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.

True of the hard left. What puzzles me is Labour Party's behavior on this issue. They must realize it's alienating former allies, and that they do need the votes?

There seems, on the left, and not just hard left, an reflexive and unthinking support for any idea or movement that can be called 'progressive', or concerns 'minorities'. In the 70s this extended to tolerance of, and active support from some, of PIE. Now it tolerates and actively supports a movement that is just as emblazoned with red flags as PIE was. Why?

@LK1972 I honestly don’t know but I’d guess it was the spread of hardline trans rights activism (which can span different classes) into the middle class upper echelons of the LP. Starmer was born working class but he’s spent forty years being middle class and now he needs votes from people who work on bin lorries. Nandy, Dodds, Sobel, Lammy, Harman, etc. are exactly the sort of people who need to slough off some of their privilege, and identity politics is a great way to do that.

Haven't caught up but this post is too good to pass by.

There are some excellent people within the low ranks of the Labour party machine. The first time I heard Anne Ruzylo speak my mother dropped open that the Labour party has someone this articulate, with actual life and work experience in meaningful fields, with sense, doing actual socialism, who can hold an entire room and hold a conversation dealing with questions on the spot from her own knowledge without scripts and prompts and cards designed by advisors - name any of the top bods who can do that? We have people of this calibre! And where are they? Never allowed to rise anywhere near the top. Only the terminally insane dross are up there.

We don't have the far right in the UK: our right here would be centre left at the very least in the UK. The far left are insane in both countries, and are actively dangerous. What we're left with is the Tories. Who are slow, unenthusiastic and full of holes. But they're all women have got, and I'll settle for slow and grubby and unhelpful over dangerous bloody lunatics who should never get near power.

Starmer came on here during the leadership q&a (ha bloody ha) and where the three women candidates were all quite frankly nuts but at least had the integrity to be openly nuts and be plain about their stall and what they stood for and would do. Starmer smirked and said absolutely bloody nothing. The man's a coward, he has no integrity and no guts, but Stonewall et al have been plain: they have a written deal with the left and if Labour get into power women as a sex class are over. Homosexuality will soon follow. (Although it'll be spun ever so nicely as a much better version of homosexual).

‘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.’

I think he does. He speaks very genuinely on Ukraine, Roe, now gender. He’s always been very liberal. He’s a liar and that’s a genuine weakness but he has true feelings.

Can anyone explain to me why comments or policy which appeals to voters is evidence of questionable moral character. Is this an admission that Labour would prefer to criticise from the opposition benches rather than have the responsibility of running the country?

His liberalism was well demonstrated in his often misinterpreted article on the Burqa. He said (perfectly reasonably, I think) that he found it to be a ludicrous item of clothing, but then argued that in the U.K. we should not be in the business of telling women what they can and cannot wear, no matter how offensive some people may find that.

No, the word female has not fallen, and just because someone like Creasey tries it on does not mean it's now accepted fact. In fact, it's the point at which it all starts to fall apart from this never ending pushing.

The answer to 'a TW is an adult human female' is a flat out 'no'.

The T in TW means male. it's the defining feature. Stating that a male is an adult human female is plain silly, it's hit the point of being too ridiculous to even discuss further.

'Woman' as an honourary, polite kind of term... yeah, it was arguable, or at least it was before this all got really bloody offensive and apparent that any inch given just results in the next mile being demanded with menaces. Female? No. It's over. No further negotiation or discussion Stella, this is just silly now.

‘His liberalism was well demonstrated in his often misinterpreted article on the Burqa. He said (perfectly reasonably, I think) that he found it to be a ludicrous item of clothing, but then argued that in the U.K. we should not be in the business of telling women what they can and cannot wear, no matter how offensive some people may find that.’

That really does seem to be his position.

Excellent comment that summarises the dilemma for us all. As he lies about this, what else will he lie about? What other delusions will he sell to the electorate because he's been "bought" by an ideology.

Everyone knows what a woman is (except some very mentally unwell souls). The fact that he's incapable of standing up to the bullies in his party renders him completely unfit for high office. He has neither the integrity or ethics - which is disappointing as I had hoped he would be different.

’No further negotiation or discussion Stella, this is just silly now.’

It’s a bit like when you have an argument with a 4 year old kid about why they can’t have chocolate before bed. You exchange a few questions and answers, explain how they’re mistaken, and they keep repeating the same points. Eventually you just send them to their room.

It is a different class of lie to cake. That was dishonourable and self-serving, but it wasn’t (at the time of the lie) harming people in serious ways. This ideological lie is.

It's a symptom of the problem Mandelson summarised in his very revealing speech about a 'post democratic era'. In which professional politicians would run the country and ordinary little mortals would just leave them to it and not bother their little heads with things they couldn't possibly understand. What he meant is symptomatic of the thinking of much of the left: that democracy is a bad thing, that it gets in the way of political agenda of those who are better and know better, and should just do to the electorate what in the opinion of these superior beings is best and right for them. While punishing and removing those who are non compliant.

It's fucking scary stuff. This is the belief. That they are right, everyone else is wrong, and those who don't agree are subhuman. They don't want to win by representing the general public; they want the general public to be made to do what they're told. Basically they don't agree with democracy. Hence the constant 'we don't want your vote' if you ask questions they don't like.

