Braverman article

[Motorcyclemptiness]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12669741/suella-braverman-says-police-shouldnt-refer-trans-rapists-women.html#socialLinks

Labour did a bit of a PR shift after Bryson and Sturgeon. It’s just ‘taking the public with them’ as they said. The aims are the same, to change the set up and make it easier.

They know that female is women plus men with GRC, as Harman tweeted so that is the same. And no legal movement on single sex spaces.

So it’s light touch to appease some Labour voters who think they’ve ‘changed’.

Still, that need to spin for a bit was down to those women who said no, and loudly.

No thanks to all those who said no one cares and stop speaking. None at all for them.

Yes, that "taking the public with us" statement says it all, doesn't it?

No, you don't need to take the public with you. You need to listen to the fucking public when they tell you women don't want to share their single sex spaces with the opposite sex.

You need to follow the public. You work for them. Not the other way around.

I have a feeling it was a Blair statement originally that has fed through

Either way it’s one of those ‘if someone tells you who they are (or what they’re trying to do) you listen’

Labour whipped their MSPs to vote for Self ID in Scotland.

I think the idea of taking the public with you can be totally legitimate in some areas.

I'm thinking of things like persuading the public to vote to legalise abortion or gay marriage in Ireland, for example.

Or Labour could have said they needed to take the public with them on the Brexit debate by putting forward a positive case for remaining in the EU. Or the SNP could say they need to take the public with them in respect of Scottish independence.

But I think there's a key difference here.

Firstly, to take abortion and gay marriage as an example, you're saying, "This is something that might not affect you but it is really important to others. It might be against your own moral values but you don't have to do it yourself, this is about freedom for other people to live their lives the way they want to as long as they aren't hurting anyone." And it's really difficult to argue that someone else having an abortion or marrying their same sex partner is hurting you personally. Or in terms of Brexit or Scottish independence, you make a powerful case for why you believe your way is the right way and let people think about it.

And secondly, these are things that were all going to be put to a vote. So yes, absolutely throw everything at "bringing the public with you" and convincing them that their fears are unfounded and this is the right side of history, if you are going to allow them to vote on it once you've had a decent go at bringing them with you.

If Starmer said we'd have a proper debate about self ID and then a referendum on it, then maybe he could talk about bringing the public with him. But if the general public isn't getting an opportunity to vote on this - and a general election doesn't count - then you're not bringing anyone with you, you're imposing your ideology on them and not listening when they tell you how it affects them negatively.

My issue is

Public - we don’t want this

Party - oh no there’s political pain with this let’s shift so they think it’s gone away but hasn’t

I would prefer a vote. With clear intentions and no hiding the issue because the public reacted

We know what they have done though. And given the opportunity they have voted for Self ID

Can you imagine the tantrums if self ID were put to a referendum?

"Trans people shouldn't have to debate their existence" would become, "Trans people's identities shouldn't be put to a public vote."

Well, no, they shouldn't be. Because someone's gender identity is personal to them and has nothing to do with anyone else.

That's why it shouldn't be put to a public vote, and it also shouldn't be a justification for using single sex spaces or competing in sports for the opposite sex.

Identities are like arseholes. Everyone's got one. We don't need to see or hear about yours.

Labour also voted for laws that means saying something in the privacy of your own home which someone perceives as hateful towards gender could land you in prison for two years.

Ha at that

The mad part is the GRA which kicked it all off and has led to complete capture wasn’t even on the table for discussion at a GE

At no point have I been asked if I’d like society split by sex or by gender

Given the ramifications for women and children I’d like a say

I was going to say it would be useful to have a referendum about whether society should be organised according to sex or gender because then they'd have to explain WTAF gender actually is, but then I remembered Brexit and realised that no, they wouldn't.

And you know this is also the Conservative position. Its very disingenuous to suggest that Labour and the Conservatives differ here

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9079/#:~:text=Government%20response%20to%20the%20consultation%202020&text=The%20Government%20does%20not%20intend,declaration%20is%20not%20being%20introduced.

Elizabeth Truss said: “it is the Government’s view that the balance struck in [the GRA] is correct, in that there are proper checks and balances in the system and also support for people who want to change their legal sex.”

Labour aren't in power, aren't proposing to change policy and aren't making this one of their key areas of focus.

So why are you asking them for a debate and referendum? Surely if you were asking anyone, it would be better to ask the conservatives?

Personally I think most of the public would hate the thought of a referendum on this, and it isn't really how democracy works. Imagine having referenda on every contentious issue.

Well technically a referendum would be the only way to get anything even approximating consent from women to sharing women's spaces with the opposite sex.

Although my view is that even majority consent wouldn't be good enough if there was still a minority that didn't consent.

How do you think women's consent should be obtained? Or do you think it is unimportant?

Liz Truss also said that dogs could be used to deter drones from delivering drugs and other contraband into prisons.

You should have included the date

On 22 September 2020, Elizabeth Truss..

It’s not very recent.

In 2019 Labour had Self ID in manifesto

And who's eligible to vote? Men and women? Or women only?

Forget referendums, let's just have principle. Stop delegating to citizens. It's time for politicians to put their chin out.

Well, I agree.

They need to say, "Sorry trans people, we actually have no way of getting meaningful consent from women to their spaces becoming mixed sex so it's up to us and you to come up with a different solution."

How much I’d love a politician to say this.

So many countries are captured and I don’t think one has yet.

I'm not sure those things are different. It's just that you think they are ultimately correct. What does it really mean to "lead" on this, apart from telling the public what the political elite think they should believe?

But if the majority of the public thought, for example, that human rights applied to a human fetus, that this was obvious and that was how policy on abortion had to be framed, or if that majority of people thought marriage was a social structure used primarily to manage sexual reproduction for the benefit of women and children, and that it was legitimate to acknowledge sex differences in that institution under the law - is it really up to one political party to try and force the issue legislatively, to manipulate the public into laws that aren't what they think, etc?

It's hard when you yourself agree with a policy direction, and think it's important, but the idea that it is ok to see the public as people who need to be educated and sent in a particular direction is what got us into this mess. It's precisely what has caused the problems we see now in schools, where many teachers and administrators believe that is the work they are supposed to be doing.

It's worth thinking about whether matters like abortion, decriminalisation of homosexuality for men, abolition of the death penalty, equal pay, and anti racism legislation ever had the support of the majority of the voting public in the UK.

The answer was they did not have public support as a majority opinion. They were pushed forward by elite politicians. And yet probably quite a lot of posters would say they support these laws.

Well ultimately I think it's different because the public had a chance to vote on it. So if the attempt to bring the public along with them had failed (which with Scottish independence it did, and also with remain), tough.

But there's nothing wrong with that, is there? Politicians can lead, rather than follow, and say, this is what we should do, as David Steel did with gay rights. That's all good, but now, pols are too craven to stand up and say, this is what we should do, because it's right.

It’s just another way to say you must accept this even if public support is not there.

No matter what there are people pushing this gravy train for their own benefit not those of women.

Craven is the right word.

Each one pushing this ideology for their own gain is complicit. That’s how you get institutional capture.

Tg for brave women. Baroness Kishwer Falkner the latest to join. Look at her colleagues there.

Multiply that by thousands getting paid for the same and you have what we do despite lacking biological reality and only benefiting a tiny percentage of males.

I’d love for those who are complicit to be ousted instead.