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.

Let’s suppose you are all right. Let’s suppose Labour do hate women, and are using transwomen as a vehicle for that misogyny. (I can’t really see why they would need to. It’s not as if there isn’t a myriad of other ways to discriminate against women, but let’s go with it)

50 percent of the population is reviled by Labour and are un-represented by their future policy.

Now, let’s take the Tories. They regard as sub-human anyone who doesn’t have money. Say, less than 5 million. So what proportion of the population, of any possible gender, do they give a fuck about? That’s more than 99% of people who will be utterly fucked.

I can’t believe women are being distracted from the blatant looting of the entire economy and I’m being called naive for pointing out you are, in fact, being gaslit into voting for the party under which the very things you are so concerned about were allowed to happen in the first place. I can’t believe this is more important than losing your homes, losing your jobs, having enough to eat or access to healthcare. Significantly, HUGELY significantly, more women face awful, deadly hardship under this government than will ever even meet a trans women, let alone come to harm at the hands of one (and it matters. Women at risk of harm from trans women matter exactly as much as anyone else. But not more than the deadly game the Tories are playing, with millions of women’s lives. It’s just a question of perspective. And it’s Tory and right wing media gaslighting.

How high a price must how many real women pay before you can accept that this isn’t the biggest issue?

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.

I think that's true. On the other hand, I don't know what to do with that information. I think for most ordinary people there is a point where you reach peak trans - there is a story so absurd, so offensive, that you realise the whole thing is a nonsense. But suppose you've staked everything on your commitment to this ideology - your belief in yourself as a good person, your desire to make your organisation as inclusive and progressive as it possibly can be? Is there anything at all that would make you reach peak trans? Because I'm starting to think there isn't. If allowing a man who has sexually abused children to identify as a woman and be put in a women's prison doesn't peak trans you, then what the fuck will?

Yes I think there is this weird “locked in” effect where it’s going to be incredibly hard for people who’ve bought into this to accept it’s literally nonsense. Not that people can identify as or imitate a sex they’re not, of course they can, but that it’s somehow “true” or based in reality. Not just politicians of course, and the wokebros, there’s also all the psychologists, teachers, doctors etc and of course parents who’ve bought into it. The more they invest in it, the more people who are harmed by it, the more devastating it is to admit the truth.

but that’s why I think the way out of this is science. There’s no need to announce “gender ideology is wrong” and do a total u-turn and upset all the believers, just say there’s a lot of debate about it and it’s important to get all the evidence about what’s safest and best for everyone, including trans people, women, gay people etc and then make policy based on that. These investigations and research projects are happening, eg in Sweden, the class review etc and we’re starting to see results and stats about actual outcomes. Part of the reason GI has taken hold so effectively is the way official-sounding stats and studies have been used to make claims about suicide rates and transgender brains etc. So it’s proponents can’t reasonably object to using research to find out exactly what would really be best for gender-distressed people.

If they took this approach, labour would be able to adjust their policies based on the facts that come out. And science- or evidence-based policy is a totally sensible and reasonable position.

Sorry Cass review

It's all such a nightmare.
Frankly after this week I could never, ever vote Tory.
The whole economy is on the edge of a self inflicted cliff, Starmer's speech this week was good.
What to do?
I care passionately about this issue, but people can't pay their mortgages, can't heat their houses and the leadership of the Tory Party at the moment seem to be .. well mad frankly. Wish Sunak had won the leadership, Truss seems to be insane even if she does know what a woman is. It's all very frightening, wish Gordon Brown was in charge.

Which party offers a better option on this?

Despite knowing these are Labour policies when I heard her speak the words I could've cried. Then to compare men in women's prisons with violence against women and girls as if they were the same issues. There really is no hope for Labour. I am going to spend my time and energy getting out current government to get back to sex not gender identity. If they can do that then I'll be voting for them in the next election. This is so fundamental and basic and they are getting it wrong.

