Yvette cooper - bio sex & gender v separate

[TwangBoob]

Don't know if this is news, but I'm debating whether it's safe to vote labour next time so was slightly cheered to hear Yvette Cooper on R4 make it very plain that to her at least sex and gender were separate things and scarlet blake is rightly going to a male prison & hopefully the crime will be recorded as a male's crime.

Are we safe to vote labour? 🤔🤔🤔 rushi is equally clear but also likes to pull our pants down financially far too much imo

It's real for other MPs. For example Stephen Kinnock is quite open about having a trans child. I can't imagine him ever speaking out against the ideology. It's a problem.

Of course it would.

I think it would be very difficult for a whole cabinet to speak out about trans ideology if a respect colleague has a trans identifying child.

She has an adult male child who is a (very active) transactivist. I can imagine he'd make her home life quite difficult.

That whole answer was just word salad, she's scared to be clear, despite her obviously knowing this situation is a huge problem for any sensibly-minded person, whose votes she wants, but she's squirming because until today she's been one of the MPs whose been supportive of gender ideology and people like her age the reason is been able to get this far, because when women were raising concerns, she joined in with the chorus against us and completely lost all the respect I previously had for her.

She's a coward.

Definitely recording sex and gender for criminals separately is really important to see in what ways being male, committing crime, and having a gender identity may intersect.
Also sick of men’s crimes being recorded as women’s crimes, these are not our crimes.

The GRA legal sex change should be repealed but for governments that want to retain it, GRA should be amended immediately and with retrospective effect to make it crystal clear that if GRC holders commit crimes they must be recorded as their birth sex. And records will note fact of their GRC possession, in addition to the perpetrator’s stated gender identity, if they give any, which is a subjective and not fixed category.

I want nothing to do with 'outing' any MP's family - that's off limits as far as I'm concerned. Cooper is entitled to a private life.

Her actions and words are the issue for me and that was a nothing statement which I don't think adds anything enlightening to what Labour have said already. My guess is that's deliberate and that Labour have calculated they can get away with not saying anything further.

I think I read that their manifesto would be ready end of February/early March. I'll see if that sheds any further light but I'm no longer hopeful.

I also don't think speculating about cooper’s home life and family is very helpful here.

She’s a professional woman being asked questions in the context of her work. She’s shadow Home Secretary. She should be able to give a clearer and more definitive answer about how crime statistics are recorded and why it’s important.

Instead her response was just a lot of waffle about there being a difference between sex and gender that went nowhere useful.

As soon a politicians start with the ‘of course it is right that…’ I just know they’re dissembling but trying to sound righteous as they do so.

This is why TRAs will fight this tooth and nail. We can already see from high profile cases that there is a problem. When all the lower profile cases are visible too it won’t be possible to hand wave the harms of current policies away.

This I disagree with.

I agree that a politician's family should be off limits. So why do others think intelligent, normally incisive politicians like Cooper come out with meaningless waffle and repeatedly dodge questions like this? What stops them from applying their intelligence to this issue and coming up with a clear response?
Ed Davy openly shares his delusions that some women have a penis. This makes it easy for voters to decide just how gullible he must be in the face of other conspiracy theories/ flat earthism.

Stephen Kinnock is Shadow Minister for Immigration. His wife is the former Prime Minister of Denmark. He is the son of former Labour leader Neil Kinnock.
How hard must it be for anyone in Labour to speak out against this?

There may be other MPs with trans identifying children, some of whom are still children. In fact, given the popularity of trans identification amongst children it would be surprising if there weren't some MPs with trans identifying children.

That's really quite some conspiracy theory you are hatching there. As well as being morally repugnant. Leave politicians families out of it.

I generally agree that politicians children should absolutely be off limits. I only mentioned it in my earlier post because a number of MPs have mentioned having trans children in the (sometimes wider) family in various interviews. It has clearly influenced how some of them think.

