Labour infighting over trans issues reignited by Cass Review

[IwantToRetire]

But Rosie Duffield, a Labour MP placed under investigation by the party last year for campaigning against gender ideology, pointed out that women who had exposed the scandal had been “blanked, sidelined and dismissed” by male leaders simply for speaking up.

And feminist Julie Bindel demanded an apology from Mr Streeting for failing to support her gender-critical views when he was president of the National Union of Students.

In reply to Ms Bindel’s accusation, Mr Streeting replied: “From memory (16 years on, so correct me if I’m wrong!) I replied to confirm that you weren’t on NUS’ no platform policy and as this was in relation to a motion passed by the autonomous women’s campaign I was not empowered to overturn it (not least as a male president!).”

This prompted Ms Duffield to retweet the (Les Streeting) statement, with the message: “To the many women blanked, sidelined, dismissed by male leaders when speaking up and exposing this for years.”

And Ms Bindel wrote: “Glad to see you are now openly critical of the gender ideology that led to the atrocities against children outlined in the Cass report.

“I am open to accepting an apology from you. In 2008, when you were NUS president, I was no-platformed alongside five fascist groups for ‘transphobia’.

“I contacted you and asked for your help. You gave none. I asked you to condemn those that had orchestrated the no-platforming, and you refused.

“Have you any idea of the reputational damage this caused me? How it gave others permission to no-platform, denounce and defame me?
“How it meant that I could be slandered by other organisations, and so many, many universities around the UK and elsewhere? If this sounds bitter then good, because I am.”

To this message, Ms Duffield said: “Thank you for leading us all here Julie. Without you, most of us wouldn’t have had a clue what had been happening to children who were far too young to have the critical faculties or agency to consent.”

Extracts not full article in Telegraph https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/04/10/labour-infighting-over-trans-issues-reignited-cass-review/

Also at https://archive.ph/IfNp8

Earlier thread about Wes Streeting https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5047018-wes-streeting-labour-shadow-health-secretary-pledges-support-for-the-cass-reviews-evidence-led-recommendations-and-our-determination-to-put-childrens-health-and-wellbeing-above-the-political-fray

As the MP's shameful twitter post plus the odd comment on here demonstrates, trans activists are out in force seeking to swerve the discussion away from the need to safeguard children. Cass is a landmark investigation into the shameful behaviour of the medical profession who have inflicted brutal unevidenced treatment on children.
The Zarah Sultana's of the world and other transactivists don't want this discussed. Hence swerving discussions to transphobia and related issues.
Talking about safeguarding children is uncomfortable and difficult. Politicians who are unable to acknowledge the dreadful reality of child abuse shouldn't be in power.

It conveniently missed the intro where Starmer welcomes Esther Ghey to the house, before they start the debate. That is relevant context because it shows that Sunak knew she was there, knew why she was there and still chose to make a cheap jab at starmer about trans issues.

As I say. Distasteful. Of course, you may disagree.

I know a lot of people who would describe themselves as Christian, despite never going to church, not praying regularly, not followingthe bible to the letter etc.

I found it extremely distasteful and tone deaf of Sunak to make that comment. No "second hand offence" about it. Sunak should be clever enough to moderate his comments depending on the circumstances. It was very poorly judged I thought

I am sorry that you find it 'distasteful' that Sunak takes the piss out of the fact that Starmer thinks that 1% of women have a penis. Never mind. Anyone who spouts ludicrous and offensive bullshit like that deserves nothing but derision.

And as to you point that Sunak should moderate his comments - why? If you are suggesting it's because Brianna's mother was in the chamber (she wasn't btw) then where does that end? Politicians' speech should never be swayed by who is sitting in there watching them for obvious reasons.

Finally I did not see this as a 'transphobic' comment - the issue is about women. Starmer is a fool who has backed himself in to a corner over the definition of what a woman is - that did not need to happen.

I still would have thought she'd know women for whom this is important.

