Lisa Nandy says TWAW and belong in women's prisons

[pattihews]

And she totally supports self-ID. This is why if a general election was called tomorrow, I'd either not vote or I might even vote Conservative, though that would be painful for me.

Labour are still totally captured. I know there are good people within Labour fighting from within, but a Labour cabinet would include people like Nandy and Starmer who are staying true to Stonewall. They can't be trusted with women's rights.

I stole this from another thread: thought it deserved one of its own. Hope that's okay.

What I don't really understand though is what those who say not to vote for the CP because they are not doing enough are suggesting.

Legislation is drawn up by Governments and is interpreted by the judiciary. If the judiciary is interpreting laws in ways that were not intended by the legislation, as appears to be the case with the Single Sex Exemptions and prisons and hospitals, and this risks the safety of vulnerable groups (of women) then the Government has the power to amend legislation so that it can no longer be misinterpreted.

Obviously amending legislation is a process and Governments have to prioritise.

This government has not prioritised these vulnerable women and is not committing to amend the Eq Act to close this loophole. It could and would if it were serious about protecting women's rights.

Obviously the Labour Party will amend the Eq Act in favour of trans rights. TWAW is their policy.

In the meantime women suffer.

A suggestion that the Tory Party could not do more is completely incorrect.

I have done some volunteer work related to prisons. Not in them directly but more working with people who do hands on work with prisons.

People do not actually give a shit about them. To a large extent people are happy to see them rot, or be abused, and think they deserve it. They would really prefer it, I think, if they could put prisoners in some kind of hole in the ground and forget about them.

They do not care at all if the most basic human rights are not applied in prisons.

And tbh in general, apart from this issue, it's worse in terms of male prisoners. Their crimes are often more destructive so people feel morally justified with any prison conditions.

Right now the exception is the woke anti-carceral types, who also seem to be the ones really pushing the idea that transwomen in women's prisons is a great idea. They generally think no one is at fault for bad behaviour which is caused by lack of social justice, as far as I am concerned this idea is as bad for people who are in prison as it would be for everyone else, but there is something deeply wonky in the judgement of these people.

I don't disagree, but the context here is people saying that because they are not moving more quickly, we might as well vote for a different party.

Which one would that be?

They should definitely state their intentions to vote another party. Hopefully it will put a rocket up the Tories arse to get this sorted now. Instead of dangling it like a carrot in front of women or using it in their culture wars.

Yes I agree. If the Tory Party nailed their flag to the mast and said explicitly that it will change legislation to ensure that these loopholes are closed and that women will be protected in law as far as single sex spaces are concerned then it would be better than the current situation where women are between a rock and a hard place.

It's empty words otherwise.

Suella! Come and save us!
Surely someone on here has contacts...

Love that screen shot of Julia Long. Her expression says to me - "listen to this idiot saying the quiet part out loud". She asked a perfect question and Nandy had the choice to either make herself look ridiculous or face the wrath of TRA. She chose ridiculous.

It's funny how left-wing men use "right-wing" as an all-purpose term of abuse whenever a woman stands up for women's rights in a way that impacts on the desires of men and boys, isn't it?

"I oppose pornography because it exploits women."

"You're right-wing."

"I oppose prostitution because it harms women."

"You're right-wing."

"I don't believe in surrogacy because it's an exploitation of women's bodies."

"You're right-wing."

"I don't think male rapists should be put in prison with vulnerable women."

"You're right-wing."

So, listen up, comrade, because this is for you: I don't give a single flying fuck about whether you and your band of self-righteous, misogynistic, porn-addled bunch of wokebros think I am right-wing or not. You can shout "right-wing" at me until you're blue in the face and I will remain completely unmoved.

Now go back to wanking in your mum's basement, will you, and let the grown-ups get on with the business of political debate.

This, sadly.

I just listened again, and can’t believe how she can be so smug in answering the first question with saying she completely upholds the perpetrator’s right to be identified as they wish.

What about the victim’s right to the truth or the public’s right to the truth? It is as though the trans criminal is the victim.

It is as though the trans criminal is the victim.

I think this is part of the mythology of it. The transperson as the ultimate 21st victim, misunderstood, marginalised, profoundly at odds with their body/the world.

What people like Nandy don't engage with however is that these people could also be bullies, criminals, even sex offenders.

Or that there are others out there who don't genuinely feel any gender issues, but are happy to exploit legislation that gives them easier access to women.

Nandy's working on the assumption that no male bodied person would abuse these newly give rights to women's spaces. But that is already, demonstrably not true.

I think people like Lisa Nandy are still spouting this because they are completely stuck n a mindset that says thinking TW are not W is exactly like hating gays or being a racist, because they've been told that, and they lack the thinking skills to interrogate it. smearing anyone who disagrees as "right wing" is the worst insult they can think of, which they think will scare people into piping down.

I'm not right-wing, and nor are most people who disagree with TWAW - they tend to be lefty and/or lesbian feminists and those who support them. But so what if I was? It wouldn't make me wrong on this issue. Policy and law should be evidence-based and there is no scientific evidence, none, for gender ideology. All the genuine, scientifically conducted studies that do exist just keep turning up more and more worrying evidence that young people are being harmed by transition, that TW are still as dangerous to women as males in general and that thanks to the advantages of self-IDing for offenders, TW now have higher rates of sex offending compared to males in general. I don't care if you're on the right or the left, both should adhere to evidence-based policy-making.

