Lisa Nandy has decided she does care about women and girls

[ArabellaScott]

https://twitter.com/lisanandy/status/1711418522444636564

'Women’s rights are human rights and human rights are non-negotiable. My absolute priority will be to embolden and empower women and girls in every part of the world'

From her speech:

'If you attack women's rights anywhere then you attack them everywhere'.

Previously:

'I think trans women are women and should be accommodated in a prison of their choosing'

Labour’s current position seems to be:
“Woman = adult human female”
”female person = anyone who says they are”
Same position just a different way of phrasing it

1. if Labour want me to believe they care about women, they need to define ‘woman’ properly

2. I would of course expect them to still provide appropriate protections to trans people - just not at the expense of other people’s rights

3. Kier, playing with words might be a successful strategy for a lawyer, but it isn’t the right way to get people to trust you as a leader

Ah, this never comes up on the doorstep, though.

I'd say pissing around changing the meaning of words is a surefire way to lose support.

Yeah, she’s finally realised women bring more votes.

Empower my arse.

Well all the things she said about women’s rights are true.

But they only help women in some specific areas , not helping women in all of the areas that women’s human rights legally should and morally actually do extend to, in fact making things much worse for women in those areas.

A sex based rights blind spot excludes all female protection and pro-female action in a lot of key areas leaving women and girls highly vulnerable to male abuse, UNLESS Namdy realises that clarifying and upholding sex-based rights is an inalienable part of the human rights package AND Labour is willing to upset and exclude some men who feel they are women. Then Labour still has a terrible Woman Problem. This won’t go away by itself and will be damaging Labour at the polls.

Quite… the only one to come round to me at local elections was the Lib Dem candidate. He nearly died when I told him in graphic terms (his words) why I couldn’t vote for his party.

More gaslighting that this never comes up.

Women cannot have a penis

They identify as it not coming up.

There's a lot of it about.

Yes who made GRCs cost just £5 a time, has opened more GRC clinics? who grants 96% of GRC applicants? (1000s have been issued) and who has been in power for 13 years and could have scrapped the or reformed the GRC years ago?

Its not Lisa Nandy or Labour.

Lisa Nandy thankfully has been demoted but better still should be on the back benches.

Who of all the political parties spoke up at the time and said 'This is a really bad idea?'

None of them. They were all conned.

Who of the political parties, in the face of increasing evidence and information of the very significant issues and impacts on others, is STILL conned and saying 'this is a great idea, lets do more of it and faster?'

Oh yes. That would be Labour.

I know it's been mentioned but screenshot of the jkr tweet

It's just a meaningless slogan.

Of course trans people are human. No one is claiming otherwise. Indeed, if you say that trans women are men, which trans activists consider to be deeply transphobic, you are literally confirming that they are human. Since when were men not human, and since when did men not have human rights?

"Trans rights" are not in fact human rights, because none of the rights being demanded specifically for trans people are human rights. Such as the right to use single sex spaces for members of the opposite sex. No other humans have this right, so how can it be a human right?

Labour did this over Brexit too.

They made all these vague, substance-free statements aimed at reassuring leave voters that they would respect the result of the referendum whilst giving remainers hope that they would reverse it.

It didn't work then and it won't work now.

When will they learn that trying to please everyone just means you end up pleasing no one?

Instead of letting their policies be dictated by those who shout the loudest, why can't they sit down, talk about all the competing rights at stake, discuss how to balance those competing rights fairly, and come up with some sensible policies which reflect that?

But I suppose that would involve recognising that women's rights, by which I mean the boring kind of women with wombs, as Ricky Gervais would say, are human rights. They would have to actually believe it and do something about it, rather than just say it and hope that's enough.

This is meaningless unless she confirms that she doesn’t include biological males who identify as women in her declaration on women’s rights.

That ^^

Most of the slogans and parrot phrases are ones that if you stop to think, you find yourself going... what? How exactly? What does that even mean? No, that makes no sense.

TWAW.... in what sense? How? What's a woman then?
Love is love. Er..... are you sure about that? Let's unpack that a bit....
Bigot! Uhm, do you know what that means? Irony at all?

Mostly the answer is - well it sounds good and I feel good shouting it, and you're supposed to just go where I want it to manipulate you. Stop engaging your brain and think what you're told!

'If you attack women's rights anywhere then you attack them everywhere'.

Quite. And when you put rapists claiming to be women into women's prisons you attack my rights. I hope I'll never be in prison, it's still an attack on women's safety.