She was not in the chamber at the time.

Agree. Even if she's using Muslim purely as an expression of cultural identity and has no religious belief whatsoever, it's hard to believe she doesn't know any woman for whom this would be an issue.

She doesn't care though does she? That's very clear.

🙄i know we aren't going to agree it's distasteful. You don't have to share my opinion.
I'm sure the poster can read old threads and look at the news and make their own mind up.

I never said it was transphobic. Personally I don't think it was transphobic. I was offended he made that quip in front of Esther Ghey. It seemed callous and unnecessary to me. Sometimes choosing #bekind is the right response, and that quip added nothing to his point.

Ultimately he shot himself in the foot because although some people don't think it was a problem, a lot of people were offended and Sunak went down in their estimation as a result

I was offended he made that quip in front of Esther Ghey.

Except he didn't. She wasn't in there.

I was offended he made that quip in front of Esther Ghey

She wasn't there and you know she wasn't there. Even the Grauniad acknowledged that fact.

Ultimately he shot himself in the foot because although some people don't think it was a problem, a lot of people were offended and Sunak went down in their estimation as a result

Don't be ridiculous! Sunak's reputation has been in the sewers for months.

You don’t have to do any of those things to be Christian. That’s not what being a Christian is.

It is FINE

Star Kiermer is so popular that nobody needs to worry, let alone spend endless hours bumming him up on an obscure internets forum

Just popped in to big up Tonia Antoniazzi if no one has already.

As you were.

Esther Ghey (who I have come to believe is a rather admirable woman) video-met with Sunak after Starmer’s embarrassing posturing (pretending Ghey was in the spectator balcony when she wasn’t in the building yet).

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/brianna-gheys-brave-mum-esther-32248571.amp

Seems a bit weird to be offended over something that didn’t happen and that Ghey herself was able to put aside.

(Parliamentary remark made on Feb 7th, meeting between Ghey and Sunak reported in press on 29th Feb and March 1st. I believe it actually took place earlier that week, so sometime in the last week of Feb).

As an aside I very much agree with Esther Ghey re: smartphone/social media limits for teens (whether that be via Ghey’s suggestion of specifically created handsets and software or Jonathan Haidt’s idea of pledging to not give a child a smartphone until they are 16 and getting as many parents of classmates on board as possible. Long term the Social Media companies need to be forced to deploy algorithms more responsibly).

And the ‘no one is talking about it’ defiection

The tactic was to dismiss any concern from women.

Hence my point about people like Sultana using 2nd hand offence to deflect from the findings of the Cass Report that she would rather people shut up about.

Labour have form for these nasty secret groups remember Gordon Brown's attack dog Damien McBride? Seems it is a feature not bug with Labour.

If politicians should be swayed by whoever is in the chamber, the given that women are the oppressed majority and given how many women recognise the misogyny of 'TWAW', 'women can have penises', no politician should ever utter them. Lets remember how many women's lives have been dramatically marred by men - violence, rape, intimidation, sexual assault. Is the issue that Sunak was flippant rather than the point he made? In which case lets come down as heavily on an politician who make a flippant anti-woman point.

No. How is any of that "hating women"?

Please explain to me how saying anything about penises and cervixes is hate? They are body parts, not a crime scene. There is nothing inherently insulting about it.

My opinion is he is wrong, but it is not misogynistic.

Noone said "noone is talking about it" That's a bit weird.

Not seen you on here for a bit, hope you are good.

Yes, they did.

Yes - that's been the response to so many women raising it on the doorstep - nobody's talking about it.
Well we have been talking and now everyone's talking about it. Meanwhile these utter fools have sold children and women down the river by signing up to a lie - that people can change sex.
And instead of being responsible, thoughtful and looking at the evidence labour politicians they joined the howling mobs, bullying and shouting down women and abandoning safeguarding children cos they signed up to the wrong side of history.

And now they want our votes back...