Anyone else GC and left wing in their politics?

[mids2019]

I am finding the conservative party conference difficult in some sense as I agree with some of their GC policies and attitudes yet would describe my self as a working class died in the will leftie. I really don't like this assumption that being for women's rights automatically means people associate you with right wing politics in general. For me it's simply not the case.

Why is it that poor now associate left with trans rights????

There is certainly this stream in current thinking.

But I don't think it's the whole explanation, id pol is specifically about completely obliterating individuals, and basing rights, social status, etc, on group identity.

I would argue that whether individuals can choose their identity is in fact pretty inconsistent within this system. And also that personal identity vs group defined identity is very much in tension in this way of thinking. Who can claim what identity is in some cases highly policed, gender ideology or "queerness" is perhaps the most loosey goosey of the identity groupings.

It's liberalism, which can be found both on the left and right. But there are also forms of leftism that aren't liberal, and conservatism traditionally isn't liberal either.

What you are describing as the right wing attitude to health care is pretty reductive, btw. It's part of why we end up with such foolish tribalism. In general, when people on the right prefer other models of health care, it's because they think that in the end, they deliver a better health service. Which is really very arguable, there are countries which have systems that involve more use of private insurers, or some fee for service, and deliver better outcomes for everyone, more efficiently. There are disadvantages to the kind of system you find in the UK, or say, Canada, where the emphasis is very much on it being totally socialized. It's worth noting that both of those countries are having very similar problems in their health services. Some of these questions are about how best to manage large systems, but they are also about medical culture, so it's a complicated issue.

Whether you think that argument wins the day or not, it is completely false to say it is just about individualism and not giving a fuck about the poor. This is why you get these stupid arguments that anyone on the right is evil, and why they are completely ineffective at convincing anyone on the right - they know that they don't want poor people to fuck off and die, so you won't convince them of it, you just piss them off by not making any effort to think about what they are saying.

It's a pretty perfect example of the interaction that's happened with gender ideology and maybe goes some way to explaining why Labour struggles to be elected.

Of course I do believe in individual freedom, expression and rights and in the importance of identity...just not when it encroaches on the wellbeing or rights of others. It's always about balance and empathy.

This is maybe getting off topic, but I think the left may fail to protect, "the wellbeing and rights of others", because of things like they tend to see the imposition of order as being oppression.

So the use of power is something that they suspect is going to be the powerful beating down the powerless. Like it's an injustice to impose rules and order.

They don't believe that victims have a "right to justice" as such, as they deny the retributive theory of justice, and think such a thing is "just revenge", and so an impure and backwards motivation. They probably still support punishment for deterrence somewhat, but the tendency is that they seek alternatives to punishment.

And they undermine individual responsibility. So the tendency is to look to blame crime on social factors or discrimination. The emphasis is then on we need more left-wing policies to fix society, and that would fix the crime.

And while I assume there is some truth that social factors like poverty do indeed contribute to crime, if you take the emphasis away from individual responsibility, and deny that criminal justice can be a solution, I think it's a dangerous approach to play with.

So while the left may genuinely care about people and want to protect them, they don't necessarily have the ideology that does that.

“But a woman who wants the man to fuck off out of her single sex spaces, can’t say that?”

No of course they cannot say that, same way that men can’t. If society has to include everyone and allow everyone to be whatever it is that they want to be then you can’t just tell people to fuck off anymore than men can tell women to leave the golf club. That’s not letting everyone be whoever it is that they want to be and that’s not inclusion.

I mean what do you want me to say about that? Eat what you ordered?

Golf clubs tend to be about bonding around male privilege. Single sex spaces are not about privilege - but about dignity, privacy and safety of women and girls. Males declaring they are now women and therefore have aright to access female spaces is just another form of male privilege.

People cannot be whatever they want - that is just a fantasy told to children to encourage them to aspire.

@RebelliousCow

“That is not left wing politics, that is the politics of late stage american consumer culture and rampant individualism - where everyone can be whatever they want and seek to find " their best, true self".

Well OK, you are the first person on this site I’ll concede to. It’s not traditional left wing politics I will admit that.

But it absolutely is what the centre left of politics in the western world has been since about the 1960’s.

It’s the ideology of the guardian newspaper. We call it the left today I guess. I mean it’s not exactly the old classical form of liberalism either is it? But we call it liberalism too.

You mean it's neo-liberalism.

“Golf clubs tend to be about bonding around male privilege. Single sex spaces are not about privilege - but about dignity, privacy and safety of women and girls. Males declaring they are now women and therefore have aright to access female spaces is just another form of male privilege.”