What I do not get is what's going on with Starmer - he is a very experienced lawyer and an intelligent person, he surely MUST understand the issues. And he must see that if he would have the courage to lead on this issue, he'd appeal to millions of women and parents and take votes from the tories. He just needs to make it about evidence and science, he doesn't need to say "let's get rid of woke nonsense" - he just needs to make actual facts the issue.

I think I'll prob vote Green though I know they have issues too.

The Greens are worse, in my view, @Sonnex It was the Greens who called women "non-men" for a debate at their annual conference in around 2016 or so, after protests by such charming delegates as a man who said "I present as a man, but I identify as a woman."

V convenient to identify as a woman when your party realises that the dominant voices in the room are male, and so designates one debate as only permitting female speakers. Queue "progressive" men protesting that they identified as women.

The left wing bros just can't bear women to have their own spaces & power, free of the male voice & ideology. And I speak as a lifelong Labour voter in a very marginal electorate, where we are a dot of red in a sea of blue.

^ThatCheeseIsMine* · Today 15:20
What I do not get is what's going on with Starmer - he is a very experienced lawyer and an intelligent person, he surely MUST understand the issues

I have noticed that even a very intelligent man like my DH has had to be dragged into trying to understand,; and also that at heart he has solidarity with other men, maybe imagines himself in a trans woman’s shoes, and wants to be ‘reasonable’ and ‘fair’.

Luckily he respects Professor Kathleen Stock academically and also certain journalists, so that has made a dent and started him listening to me.

i don’t think Starmer has bothered to inform himself properly. I think he thinks he knows what he needs to know already.

Lawyers are perfectly capable of lacking human common sense too. Hence judges who make extraordinary judgements sometimes etc.

I think Starmer understands the issues perfectly well. He just doesn't want to alienate the wokebros and handmaidens, who form a substantial chunk of both the Labour Party and their electoral base.

Nandy does not believe TWAW. If she did, she would not give a flying fuck about their identity choices or interests or feelings, she'd be flinging sexism and misogyny at them in the same way she does as females.

Sick to death of the whole 'right wing/fascist' desperate attempts to silence: it's being said in the same way an eight year old says 'you smell' to try and shut up another child. Fgs there has to be some grown up with a brain left in Westminster.

I think Starmer understands the issues perfectly well. He just doesn't want to alienate the wokebros and handmaidens, who form a substantial chunk of both the Labour Party and their electoral base

Agreed. Of course he knows that TWA not W, but it's not political expedient to admit that. In short, he's a coward.

I also find it hard to talk to the men in my life about this. DH is politically centrist and very intelligent, but clearly doesn't want to engage. He keeps telling me there are bigger things to be concerned about.

I think fundamentally, he's not very interested in the low status women that this would most affect. That sounds awful, but I think it's true of the vast majority of men. Which is a sad conclusion I've reached here.

He doesn't understand how this might affect me, for example. Both of our children are male and he can't conceive of a situation where they'd fall foul to the gender ideology crowd, though I've told him about the scene in Victoria and what they've done to parental rights there.

He wasn't impressed with the Canadian teacher, which I drew his attention to, but concluded that if anything similar happened to us, we'd withdraw our kids and that would be that.

It's very 'I'm alright Jack' unfortunately.

Lawyers are perfectly capable of lacking human common sense too.

That's true, but you'd think they'd understand the law, and the facts the law is based on – that sex is actually a thing and there are protected sex-based rights.

Also by being scared to alienate the wokesters, Starmer is in danger of allying Labour with those responsible for the brewing medical scandal of unquestioning affirmation and harmful treatments given to people with MH issues. As he's a lawyer I think he should be aware of that too.

The law is very unclear speaking as it does about proportionality, which is in itself a sort of self ID - it can mean anything.

Why doesn’t he know they are all being led by the nose by a U.S. infiltrated ideology?

If this was the case then why aren’t all prisons mixed sex ?

I don't think it's about these people, or organisations like Sussex Police, actively wanting to defend paedophiles.

The problem they have is that the house of cards is so precariously built that giving even a millimetre means the whole thing will come crashing down.

So you have to maintain that a male who has raped a 7 year old with his penis, is a woman if he says so. Because if you concede that he can't really be a woman based on his crimes then you open the door to a slippery slope don't you? What other crimes would mean you can no longer self id as a woman? Would that mean that the definition of a woman hung on whether or not you are a good person? What if you had not actually committed a crime, but were just a total arsehole? Who would judge that? And so on and so forth....

They are completely backed into a corner, they can't move out of it at all, so they have to go the whole hog at all times. It's all or nothing with trans ideology, and there doesn't seem to be any limit to the lengths they will go to to maintain the dogma. It's terrifying really.

They are completely backed into a corner, they can't move out of it at all, so they have to go the whole hog at all times. It's all or nothing with trans ideology, and there doesn't seem to be any limit to the lengths they will go to to maintain the dogma. It's terrifying really.

I totally agree.

The question then is, at what point do they concede that protecting vulnerable women's rights is more important than protecting their egos from the knowledge they were wrong?

Ever?

How do we build this golden bridge?

As I understand it the judges view was that if a prison has adequate safeguarding policies

That's pretty key, and clearly the safeguarding policies are not adequate. So action would need to be taken against individual prisons for this failing.