I wonder if those who think its worth spending time accepting the crap while changing a party from the inside to being more sane would think there's hope in us successfully changing the Tories from inside to be more fiscally sane?

Yeah, probably.

Labour is living in un-reality on this. We can all see how difficult it's been to reach them, it's been years. They are wedded to it ideologically, in the abstract they think it represents the only ethical approach.

The Tories view on the economy is essentially pragmatic. They want it to work, and you can find a fair range of views on what that might mean within conservative circles.

If Truss's plans are as bad as people fear, they will be as happy to do something else as anyone else. A country full of bankrupt sick people isn't good for them any more than anyone else.

Yes but this is where it comes down it is not ENOUGH to make me vote for a party which is tanking the economy and will cause many many children and women to be face poverty and hardship.

For me I'll still vote Labour, partly because it's important for me to keep my particular Labour MP in place (for unrelated reasons) but also because I do think they will get it - everyone will, it's just a matter of time. Reality has a way of asserting itself, it's just that this ideology has captured a lot of people very deeply – not because it makes sense, not because it does good, but IMO because a lot of people on the left are desperate to do the "right" thing and appear "good" and will run with anything that gives them an advantage in the jostle for the moral high ground. Ironically and tragically. But most of them, even Lisa Nandy I believe, will have to reach a point where they realise the evidence of harm, misogyny and damage to children is overwhelming, as more and more of that evidence becomes clear.

Will they get it, admit they were wrong and make the change they need to though. Other than German politics after WW2, can you name any other political situation like we are in now, where the vast majority of a party go so far out on a limb for a certain dogma and then do a 180?

I've been dwelling on this for days. I can't stay silent over the prisons issue any longer

Does anyone have a proforma for writing to my MP?

Try the KPSS website, (Keep Prisons Single Sex) I’m sure there was mention of their template letter upthread - or on another one about this issue.
I wrote to Brandon Lewis & my MP. I think the weight and immediacy of the response will be more important than the exact wording though

Thank you, I will have a look

excellent, I get to take my coloured pens to the polling booth again. (if I am really carefull I get an accidental x in one of the boxes as well as the message. just to give it a better chance of getting read) Though I may vote for an alternative to labour if one is available.

I think you are right @Smilelesstalkmore . Hence the craziness of the Canadian big-boob teacher

People have far more important things to deal with than hating on the 0.5% of the population. Even with the current media moral panic, trans issues have consistently been at the bottom of the polls of issues that the public are concerned about.

Labour aren't losing any significant amount of voters (as we saw from todays polling and the council results, it's quite the reverse).

It's not a problem being in an echo chamber, but losing perspective because you're in one, is.

Yes. That's certainly an opinion.

Another is that there are some very serious questions needing asking, serious issues, things like women getting raped in prisons, detransitioners needing to be listened to, court cases, stuff like that. YMMV.

I’m sure I read on here that they aren’t single sex exceptions but rather exemptions
A small but quite important difference, as an exception is something that you’d have to kind of ‘make your case’ for the rule not to apply to you, whereby an exemption means the rule doesn’t apply to you in the first place.
At least that’s how I understood it.
Exception plays into the case by case framing, exemption doesn’t

Saying this, I’ve just googled, and it does say exceptions, so seems I’m talking out my arse!
Im sure I read that somewhere though 🤷‍♀️

I’m sure I read on here that they aren’t single sex exceptions but rather exemptions

I remember reading the opposite - as you've found, the word is 'exception'.
I think it is meant to be 'case by case', but I'd have thought/hoped the 'cases' would be categories eg 'prisons should be single sex' rather than very specific 'this male sex offender shouldn't be in a womens jail'.

Yes, I’ve obviously misremembered.
I suppose the reason that it’s not clearer is that no one expected this to be an issue when the law was made. I never would have dreamed it would come to this

@PicturesOfDogs . This was on hold thread. Twitter thread highlighting Hansard of the GRA parliamentary debate in 2004 which shows pretty much all current issues were predicted at that point. Fascinating to see in retrospect

Old not hold!