Thank God at the moment we still have it, and they would have to be voted in to continue with their agenda, so this is working out really badly for them. But the longer the Tories fuck about and let Boris destroy trust, the more likely it is that people will end up voting Labour in pure desire for something different, and then we'll be in real trouble.

The rise of professional politicians has been a seriously awful thing in terms of integrity and actual representation of the public, and nutjobs with no real life experience outside of the Westminster bubble or any real grip on reality in the grip of high faluting, ivory tower ideologies. They've been tried. It's been a disaster.

I’m not saying that it’s right, but trans women are now quite often describing themselves as female, and this is quite new.

It's the last ditch try as they've seen the world has gone 'ok - women means politely 'anyone of any sex' - so female is the new word for the cunty type half of the human race'.

It makes me quite sad really when I hear someone try it, because the answer really is no, love. Nice try but no banana. Stop it now. It makes the total disrespect for women absolutely clear, and makes just as clear that women should have said no, very clearly, much much earlier, without any of this faux 'kindness' and naiceness. You know, like men would have. It's been taken as a sign of weakness to take full advantage of.

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

The mind boggles how often women are told to sit down, shut up and wait their turn. I am allowed to choose whoever is going to safeguard my sex-based rights and keep children protected from harm. I will choose whoever does this. And I will not apologise for it or be made to feel bad. I refuse.

‘I am allowed to choose whoever is going to safeguard my sex-based rights and keep children protected from harm. I will choose whoever does this.’

So will I. And I’ll never choose anyone who assumes I owe them my vote.

And so will I. Because how can a party legislate for my education, health, pension, housing, etc if they do not know what I am.

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

One issue?

For women, it's the only issue.

This is as stupid as saying that slaves demanding to repeal slavery are fixated on one issue. And that really they should be interested in the tax advantages their masters will get, and the standards of living that won't affect them and the laws that will protect others but not them, because how narrow minded of them!

Fgs how stupid do you think female people are? Erase them in law and what else is there left to care about voting on?

‘Fgs how stupid do you think female people are?’

I think they think we’re very.

Kemi is articulate, insightful, eloquent and decisive when it comes to many issues including women's rights, she would make an excellent PM on these qualities alone

I actually think Johnson really likes women - that's part of his problem. He is chaotic and unreliable but probably the same in his friendships with men. He certainly is not frightened of intelligent women or women with drive and ambition. His wives and better known lovers have all been educated women with careers. It is too easy and simple to see philanderer and think woman-hater. Lord knows he has his faults but I really don't think hating women is one of them. I wish I could say the same for male MPs in the other parties. And I think women's rights are safer with Johnson than with Penny Mordant.

I'm actually terrified of a Tory leadership change - if the Tories elected someone like Mordant then we'd be toast I think. And no other party offering an alternative.

I agree that the Tories are more likely to have woman leader next than Labour and I'd be delighted if it was Kemi Badenoch. I wish Boris would give her a proper cabinet post.

The dreadful all women shortlists Labour have which I think are really patronising and gives us the underwhelming Stella Creasey, Jess Phillips, Lisa Nandy etc who I think all were on all women short-lists. What a let down they are.

I think anybody who so impressed their local office that they refused the candidate being foistered upon them and held out for their choice has to have something in them that makes them a contender for the top spot.

Set aside politics for a moment, I warmed to her as a human being when she first got elected and interviewed, she really is the stuff of which role models are made.

If Labour don’t get their act together, Kemi gets elected as party leader in the future with the CONS stating in their manifesto that abortion/gay marriage are settled law and they see no reason to start changing them…. I can see a lot of women who’ll look past her abstention on the abortion/gay marriage bill in NI just for the sake of having a female leader who is willing to state she knows reality from fantasy and intends to do something about it.

Then she can become the first black and 3rd female PM. At which point I expect Labour to start yelling that she is being both black and female all wrong, so it doesn’t count.

Mind you, I thought Jess Phillips would be the 1st female Labour PM. I really warmed to her as a person too. Offered her a useful titbit back when she ran for her seat. She turned it down, saying she wanted to win fair and square on policy and what she offered rather than win based on anything else. My god that was impressive. Worrying, cos I really wanted her to win, but so very fucking impressive on a human level. Yet I don’t recognise the woman I spoke to when I see clips of her these days. I also really warmed to Diane Abbot and got shitfaced in celebration when she first won her seat, proclaiming she’d be the next female PM. (I still have a soft spot for her, I don’t think being the first black female MP was at all easy and the toll on her has likely been very high over the years.)

My record on predicting future PMs is either really, really bad, or my proclamations are a jinx. Apologies Diane, Jess & Kemi if it’s the latter.

No I agree that without our sex based rights we lose far too much - it simply eclipses all else until women's rights are ringfenced. We would lose fundamental power as a class, how all these ally women don't see that is just beyond me. I think of it like a building block on Maslow's pyramid of needs.

It's radical to many of us to vote for the right, but what is now being supported by left is even more radical.

‘It's radical to many of us to vote for the right, but what is now being supported by left is even more radical.’

Yes. How dare the left adopt a radical doctrine for transforming the whole of society without consent, then blame women for never having believed it and refusing to pretend?