I live in Rosie Duffields constituency. Just had local election door knock from labour party

[BadgerWadger]

He asked what my main concerns were. I said my main issue was that i stood with Rosie and felt that Labour, as a party, from the top down, did not offer her enough support. And my main concern was womens safe spaces.

Man said, well, this is local elections and not about that, and that issue is more complicated than you think. What are your concerns, locally?

I said the local council is involved in issues to do with womens safe spaces. Like the womens refuges, the womans changing room at the local pool, etc. All spaces where biological men should not have access and that womens safe spaces was my main concern.

There followed a debate. And his stance is that its not that simple, i am being brainwashed by the right wing media, and that Rosie is in fact, (drumroll please...), mainly being supported by American right wing anti abortion groups.

Arrrrrghhhhhh. So that is where my local labour door knockers are at. Saying Rosies main core of support is American right wing anti abortion groups and i am being fooled by them. Silly, foolish, female me.

"And with young male idiots like the canvasser who patronised the OP, you can just see how things could get out of control."

This is what really bothers me. There seems to be very few philosophical materialists left in the Labour party, and the ones that are still hanging on are hanging on by a thread.

It really feels as though Labour has become a party of subjective idealists, bound by the new "queer covenant." They are deniers of material reality, to an extreme level.

So the question then becomes ... well, what else will be "queered?" I'm already seeing odd red flag flashes in how things like deprivation are being measured (the ONS recently published a mosaic of deprivation that suggested my average income household in a post-industrial Northern town was less deprived than Kensington Palace).

With people this fanatical, and yes, it is fanaticism, the sky is the limit. They can turn the world upside down: the rich become the poor, men become women, children become adults, adults become children, oppressors become the oppressed, health becomes illness, diseases becomes health ...

Once you start to tune into it, you see signs of this subversion creeping in everywhere. Notice how food is now being associated with poison. If you eat a burger, for example, you are "poisoning the planet."

Regardless of your political and ethical position on meat eating, this constant subliminal association between unadulterated food and "poison" should make you pause. Food as a category is not poison; poison as a category is not food. By default, they are opposites. But in these narratives, food is being identified as poison, subjectively perceived as poison, and reinforced within society as poison.

We should be really wary of these developments, and be alert to instances when they occur.

Sometimes, I really wonder if we are at the mercy of some extraordinary geopolitical psy-op experiment. The only thing that stops me going full tinfoil hat is that I really don't think anyone anywhere is competent enough to pull this all off.

The Labour Party is in a pretty shocking state if its own members are telling malicious lies about their own MP on the doorstep.

I wish I had a fiver for every time I heard that it’s “complicated”, this single-sex business.

Actually it’s very simple. But nobody will ever explain the complexity of it to me. I always wonder why 🤷‍♀️

I muse that some of the more barmy ideology Twitter accounts are from Russia - it an attempts to destabilise Western Society by whipping up unrest. It just seems so unreal that we get to such an extreme point that politicians are arguing men have a need to be in women’s prisons. I watched ‘The undeclared war’ and it feels the kind of thing that could happen - targeting the young and politicians. There’s been documentaries on things like this happening with Brexit. Why not this?

(Apologies for my tin hat - it’s just trying to find answers to the illogical)

@BinturongsSmellOfPopcorn very well said!

Thanks for the explanation.

The stupid thing is that the only people with congruent gender IDs are "cis ally" trans idealogues. What a useless amendment this will be.

Yes, I don't think this can go unchallenged.
Obviously, only if you're comfortable doing that.
But denigrating a colleague like that. And patronising a constituent, in that way. Plus the outright lying, of course.
What a w**r.

ijclark · Today 11:44

Remind me, what were the books they disliked?

On a slight tangent, groups of Southern fundamentalists bought thousands of copies of Dixie Chicks CDs and crushed them with steamrollers, during GW Bush's presidency.

For low wages/gig economy/zero-hours contracts, we should blame successive governments and employers, not people coming here to work.
Sovereignty/Tony Benn: his position was purely ideological and doesn't stand up to scrutiny regarding practicalities like the way EU laws are made.
Free movement as racist: that's just sophistry really.

I think it was clear from some time ago that thanks to Stonewall (and earlier queer campaigners) that they wanted Gender Reassignment changed to Gender (self) ID.