So what? Either you can exclude people or you can’t, either everyone has to be let in or they don’t. Total inclusion is what was ordered from the menu and total inclusion is what society will get, just as soon as we elect a Labour government…

The British left has been taken over by American liberalism and its fraught politics of identity. The U.S has never really had a socialist party - it has never had a party dedicated to radically challenging the capitalist mode of economy.

The British Left always hated everything American, which is such an irony given that today's contemporary/Momentum Left is entirely predicated on post modernistic american theories.

I don't subscribe to "total inclusion". That is predicated on boundarylessness.

Boundaries are necessary if we want to protect the established rights of both individuals and groups. r We have to be able to exercise judgement and discrimination- distinguish between one type of thing and another. It cannot be a free for all if you want any semblance of tolerance.

Where we are comes down to the GRA 2004

Was that idea an American import?

I cannot imagine how sensible people thought a legal sex certificate allowing a male to be female was a good idea

So it’s not OK for a woman to tell a man to get out of the women’s changing rooms, to complain about a man in a female bay on a hospital ward, to be guaranteed there will be no males in her women’s refuge?

@EasternStandard actually no. It was passed after a series of court rulings culminating in the Goodwin case heard in the ECHR. That ruling stated that someone who had become physically indistinguishable from the opposite sex (ie surgical transition) should be able to make their sex a completely private matter, which would include the right to marry someone of the same sex and to access a sex-based benefit such as younger pension age for women. What strikes me reading the judgement is that the basis of legal disadvantage on which the ruling was based no longer exists, and in fact how much was already possible for people who'd transitioned (eg national insurance records being apparently hidden and handled only by a specialist team.

I’ll be doing all of that whether or not it’s “OK”. I might work up to the “Fuck off!”, or it might be what I open with, depends on the man and what he’s doing. It’s entirely my prerogative.

It wasn't 'total inclusion' that was ordered, but redress. An attempt to gain equity, and parity.

@PermanentTemporary

What strikes me reading the judgement is that the basis of legal disadvantage on which the ruling was based no longer exists

But you still probably get cheaper car insurance as a legal woman!

Anyway, I don't think the ruling was really that tied up with such things, but "privacy and dignity".

The court did also mention the criminal justice system and that people could already be put in the prison of their gender.

I'm confused. Do you think all spaces (toilets, hospital wards, sports etc.) should be mixed space? in your mind removing the right for men to exclude women from golf clubs means we can't have long women's sports?

I cannot imagine how sensible people thought a legal sex certificate allowing a male to be female was a good idea

I think the reasoning was along the lines that society should be willing to put up with a little inconvenience so that transsexuals could live in dignity and privacy.

They did also use the (obviously bad) argument that you gave them the sex change operation, so it's illogical to not then give them the legal status of a woman.

in your mind removing the right for men to exclude women from golf clubs means we can't have long women's sports?

I assumed that private members clubs could still exclude women?

Or just a regular business, can't they say they are allowed under the Equality Act, and that it's a legitimate aim to create social environments for only one sex?

@PorcelinaV no, cheaper car insurance for women was ruled illegal some time ago.

Yes, social clubs can still be single sex including the 'gentleman's clubs' of London.

There is somethings that come under legitimate discrimination that you seem to be missing. Inclusion is not, and was never, an all or nothing demand.

Comparing women or any protected group being excluded from a golf club is not equivalent to exclusion on the grounds of safeguarding. One is to achieve a legitimate aim to protect people and one is not.

It is surprising to see this type of argument on a feminist board. I recently had a similar discussion with a Men’s Rights Activist about women demanding access to golf clubs on AIBU. He was arguing using the same all or nothing argument and told posters that feminists only had themselves to blame for male people being in single sex spaces. Apparently it all started when we demanded to access golf clubs and be considered for job roles.

My mistake. Apparently an EU thing, so maybe we could change it if we really wanted.

Comparing women or any protected group being excluded from a golf club is not equivalent to exclusion on the grounds of safeguarding. One is to achieve a legitimate aim to protect people and one is not.

But protecting people doesn't have to be the only kind of "legitimate aim".

Ignore safety. Isn't creating a social space specifically for one sex a perfectly legitimate aim to have?

I'm not suggesting that golf clubs led to trans inclusion, as they are quite different things.

“So it’s not OK for a woman to tell a man to get out of the women’s changing rooms, to complain about a man in a female bay on a hospital ward, to be guaranteed there will be no males in her women’s refuge?”

Right according to what moral standard? Obviously it’s not OK according to the moral standards of the liberal centre left whose ideology is dominant in the west today.

One thing I’ve noticed is that many people here seem to think that the left are morally superior to the right. I’d disagree with that and say that the right are more moral than the left but it does seem to be left wing morality that rules today. From the BBC to the universities, to corporate HR departments to trade unions it all does seem to be dominated by the left.

But we're under a very right-wing government and have been for years.