Boris Speaks!

[AndAsIfByMagic]

Sky News.

He thinks it's unfair for biological men to compete in women's sports.

He says it's important to preserve women's spaces.

Says he has a lot to learn about the issue but we have to be sensible.

Believing that males should not compete in women’s sport should not be a political position.

Neither should believing that women need and should have protected single sex spaces.

Both of these positions are logical, common sense, scientific, and pro-women. They are the position that anyone takes if they’re not an idiot.

It has become a political position because Labour, and other left wing parties around the world have taken a position against these two principles that is illogical, nonsensical, anti-scientific, and anti-women. They have taken the idiot’s position, the Flat Earther position.

If opposing politicians and parties see this, and publicly state their support for these two principles, it just means they’re not idiots regardless of anything else they may have done.

@PurgatoryOfPotholes

Lord Heseltine wasn't wrong.

So I still find it bizarre that Starmer is opting to bravely lie down in the road to be trampled, in the direct path of the crowd - and Johnson!

I know it’s crackers, I really hoped that Starmer would see sense but no he also thinks women are insignificant.

I think he's scared of winning the election because then he'd have to move into the Downing Street apartment kept for the prime minister, and he absolutely hates what Boris and Carrie have done with the place.

What we need is a mockup rightmove profile of the flat, that is very deceptive flattering. For the sake of the greater good, I authorise any estate agent MNers to toss honesty in the bin and do your worst in the property description. Yes, unleash the dogs of war: Unique, Authentic Period Features and Bijou!

Once we have him hooked with a profile that would infringe advertising standards, then we lure the Johnsons out of Downing Street so he can have a viewing. Buy some partially-baked bread, and stick it in the oven before the appointment, so the aroma of baking bread can drift through the rooms.

[quote crispsarny]@MangyInseam I know the comments that are made but to imply that the Tories are innocent, when they continue to fuck over women, children, the poor, disabled, minorities is some next level bullshit. The leader of the Tory party Boris Johnson called gay men tank topped bum boys, compared Muslim women to letterboxes, labelled black Africans Piccaninnies with water melon smiles, also that the problem with Africa is that we are not in charge any more. Tell me what’s wrong with all this?

www.businessinsider.com/boris-johnson-record-sexist-homophobic-and-racist-comments-bumboys-piccaninnies-2019-6?amp

Positing yourself as someone who knows what the fucks going on, calling people stupid & uneducated is all kinds of wrong. You sound like a typical dyed in the wool Tory.

Please tell us more about your extensive reading.[/quote]
No one said they were "innocent" though that's a rather odd word to use about politics.

I suspect your political radar is a bit off, you might want to get it checked.

I don't particularly care about the personal foibles of political figures, they seem largely irrelevant to their political effectiveness. Some quite nasty people can be excellent in public life, not that I would put BJ at that level. Though I do often wonder how many people have actually read or listened to the things those quotes are pulled from.

@GoodJanetBadJanet

Another one here worried about what seems like an attack on gillick competence. It's disturbing that people seem OK with taking away choice and bodily autonomy. That most certainly can affect women.

There's no particular evidence that anyone is looking to revisit those things. But the whole point of this is that there is a need to address whether these children are in fact able to make those decisions. That is always a relevant question, even with abortion and contraception.

If you are sure that there is no real question as to their competence, why worry about the question being asked? Because the idea that we'd be afraid to put issues to the test because it breaks some political orthodoxy is always going to end up being bad for kids.

These kinds of questions are not as straightforward as people sometimes think. You are talking about kids who are not legally able to have sex - accessing services like that can be a flag to parents that they are being abused or exploited among other things, and parents are always the people most likely to be on their kid's side. Not doctors or clinic workers.

These are not the discussions that should be shut down, that's the whole point of being able to make these assessments.

Alicia Kearns in the Times today:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/f5f4a80a-b5e1-11ec-8c29-375fe0cc1f19?shareToken=e15020e28647a5112a145311438e46da

Don’t read Zoe Williams in the Guardian if you value your blood pressure. What a total prat.

