Julie Bindel & Sharron Davies can't believe women centre their politics around the trans issue

[ImpossibleDrum]

Julie Bindel

You may hate me for this (well, some of you at least, but I cannot BELIEVE that many of you on here are deciding who is good or bad for PM because of the trans issue ALONE. I mean, I KNOW it is an urgent issue, but so are a million other things right now!!

Sharron Davies

I agree with your too Julie. There’s a bigger picture right now with people potentially unable to feed or keep their kids warm this winter. We can keep bringing the sunlight to other issues.

I couldn't agree more.

Which is why these plop and run posts don't tend to work.

And yes, don't shut up!

EdgeOfACoin · Today 12:51
It's not really a 'single issue' though, is it? First there are the practical implications of adopting a TWAW stance. That would be the stuff about sports, safe spaces for women, puberty blockers etc. When balanced against the Conservative response to COVID or the cost of living crisis etc, some people will conclude that the latter affects more people in worse ways and vote for Labour.

But intrinsically tied to a TWAW stance is the denial of biological reality. A blindness to science. And this puts the Labour party on a level with anti-vaxxers or flat-earthers or denying that human activity has had any impact on the climate. Voting Labour would be voting in an anti-science government.

Then you look at the authoritarian stance of those in charge: "it should not be said" that only women have a cervix (Starmer). "TWAW" (Sadiq Khan). The bullying of Rosie Duffield. The belief that some women's groups are hate groups. The refusal to engage with those of an opposing view. You're in a position of voting in a party that doesn't believe in free speech or freedom of expression. (Actually, I think the Tories have been fairly weak on this too, but Labour seem to value free speech even less than the Conservatives.)

So for me it's not just about the immediate consequences of bringing in Self-ID or allowing male-bodied people into female sports. It is to do with everything else that goes along with subscribing to this ideology.

Are there far too many people reliant on food banks? Yes. Are there too many rapists walking free? Yes. But I consider the cost of solving those problems by voting in Labour or the Liberal (hah!) Democrats to be too high.

I agree with what you said, and particularly with your paragraph about the ‘authoritarian stance’. I find it deeply invidious. And similarly the stonewall version of ideas that lead to rewriting public information and resources, inserting some ambiguous words, outlawing others. It is a manipulation of language for thought control akin to Russia’s phrase ‘special operations’.

wellyelliebee
Well they're right aren't they? It's like when people got obsessed with immigration. Look at your actual life - trans people have zero effect on me (there's one guy in work who likes to wear a skirt, he's a nice guy, good at his job, his clothing is totally irrelevant to me). What actually makes a difference is cost of living and the clowns in Westminster

Wellyelliebee, people’s concern here is
trans activist ideology undermining women’s rights and safety, and harming children and young people, not individual trans people per se.

I think JB can be a bit arsey sometimes and I find her loyalty to the left quite baffling given the way they’ve treated her. But those are probably the very same qualities that led her stick her neck out in the first place, at a time when women like me were still going, ‘Where’s the harm?’.

I might not agree with her on politics any more but, as far as I’m concerned, she’s more than earned the right to be an arse occasionally.

I don't see how the other parties will make everyday better for the average Joe. We are nationally in a huge financial deficit because of Covid, Brexit hasn't helped the value of the pound and if Tory austerity measures can't stop inflation I can't see how Lib Dems and Labour will.

What would help is renationalising some of our private industries so public money comes back into the public purse, but not even Blair did this in his day, is Starmer pushing this? Corbyn offered socialist politics that would've done this but failed to win the vote.

This is actually the time to justify voting Conservative for a single issue to show other parties what they need to address.

But if we're going to get down to black and white, I'd rather have less money and more ironclad rights for women. It'd be worth it for me.

I thought everyone is who they say they are - isn’t that how it works?

crosstalk · Today 14:10
The Greens have an issue, too, though it looks as if there's a reverse there. LibDems ditto.

What reverse is that, crosstalk?

I assumed it went without saying that even though I disagree with Julie and Sharon about this, I still support their work. Greatly respect their expertise in their specialisms. And will donate and support their campaigns around women's rights, prisons and sport.

It's possible to disagree on politics and tactics, yet still have dialogue and work together on issues.

Argh, typo, should say Sharron.

Me too. just look over the water at what's happening in Ireland. I want laws that represent the truth.

It's possible that she's just got her notifications set for people she follows though, which is why the responses are skewed in that way.

I struggle not to find this a bit pathetic on her part. Who cares if it is "left" or "right"? Unlike sex, politics really isn't a binary.

Bindle might be more inclined to see it as a single issue choice if she had a daughter who was in the middle of it at school and there was fuck all she could do.

But I submit it's not a one issue thing by it's very nature. The thing that keeps me up most at night is the authoritarian thought control inherent in the gender woo viewpoint. Freedom of thought and expression is the number one value we have to respect to have a functioning democracy. We see this authoritarianism at work within the LP itself and we can all see the effect on universities, schools, the NHS, the police, among other places.

That isn't an attitude that will be confined to gender, people who think this way will find that acceptable across a whole range of issues.

