Lisa Nandy in the Evening Standard

[Justme56]

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/lisa-nandy-jk-rowling-labour-labour-party-b1120907.html

The last paragraph - does she mean women being referred to as cervix havers etc? Yes Lisa it is a shameful time!!!

“And I don’t think we should end up in an oppositional relationship where we’re talking about some of the most marginalised, discriminated against women and girls on the planet and we can’t have that debate, because there’s a genuine conversation to be had about the rights of transgender people and the protection of safe spaces and hard-fought rights for women.”

Is she saying that the most marginalised discriminated against women and girls on the planet are the ones who have a Y chromosome??

What an absolute mess of a sentence

But yeh is this male women and girls?

Well done Labour

Wth

And this bold what’s going on. Oh it’s gone. Odd

Nandy isn’t good at forming comprehendible sentences; I don’t know what she is good at but speaking clearly is not it 🤷‍♀️

Whenever I'm pissed off with Keir Starmer - which is often - I remind myself that we could have ended up with Lisa Nandy as party leader and Prime Minister in waiting.

What an absolute mess of a sentence.

Yes, this. But maybe the obfuscation is deliberate? She doesn't really want a 'debate', because that would require her to take some firm position and commit to something. JKR criticised her over two points. Did she respond to either of them? She did not.

It's really fucking irritating when these trans activists like Nandy say things like it's wrong to reduce this debate to people's body parts.

If you don't think the question of what makes someone a woman should be reduced to their body parts, YOU HAVE TO SAY WHAT YOU THINK IT SHOULD BE INSTEAD.

Sorry for the shouting, using bold isn't an option currently.

IF YOU THINK IT IS DOWN TO GENDER IDENTITY, YOU NEED TO BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN WTF A GENDER IDENTITY IS AND WHAT FEATURES YOU THINK ALL PEOPLE WITH THE GENDER IDENTITY OF "WOMAN" SHARE.

Because otherwise you're just saying that women shouldn't be reduced to body parts like uteruses and vaginas, but to pink and sparkles and girly feelings and femininity and high heels and lacy underwear and whatever the fuck it is you think makes someone a woman.

Say the quiet part out loud and let people judge you for it. Stop obfuscating.

You wouldn't trust her to tie her own shoelaces.

That is outrageous.

Especially given that she says "on the planet" rather than "in the UK".

Really, Lisa?

Which planet is that, Lisa? Planet Earth, where members of the female sex in many countries are trafficked into sex slavery, sold into marriage before puberty, subjected to female genital mutilation, denied the right to an education, prevented from accessing safe and legal abortions or even never born in the first place due to sex selective abortion?

Or some other planet where those things don't happen to members of the female sex and members of the male sex are in fact the most oppressed?

Oh for the day when someone asks her just that, on camera.

Alternative facts and personal realities, innit?

Mixed with naivety, overprivilege, laziness, no grip on what real life is actually like outside of the ivory tower and a whole fuckton of luxury belief based virtue signalling.

Putin et al, who are differently batshit (this should be some new DEI category), just see this all as weakness and corruption. You'd be forgiven for wondering if they have a point in there somewhere. And if we can just ditch the lot of them somewhere to virtue signal at each other for eternity behind very high walls, and start again from scratch with democracy where a representative has to first past a test to demonstrate that they are a) not be out of their bloody tree or b) self obsessed with some personal hobby horse to the exclusion of the rest of reality or capacity to do the job, or c) just alarmingly thick.

I remember reading an essay on rhetoric that suggested some politicians deliberately use obfuscatory language, peppered with key words, to confuse those listening to them. The idea was that the listener would come away not remembering the gist of the speech, because it didn't make sense, but would recall the key words they'd been offered.

This is Starmer and Labour every time isn’t it

Can’t pin them down

They really need to be under the spotlight on this, with a decent interviewer

It's also a characteristic of the TQ+ lobby and always has been: it's a corporate thing.

Train the peons in the parroted burble phrases and they will trot them out with high emotion and no idea at all of what the phrase actually means or what they're saying it for.

See the one that did the doctorate in ' you don't need to know what you're talking about, just say it passionately and hope the twits in front of you don't bother to stop and think'.

It's not.a coincidence that the politicians who claim to be on TRSOH because of their stances on transgender inclusion are also silent on women and girls being brutally oppressed because of their sex.

Raising awareness of any of that could sabotage the public's unthinking acceptance of the orthodoxy that the most marginalised people on the planet are trans-identifying males.

The Lisa Nandy who said this? She could not give one single solitary shite about vulnerable women in prisons. She's got a fucking cheek scolding anyone else. In years to come, I hope she looks back and cringes herself inside out at her dickpandery.

Train the peons in the parroted burble phrases and they will trot them out with high emotion and no idea at all of what the phrase actually means or what they're saying it for.

And when anyone asks a question that isn't completely onboard with the underlying ideology, even if they're just seeking some clarity, go aggressively on the attack demonising them with accusations of bigotry, whatever-phobia, etc.

So reading Harry Potter to a child - wrong

Rapist with a penis in a woman’s prison - right

How is that normal thinking in anyone’s head let alone someone who will almost certainly be in the next government?

She's no different to most in the Labour Party, though, unfortunately. I mentioned before on MN that I emailed the treasurer woman of the local LP Women's Forum (LN's constituency) asking what the forum thought about Alison Thomson, the councillor in Brighton who was forced into an embarrassing recantation of her incendiary views on people not being to change sex. This was her reply:

The Women’s Forum is made up of many different people who all have individual personalities and it is not for me to comment on what they think about trans rights.
It is Labour’s policy to be fully inclusive and this means supporting LGBTQ+ people in gaining equal rights.
If this is an important issue close to your heart then I suggest you take a look at the Labour LGBT website...

Nepotism probably. Her father is a lecturer who worked very closely with the Labour Party as an advisor. Her maternal grandfather was Lord Byers, Liberal Party politician and Liberal leader in the House of Lords. Her mother was a TV producer. That's an impressive set of connections to exploit. It's not what you know, it's who you know.

@ArthurbellaScott It seems you’ve discovered a bug in the site’s code. Best let Mumsnet IT boffins know about it as this bug could be used against the site maliciously. I have no idea why your post has an unclosed html bold tag that affects all subsequent posts in the thread, but it does…somehow.🤔

Lisa Nandy about JKR

"It breaks my heart actually, we’re re-reading Harry Potter at the moment in my house with an eight-year-old who is absolutely Harry Potter obsessed."

JRK:
“‘People who menstruate.’ I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?”

Also Lisa Nandy

"When we look at the way we reduce the debate to things like bodily parts, I think when we look back in history we will be utterly ashamed of ourselves.”

It's total jibber jabber. She's opposed to JKR whilst saying she agrees with her.

Ffs

Okay, thank you! I will report it. I'm just going to feel like a bit of a dick when I explain what I was doing. 😁

Oh!! It really was you!!!

excellent.

I think it's the </strong> rather than bold tag. I suspect that something has commented it out. I suspect a lot more has been commented out that didn't display.