Can only conclude that Keir doesn’t actually want to be PM so he is epically self sabotaging himself. Only explanation for such a mad position to take and giving the Tories such a lovely open goal.

@MsTSwift I make sure to always read the waffle from the ‘other side’.

I suffer from low blood pressure, so it’s actually good for me

Igneococcus - thanks for sharing that. I might have to subscribe just to see the comments!

Gender critical feminists totally thick and being manipulated by the Tories to being cruel to the most marginalised group ever and who would care if a trans woman was in your aerobics class🙄. Utterly embarrassing show of her privilege there. Cringe.

Though I do often wonder how many people have actually read or listened to the things those quotes are pulled from.

They haven't. I've seen a partial photocopy of the 'bumboys' comment, only because Pink News(!) got hold of an old print version and published it. I cannot find an online version of the full article (or at least I couldn't when I searched a few years ago). Admittedly, what I read was an unacceptable article by today's standards, but it was written in the late 90s. A lot of things written in the late 90s would not be published today, although I think that particular piece was below the belt even then. (But I also recall that women were routinely referred to as 'totty' back then, and I don't think language has particularly improved for women in the last 20 years).

Some of the other phrases were taken from satirical pieces of writing, eg the 'picaninnies' one. It was a sarcastic article, written in 2005, I think, from the supposed pov of Tony Blair. We see similar examples of satirical writing on MN all the time - eg, someone mocking the pov of a misogynistic man will write something like "Women! Get back to the kitchen and don't bother your pretty little heads about politics!" Clearly, the writer is not in agreement that women have pretty little heads and belong in the kitchen.

Anyway, I don't really want to derail the thread and I'm not a Boris fan (didn't vote for Tories in the last few elections) but I do get tired of people quoting these old phrases without considering the context in which they were written.

On the topic at hand - I wrote to Keir Starmer in his capacity as Leader of the Opposition on this issue when he first got elected as leader. He chose not to reply to me. Subsequent actions have showed he is not interested in gaining my vote.

I will almost certainly be voting Tory at the next election.

I can c&P some comments later (off to work now) @EmileFord but there are some cheapish deals around for new subscribers.

I've just been reading about Crispin Blunt having a massive tantrum.

That and Nancy Kelley's article, also in the Guardian, are just screaming 'we have lost the plot' or 'we need the money' - take your pick.

No comments allowed, of course.

If you search Twitter for the terms “exploratory therapy” then half the results are from the POV that “of course, no ban on conversion therapy would include this” whilst the other half are “exploratory therapy is just conversion therapy by another name”.
Anyone who thinks that there is a simple compromise to be made here hasn’t been paying attention for the last few years.

[quote Igneococcus]Alicia Kearns in the Times today:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/f5f4a80a-b5e1-11ec-8c29-375fe0cc1f19?shareToken=e15020e28647a5112a145311438e46da[/quote]
What a terrible article, with no reference to facts, data, or the lifelong impact of 'transitioning' on vulnerable, often autistic, often care-experienced, often traumatised, young women and girls.

@EmileFord

Igneococcus - thanks for sharing that. I might have to subscribe just to see the comments!

The comments are largely telling her she is talking dangerous bollocks.

I don't think Labour want to elected into government, I really don't.

Purgatory -

"Unique opportunity to acquire stunning property, with great outlook and huge potential. Doors currently wide open."

The Mail algorithms are odd. After any number of ‘trans’ stories over the last week or so, there don’t seem to be any today. Not even a report on what Boris said yesterday. As if he has said his piece and that’s it. Either Labour accept it and it all goes quiet, or they attack it and Labour are in the spotlight, with a position they know is unpopular.

It reminding me of the Giardian columnist who said the sexual assaults in cologne were the fault of the women because they were western and had smart phones and the attackers were under privileged.

Had to totally shift my world view from left / Guardian equals good. It just doesn’t. Not for boring old women anyway. So seems I’m a Tory now.

Starmer doesn't need 51% of the electorate apparently minus a few Labour women MPs.

If you need more of a refresher on Labour's weird past priorities, I reread this, this morning.

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