Boris Johnson speaks again

[achillestoes]

He says if you’re born with a penis you’re a man. He reiterates his three concerns about trans issues: Gillick competence for children receiving transitioning treatments, women’s spaces, sports. He says we need to treat people with sensitivity but he sees no reason to dissent from what FINA say is appropriate in women’s swimming.

These comments are reported in the Daily Mail and he made them on his Rwanda trip.

Like many of these debates, the argument seems to be around debating the man and not the statement.

You are using what is known as the “no true Scotsman” fallacy here, in basically saying that anyone on the left doing things that you dislike isn’t really on the left.

There is nothing right-wing about denying reality, claiming that sex is mutable, or that a man saying he is a woman really is one.

This is absolutely a left-wing phenomenon.

‘Who does this state of affairs suit? Jacob Ree Mogg? Or Keir Starmer and ordinary people?’

I don’t think JRM would support limitations on free speech or childhood transition. He’s an ultra-liberal Catholic, as far as that’s a thing. He’s also a privileged oddball, but that’s for another day!

The mind boggles how you can be left wing for years but one issue and you sell your soul.

No one sold their soul. Women did not abandon the left, the left abandoned women and we refused to chase after them begging for crumbs.

I look forward to the next election campaign where despite an open goal the Labour party could still fuck it up by by name calling the electorate and then demanding they vote for them. Owen Jones can then write a 40 tweet thread about how thick, bigots let the Labour party down. The Labour Party seems incapable of learning from its mistakes. They, like you, persist in monstering people with different opinions and priorities. It's the very definition of insanity.

‘They, like you, persist in monstering people with different opinions and priorities. It's the very definition of insanity.’

I know, it’s unbelievable how the materialist party of ordinary people now appears to want to talk down to ordinary people from a platform of metaphysical moralising. Fuck off, I’m not interested. 😂

I am not convinced that Johnson is using this topic to catch voters or to deflect from other issues. The general public are mostly ignorant of the danger to women and children (for now)

He is being less explicit through cowardice, not lack of belief. And he tells us he has integrity. Integrity includes having the courage to tell people what you believe and face the argument.

Yep.

Women did not abandon the left, the left abandoned women

yep.

Of course Starmer knows what a woman is.
Everybody does.

It's a test to see if he'll go along with the lie and he does.

How anyone can claim he has honesty and integrity when he will lie about material reality if its politically expedient is beyond me.

It's a different class of lie to 'oh I didn't think 5 people and a cake was a party'.

It's an authoritian lie that is based on fear and absolute conformity, which relies on everyone else going along with the lie and which results in great harm being done but we must not admit that or the lie is revealed.

It's a fundamental lie which corrupts.

Yep again

MalagaNights

Agree with every word.

I still can't get over Lisa Nandy answering a question by stating violent sex offenders and rapists should be housed in a cell with a women should that be their choice (clearly the woman cell mate has no right to choose in her scenario).

Her exact quote being:

"I believe fundamentally in people's right to self-ID.

I believe the Gender Recognition Act strikes the wrong balance in relation to that.

I think that crimes that are recorded should be recorded as that person wishes, having gone through that process, received support and self-identified.

I think trans women are women, I think trans men are men, so I think they should be accommodated in a prison of their choosing."

Lisa is a member of the Shadow Cabinet. Her statements reflect Labours official policy and position.

And this is just one example, one Labour politician. This is why people who have been 'left-wing for years are turning their backs'.

Lisa ‘more light, less heat’ Nandy.

This. The left is prone to lying just as much as the right. I'm not sure why the left feel that women owe them a vote. Historically, Soviet Union was far, far more sexist and misogynistic than UK, in spite of the lip service paid to 'equal rights'. I know, because I moved here in 1990, so have direct comparison. Somehow, after the revolution, there were still plenty other things to worry about than fighting misogyny

LK: because the hard left isn’t actually concerned with votes. If you believe in revolution as the basis for organising society, you don’t particularly care about votes, you want unconditional loyalty, because you believe your principles entitle you to power without having to persuade anyone.

Lisa ‘more light, less heat’ Nandy

Don't forget it's companion; "it's complex".

To borrow from AIBU, both make me feel a bit stabby.

@FOJN Very complex. Nuanced. Not for the likes of us.

There is undoubtedly a strong streak of preachy arrogance in the left which makes it vulnerable to being taken over by these kinds of ideas which they think they are entitled to push on the electorate. The average left wing politician is more likely to think they are there to direct and not serve: the electorate is ignorant, unenlightened, needs to be shown what’s right and reformed.
this helps also to explain the otherwise unaccountable success of B Johnson. He doesn’t think he’s better than anyone else and clearly is in no position to pretend he is. He doesn’t lecture and preach. The last Labour leader to be successful was the same.

On Johnson’s good days (he has lots of bad ones) you see him being interviewed and he pauses and you can see him deciding what he thinks, formulating his actual thoughts. With Starmer, you see him formulating what he thinks he’s meant to say. He’s a cheap suit, sadly.

Sorry I should clarify - I mean he was the same in that he did not preach or lecture. I am not suggesting he is comparable in any other way.
for the benefit of any defamation specialists who happen to be reading 😬

Many women are prepared to make reality (in the here and now the issue is specifically biological reality, but it wouldn’t make any difference to me if it was enforced creationism or some other rhubarb) the hill we’re prepared to die on politically.

I’ve run out of fingers and toes for the number of women in my position, people I’ve known IRL for a long time, who feel the same.

I’m very afraid of the consequences of enforced lying about what is reality and unmoved by being called Tory Scum or any of the other pejoratives that would have cut me to quick when I was young.

I’m old enough now to them as the stick behind the “be kind” carrot. So if some people are mind boggled by my chosen strategies to ward off religiosity becoming the force behind law and social sanction again, I can live with that.

"am not convinced that Johnson is using this topic to catch voters or to deflect from other issues"

The trouble is that looking at past form, every time he opens his mouth about anything at all now, we're just trying to work out if he is trying to catch voters, deflect from other issues, or get money out of it for himself or his pals (or influence for his pals, which will translate into money for him). The fact that occasionally something might pass his lips that is actually a reflection of his true feelings (does he have any?) and not merely the most expedient thing to say at the time doesn't even occur to me.

It’s a bit easier for those of us who’d not vote for a socialist party even before this stuff all kicked off.

It’s a bit academic for me anyway; I don’t get to vote in general elections in the U.K.