In this case though that 'child' is an adult who has chosen to insert himself into the conversation.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10870697/Trans-activist-heckled-Nadhim-Zahawi-Warwick-University-campus-son-Yvette-Cooper.html

It wasn't you shera it was a different poster who said he was trans.
Rather than admit that was wrong, other posters are now dragging up other labour politicians who might have trans children to back up their view Labour must be biased.

It is not OK to use people's children like that.

I have mentioned one whose trans-identified adult child has been plastered all over the media.

I am not willing to speculate about any other children of MPs, but I think when you have been publicising something to that extent, there's no reason why we shouldn't discuss it on here.

Are we supposed to ignore some stories in the newspapers just because they're about adult children of MPs?

I'm not doing this "to back up [a] view Labour must be biased", but I think it is worth investigating why they might be biased. Why are apparently educated and intelligent people so in thrall to a batshit ideology? What do you think their reasons are?

I think its a factor.

Lots of the issues arise because of bad decisions by politican in the past. Add to that colleagues who see any questioning of the ideology as a personal attack, and we have a situation thats not addressed.

Its only when it makes the news that politicians are forced to speak about it. Thats firefighting, not safeguarding or maintaining womens rights.

An MPs family life is none of my business. However what is my business is the Shadow Home Secretary claiming not to know how the Home Office records crime statistics. That is not a credible answer from Cooper.

I won’t trust or vote for Labour politicians until they say quite clearly that :

people can’t change sex, that transwomen are and always will be men, and should not be in female spaces

that using the pronouns she and her is a social courtesy , not a legal obligation or definition

and that that social concession should be disregarded in the event of any criminal act so that victims of crime do not have the justice they seek demoted in order to serve someone’s illusion.

Its not as if we are going through peoples bin to find information into their private life. MPs are publicising that they are have trans relatives and are TRA.

Its really up to politicians to prove to us that they can be impartial and understand the issues.

Politicians saying that sex and gender are different, but failing to mention that gender identity can change a persons recorded sex isnt honest. They are not telling the whole truth, and its important to understand why that it.

Oh ffs.
This is where it starts to sound like proper transphobia to me.

Its really up to politicians to prove to us that they can be impartial and understand the issues.

Just imagine saying that about a white MP with mixed race grand children. Or a Muslim MP (well the Tories might). Or a Jewish MP. Or an MP with an immigrant spouse. Or a gay MP or an MP with a child in a civil partnership. You wouldn't ask a male MP to "prove he can be impartial and understand the issues" around rape law because he has a penis.

There is no reason to treat MPs with transgender people in their family differently to any other MPs. It's being used as a smear.

The thread was meant to be about what Yvette Cooper said on WH, not conspiracy theories about why Labour might be biased

I'm just interested in why Cooper sounded so incoherent and rambling when answering this. And why Starmer goes from instructing that it mustn't be said that "only women have a cervix" or that 99% of women don't haver a penis.
What is happening to make them sound like flat earthers / conspiracy theorists about this issue?

This is the crux of it to me. I've never voted Labour, but always had Cooper down as a sensible, competent, no-bullshit politician who would be an efficient PM. There is something about gender-woo that muddles the brains of otherwise shrewd individuals and renders them incapable of logical thought processing and foreseeing consequences. It's like some sort of St Vitus' Dance of the mind.

@Beowulfa

"There is something about gender-woo that muddles the brains of otherwise shrewd individuals and renders them incapable of logical thought processing and foreseeing consequences."

+++

It's basically because of fear of the cancel culture.

Yes, I'll judge Cooper by what she says and does in her official capacity as a public servant. The more I read that WH transcript, the more she sounds like someone who's been thrown a curveball question at a job interview - starts off on relatively safe ground, parroting the party line about sex and gender and then, when pressed, loses the plot. I don't think that's acceptable from someone who, I assume, expects to be given a senior role in the next government.

I can't help comparing it to the confident manner in which Lisa Nandy said (admittedly a few years ago) that she would support a rapist being sent to a women's prison.