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

I wouldn't trust Yvette Cooper as far as I could throw the Houses of Parliament.

I think politicians decisions in private life are often relevant - if for example a Labour MP sends their children to a fee-paying private school rather than the local school I would not be sanguine regarding their voting on this issue should there be legislation mooted to remove private schools’ charitable or tax exempt status. Same with private healthcare or MPs holding Directorships on company boards.

These issues used to be relevant mostly to Tory MPs but in recent decades Labour MPs have also made these choices too and I believe they’re very likely to have an effect on voting behaviour - what people consider as normal behaviour is what they do in their own life, so trans-identity or activism of relatives is likely to have an effect on an MP’s views on the issues under public discussion - they don’t live in a vacuum.

With regards to Yvette Cooper’s interview on WH: to my mind she came across as rambling and unwilling to give a straight answer. I hate politicians (from any party) that waffle; I want a straight answer so that I know where they stand on an issue. Especially in an election year.

Lots have used Miriam Cates faith against her, is that anti Christian bigotry?

For the record, i doubt her son is having much influence on Yvette Cooper - i think shes justifying a bonkers postion and is having difficulty expressing something thats she doesn't understand. Compare what she says with kemi badenoch who does understand the legalisation. Whats concerning is that cooper doesnt feel the need to get on top of this issue.

Labour are going to come up against lots of problems if they are going to shout transphobia and stop the discussion everytime someone criticises their policies and motivation for pushing this on everyone. It hasnt been successful for the conservatives over the last decade, it isnt going to work for labour moving forward.

Miriam Cates is an evangelical Christian and actively supports initiatives to embed Christianity into government policy. So that should be open to comment yes, as she is the MP.

If she were atheist and her husband was evangelical it would be unreasonable to assume her links were influencing policy.

And Badenoch is happy to lie, which makes holding a position easy. If the facts aren't a good answer to a question, change them so they fit! Job done

I dont know how political aware you are, but there have been lots of criticisms of MPs spouses interests over the years.

Unlike Starmer. That pillar of virtue and clarity. Give it a rest mate.

Hear, hear!

I listened to Cooper on WH and my impression is that she's reached a fence-sitting position she was happy with: most oppressed™, #bekind, sex and gender are different, transwomen are women (sort of), a fuzzy position on women's rights, etc but when the Scarlet Blake question came out of the blue she is a wily enough politician to realise that the safe fence-sitting was unlike to cut it because it would mean qualifying women's rights to benefit a sadistic murderer and that could go badly in the media.

So she had to play it by ear in the interview which is why she sounded more incoherent than she would normally have done.

I'm afraid at this point, anything they 'say' is worthless. I won't have the faintest trust until there's actions demonstrating and acting on those beliefs, protecting women, children, LGB people, equality for all instead of one having primacy over eight other protected characteristics, and women's equality of access to facilities with excitingly identitied men.

Actions. Not words.

There was a saying a friend used to have : 'they can make their mouths say anything'.

I keep looking back at that transcript where Yvette Cooper, Shadow Home Secretary claims not to know how the Home Office records crime statistics:

'I think obviously the Home Office will need to make that clear. That's a matter for them so I don't know what answer the Home Office will give.'

She didn't even add, 'And I will be very interested in their answer'.
Not only does that display ignorance but also an alarming lack of curiosity from someone whose job is to hold the government to account.

Yes Floisme If she doesn’t know about this when it is a key news item, what else doesn’t she know or hasn’t found out? It is her shadow job role ffs. Especially as the Telegraph had more information about this this morning .

Exactly. She isn't a Labour backbencher who was ambushed, she is the Shadow Home Secretary

I wonder how she'd have answered if the interview had been today - she wouldn't have been able to hide behind, 'I don't know'.

Not on the basis of their personal characteristics though. Because that would be racist/sexist/homophobic or whatever

What she says is not equivalent to "not knowing how they record crime statistics".

I interpret it as knowing exactly how they record crime statistics so knowing the answer is going to be controversial, and not wanting to land the civil servants in the home office in it.

I have a feeling that it might even be in the ministerial code that you don't criticise civil servants in media appearances so maybe she was doing her job. We just aren't used to that at the moment.

Im having trouble sympathising with MPs about this.

They all talk about this as if its simple, and everyone understands it. Then they become flustered trying to justify whats going on.

Does every politician use sex and gender to mean two distinct things everytime they speak? Or is it just something they say in situation like these when they are caught conflating the two?

They all talk about this as if its simple, and everyone understands it. Then they become flustered trying to justify whats going on.

Yes quite - when a politician who's experienced and accomplished enough to have stood as party leader (and who may still have ambitions - who knows) is reduced to flailing and floundering on mainstream radio then something is off.

Whatever happened to 'Let me be clear'?

Lots of comments on here on the topic of trusting politicians. How anyone could trust the Tories on anything after the past 14 years is beyond me.

The subject of this thread is the Labour Party and specifically the Shadow Home Secretary.

Regarding the Conservatives - I'm not going to try and speak for other posters but I've said more than once on other threads that a party that chooses a leader who's known for their dishonesty can't complain when no-one believes a word they say.

You're showing old-fashioned thinking Floisme. Either you're for the Tories in which case you can criticise Labour, or you're for Labour in which case you can criticise the Tories.

Anything else involves critical thinking and who bothers with that these days? Takes too much effort.

You're right nauticant, I keep forgetting

😂😂

Exactly this - which is why I won’t be voting Labour.

Yes to the "look, sex and gender are different and we've been very clear on that, and the need to protect women's safe [sic] spaces" which then suddenly descends in to stuttering and stammering incoherence as soon as they are asked to take that principle one tiny step further and explain their position.

It's frankly not good enough for front-bench Labour shadow MPs to still, STILL!, not have as good a grasp on this issue as 5,000 random women on TERF-Island twitter.

This is your god damn job, get your shit together Yvette. You're 7 years behind.