only important thing) how many people are stopped and searched and what we do with statues of people who have been dead for centuries than they care about jobs, housing, crime, wages etc.

Starmer was nearly eviscerated by his own party when he said he had no intention of legalising cannabis. Like that's what's important?