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.

That’s nice. I know a lot of people in the constituency, from soft left to hard left, who don’t and won’t vote for her again. So I think that trumps your “cousin”.

I just wanted to wholeheartedly thank ijclark for their sterling work on this thread 👏

Somewhat selective quote. Rosie Duffield supports women's sex based rights, which not many right wing organisations do, but they are of the oppionion (correct) that one cannot change sex. Linking Duffield to right-wing organisations is meant as a smear and it is a smear. It suggests that Rosie Duffield - a Labour politician - consorts with right-wing political organisations which have agendas inimical to Labour's agenda and beliefs. It's suggesting her ideas chime with organisations like the National Front or the English Defence League etc. It is meant to do her harm - and it is not true, she is not in contact with them or anything like it. Gender critical beliefs (you know, biological reality) are neither right-wing nor left-wing and they are what ordinary people know is true. Saying she's supported by right-wing organisations is a slur on a left-wing politician - one that can stick and cause her a lot of problems. As I said, Duffield supports women, and women's sex based rights. She does not think trans rights trump anyone else's rights. I think she is correct in that stance; that stance is not axiomatically right-wing - it is feminist.

Saying she’s backed by right-wing groups is though.

She's not backed by them, though.

And my cousin's an actual human being, so no need for the quotation marks.

Can I just clarity? Don't TRAs, Christian fundamentalists, and Nazis agree on book burning? FFS - the first two even agree on the specific author whose books should be burned and have acted on that impulse.

FFS - the first two even agree on the specific author whose books should be burned and have acted on that impulse.

Indeed they do. We can say that TRAs and their allies like ijclark are "supported" by right wing Christian fundamentalists on that.

Did anyone else hear Wes Streeting on PM today talking about Labour and beliefs in ideologies? Religious ideology, in this case. I'm just surprised his head didn't explode with the cognitive dissonance.

I mean, that was exactly my point. Keep up! Maybe have a chat with your “cousin”.

She’s not only the first Labour candidate to take Canterbury in its entire history as a constituency, but she also is a very rare Labour MP who increased her vote in 2019 over 2017.

Apparently with our sealion’s votes both times, which must be very gratifying.

I left Canterbury in 2000: I’d have dreamed of being able to vote for her.

Apparently with our sealion’s votes both times, which must be very gratifying.

Sadface for ijclark

Not really, no.

Yes, really, yes.

Yes, and we know locally why her vote increased. It had very little to do with her.

It's the exact same situation. TRAs are "supported" in their beliefs by fundamentalist Christians, for different reasons, that JK Rowling is a bad person.

ijclark · Today 19:46

I mean, that was exactly my point. Keep up! Maybe have a chat with your “cousin”.

What, by saying that she's backed by right wing groups, you meant that she's actually not backed by them? Who are you? Humpty Dumpty?

It’s like eating a light snack when I’m bored. It’s good occasionally to indulge with intellectually lightweight starters before moving on elsewhere to the main course :)

“No-one has suggested she’s financed. “Supported” isn’t shorthand for financial support. Saying she’s backed by right-wing groups is though. But as I recall, the OP didn’t claim that was what was said.”

Read it slowly. Take your time :)

I think kucinghitam was being ironic, ijclark. Your arguments are great for showing lurkers the lack of quality of the debate from your peers.

I think that’s sinnerboy’s job tbf ;)

But you don't have the self awareness to realise your own considerable shortcomings in that department.

Supported, backed, whatever - you're still mistaken. And my point stands.

Er, YES ABSOLUTELY - unless you want to stop playing guilt by association?

So does mine, SB, but he's not interested in a good faith debate.

Bold move to publicly argue that no right wingers support her position on transgender rights. Good luck to you with how that pans out for you!

It' always interesting when the "guilt by association" posters like ijclark are asked to explain why so many male born paedophiles, rapists and sex offenders claim to be women and want access to women and girls in changing rooms, showers, wards, prison cells etc. Why is that do you reckon?