But in fact this raises the issue of how Gender Reassignment (often thought to be a trojan horse) ever got included as a protected characteristic. Accepting that gender dysmorphia is a medical condition doesn't explain why it, rather than any other condition was separately identified as being necessary to be protected from discrimination. And if as has been suggested it was included just so that some couples could be legally married is quite frankly barmy in terms of law making.

Why would those at the time think what was then a very tiny minority, should have a law written to allow them to effectively break what was the law at the time.

It does make you think that many more were aware it was just the stepping stone.

But also (and I know this will seem strange) its quite like what is going on with cyclists. To put it crudely because you are less likely to be killed if you are hit by a cyclist and because they cause less damage to the environment, they now claim that this also entitles them to jump red lights, cycle on the pavement, up one way streets the wrong way. ie the law (maybe genuinely) was intended to get more people to cycle, but in practice it just means a lot of people (unsually men) see it as giving them rights over and above others. So in using the law to virtue signal, politicians then actual through practice encourages society to restrict the rights of others.

I always use to think that those who drew up the EA so that GR took precedent as a protected characteristic over Sex must all have been men. But was disheartened when I heard a female Labour party supported boasting about how she had been part of writing this, and wasn't it wonderful that they had included SSE. ie happily admitting that it was okay that women's sex based rights were of less importance as they had focused on prioritising those with the protected characteristic of GR as taking precedent.

You are right, I think. Or it could be used to limit the concept of single sex spaces to only DV shelters or rape crisis shelters - areas where women need protection from physical violence. No other single sex spaces permitted.

What with Bill Gates funding us if we are pro vaccines and the Christian Right bribing us to support biological reality, we needn't worry about the cost of living ever again. Ka - ching !!

The way the EU's laws are made is an infringement of sovereignty, especially with the removal of vetoes and the move to majority voting. If you think free movement had nothing to do with low wages, the gig economy and zero hours contracts what do you think is the effect of an influx of cheap(er) labour on an economic area? Those three items are certainly effects - and effects actually intended, since free movement is to bring wages in line across the EU - which is no friend to trades unions, either. I'd call prioritising a white geographic area over a non-white geographic area for purposes of immigration racist and a fair number of non-white immigrants here agree with me and voted accordingly. NB I agree entirely with Rosie Duffield on transgenderism.

'infringement of sovereignty' is nothing more than an appeal to emotion. ANY cooperation with another state, whether trade, scientific endeavour, whatever, requires give and take. That's just the way it is in the grown-up world.

The UK was on the majority/winning side of voting about 95% of the time.

On free movement/influx of cheap(er) labour on an economic area, again you miss the point: why are employers allowed to pay less than a living wage/exploit zero hours contracts?

The EU 'prioritises' a white geographic area simply because that's what the EU demographic (overall) looks like. I'll say it again, the racism argument is just sophistry.

@ijclark is a previously banned poster. Just ignore.

I always use to think that those who drew up the EA so that GR took precedent as a protected characteristic over Sex must all have been men. But was disheartened when I heard a female Labour party supported boasting about how she had been part of writing this, and wasn't it wonderful that they had included SSE. ie happily admitting that it was okay that women's sex based rights were of less importance as they had focused on prioritising those with the protected characteristic of GR as taking precedent.
As far as I am aware the EA doesn't mandate a hierarchy of characteristics

it may seem in practice that some take precedence over others, but its not there in the Act

Lol, no I’m not.

Just here with a quick update, i did end up emailing Rosie this morning (at the urging of several posters here) and she has replied.

So she is now aware what some of her local party members are saying about her on the doorsteps.

Thanks everyone on here for your words of wisdom and for the push to escalate off MN and into the real world.

Bloody hell, it’s so rare she replies to emails. Probably handy for her to know what most of the constituency thinks of her, so I hope the candidate in question tells her to her face how unpopular she is. Here’s hoping!

Well done OP.
They'd be better not canvassing at all than sending that person out for them. The last thing a party in opposition needs, is a man spreading smears about the local MP whilst pretending he's campaigning.

Out of interest, what was the “smear”?

“NB I agree entirely with Rosie Duffield on transgenderism.”

That figures given the rest of your comment.

OP I wonder if it's worth contacting your local Labour branch to let them know too? It would mean the local branch would have yet another real record of people asking about this issue on the doorstep and they'd realise the electorate are unhappy with men undermining female MPs who know what sex is.

Brilliant OP.