The following of ideology at all costs, even if the population doesn't agree with it, suppressing any information that disagrees. Manipulation or ignoring science.

Does she really think that is going to confine itself to gender? And what about the erosion of trust in things like science that has happened as a result>

What about allowing lobby groups to define public policy and being generally under their thumb? Is that likely to just be SW, or will they treat other issues the same way?

And I'd also point out, that the way the LP now thinks about "progress' they are completely open to any movement or ideology claiming to represent that. There are no breaks for them on the idea of "the right side of history" because that idea can't have breaks. It has only one inexorable direction of travel.

This is a horrible, toxic set of beliefs in any political party that will inevitably lead to horrific results, however much JB or any one else prefers the Labour Party brand of global capitalism. The Tories may be less than inspiring and I would argue have been in power too long, but they are basically pragmatic rather than ideological and they listen to the public.

I’m a big fan of both women but respectfully disagree. This is a global issue where the U.K. is leading the debate. What the U.K. says and does on this issue is watched by the rest of the world. Females are 50% of the population.For example sport, the U.K. is pushing back the most on this issue forcing other countries/ sporting bodies to confront it too with clear arguments to win the debate. The U.K.’s PM matters. Boris’s comments about this went global for example.

Kemi Badenoch is now in the leadership race. I will make my decision about which candidate I would vote for in the event of a general election (I’m not a Tory member) on this basis.

For me the most central issue is: to have a government which bases it's policy on material reality.

The lie that men can become woman and we will pretend this is true, so fundamentally undermines truth and reality it is corrupt at the core and cannot be a basis for a functioning society.

It requires an authoritarian regime to ensure the lie is maintained and allows the introduction of any other untruth which must now be adhered to and spoken.

The Orwellian nature of the lie and the insistence all join in or be cancelled is the most frightening thing I've seen in politics, and I find it hard to believe it's happening.

Women's rights cannot be protected because of the lie, but once you start lying about material reality anything comes next.

So Julie and Sharon are wrong. This is bigger than even they think.

MangyInseam · Today 03:50
But I submit it's not a one issue thing by it's very nature. The thing that keeps me up most at night is the authoritarian thought control inherent in the gender woo viewpoint. Freedom of thought and expression is the number one value we have to respect to have a functioning democracy. We see this authoritarianism at work within the LP itself and we can all see the effect on universities, schools, the NHS, the police, among other places.

I very much agree with you.

MalagaNights · Today 08:31
The lie that men can become woman and we will pretend this is true, so fundamentally undermines truth and reality it is corrupt at the core and cannot be a basis for a functioning society.

It requires an authoritarian regime to ensure the lie is maintained and allows the introduction of any other untruth which must now be adhered to and spoken.

Yes.

Yes!

I agree with this. And if anyone thinks other areas of life are somehow sealed off from the same approach, I believe they would be proved wrong. I don't want to find out what living like that is like though, frankly.

Sorry I disagree. In the UK thankfully no one is starving.

this is such a privileged comment. OK maybe no one is literally dying from lack of calories (although I wouldn't rule that out) but plenty of people are underfed and malnourished. And this will only get worse come the winter and big energy bills.

I agree with both JB and SD, and it's again a very privileged view that they are not 'centering women'. For many women, mostly WC and ethnic minority women and those with insecure citizenship, issues around women only spaces, self ID etc are way, way down the list, after 'what will I eat?' 'can I get medical treatment?' 'will my child get beaten/arrested'.
It's up to those of us with the luxury of not having those worries to keep pushing back against transactivism but our decisions about voting have to take all issues into account.

‘but our decisions about voting have to take all issues into account.’

I’m sure we all do this. Some of us have decided this is the most important issue to us. That’s our prerogative.

This is starkly put, but it IS the reality. As always these discussions seem to veer into the binary - you either care about one thing or another. It isn't like that is it? But we should ask ourselves, what cost the truth to us. Or for those arguing that people are arguing from a priviledged stance, is truth telling a priviledge? Has it come to that?

You've plainly said exactly what I have wanted to say for some time.
I personally believe this is the foundation. If we cannot name ourselves we cannot begin to address the many issues we women as a class have.

And to add this time and the last few times this has been my single issue to vote on. And as we move on with no sign of the things we want to keep (and had in law til recently) being left alone for us alone, the more determined I get to now have even more. It's no longer enough to just let women have the basics, I want more for us. The pandemic/furlough scheme etc showed there is money, it's there when its deemed important enough. Well now I feel that women are the important ones. I will not be placated with simply having our own few spaces legally bound, with no chance ever of this happening again.
I want more, not sure what "more" is yet but I'm working on a list that will be emailed to various people in power. None of them will read it or give two fucks, but I will at least be trying.

The privileged position is pretending people can change sex.

Knowing that sex is real is the opposite of a privileged position.

The thing about living in poverty and deprivation is that you can't pretend material reality doesn't exist. If everything can just be wished away with words, people in the UK wouldn't be living in poor housing, with worse health outcomes than Africa.