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

That isn't what I claimed.....

You said this: 'Women have not been "denied rape support" but they have been unable to access single sex rape support in some cases', totally and utterly failing to realise that the latter actually IS the former.

And no, I'm not very interested in getting into a bullfight where posters twist my words.

Keir Starmer is not in government yet. He is not in charge of any rape support centres. It is completely ridiculous to say anything that's happening to women today is down to his "misogyny" which is where this started.

Go and shout at the Tories about it. They've been in power for 14 years, this happened under their watch and they've done nothing. Meanwhile they take money off actual misogynists, have had a prime minister with questions about his own attitudes to women (sexual harassment/domestic violence) and several MPs that have been investigated for rape/sexual assault/watching porn in the commons. Oh and sending dick pics to strangers.

No it isn't. The services are there, some women are not using them if they are mixed sex.

And don't try to make out that I'm somehow not in favour of single sex rape support service because that would be bollocks. It is scandalous. However the charities involved are refusing to provide single sex services. It is fuck all to do with Starmer.

But you go ahead and continue with your misrepresentations.

Yes it is. Because some women simply can't use them. Which denies them rape support services.

I also haven't said that you're against single sex support services. I've just quoted back to you what you said and explained why the latter leads to the former. So you're actually misrepresenting me.

And really, how dare you complain about misrepresentation when it's your persistent MO on these threads? The utter bloody cheek of it.

It's a relief to know that someone thinks you did ok.

You did say women have not been denied rape support Adam. Here. Perhaps re read your offensive, rude, drunken rants and own the nonsense in them.

Labour are the architects of the two Acts that are the bedrock of all these issues, Acts they frequently tell us all they are proud of. They were warned when GRA was being debated what it would lead to and they dismissed it out of hand. In fact they even admitted at the time it was being debated that it would lead to women having to refer to a TW rapist as 'she' and they didn't fucking care.

The Tories have been asleep at the wheel in not tearing up or amending those Acts but the current state of play is a direct result of those Acts and Labour know it.

'And no, I'm not very interested in getting into a bullfight where posters twist my words.'

The irony is strong in this one.

Plus, quoting back your own words and explaining what you've failed to realise actually isn't twisting your words. It's just an explanation of what you're failing to understand. Which is different to when you read something, and then respond to something which hasn't been said, which actually has twisted the writer's words.

The Tories have been asleep at the wheel in not tearing up or amending those Acts but the current state of play is a direct result of those Acts and Labour know it.

And that's the difference between the parties. The Tories have been usefully complacent during their tenure. Labour would've gone full guns blazing and done it deliberately. An uncomfortable truth for many, it seems.

It is enabled by every misogynistic politician who tries to change the definition of woman to make men feel better. Including Starmer.

OK. So as no one is proposing repealing the GRA, that means all politicians then. Including Cates and Badenoch. Gotcha. Makes sense.

Claiming I mean something other than what I wrote, by taking it out of context and then telling me I'm disgusting as posters were doing last night, is misrepresentation and twisting.

If you think I'm misrepresenting you, give me examples. I don't think I have. I've disagreed or asked questions but I haven't said "fluffy says this, she is disgusting"

You can tell the future can you? You have no idea what they would or wouldn't have done.

We know what the Tories have done. Nothing.

Women have not been "denied rape support" but they have been unable to access single sex rape support in some cases. That's a charity decision, not Labour.
True. Not rude or offensive. Or a "rant".

Explaining how what you've written doesn't necessarily mean what you think you've written, isn't twisting at all. Maybe it's unintended consequence, but you actually apologised for a similar episode on another thread which maybe you don't remember because you were drunk.

You persistently twist people's posts (and things you've read online). And you're constantly being told you're doing it. I've given you one example a couple of posts back as well.

Bearing in mind how often you're told you're doing it, it's rather disingenuous (at best) of you to now ask for examples of it.

Bollocks. It's obvious what Labour would've done.

This thread is an example of how we know: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3824781-Lisa-Nandy-says-child-rapists-should-be-in-women-s-prisons-if-they-identify-as-female

OK. Well thanks for the feedback.

It's bad form to pull stuff across threads and certainly bad form to make implications about people.

I'd say it's "disingenuous at best of you to repeatedly follow me round threads making snide digs". So how about i try even harder to be clear about what people are saying and you try to stop doing that? Win/win.

Lisa Nandy has been demoted and so is no kind of indication of "what Labour would have done".

They were unelectable when she said that. Any reality where JC was elected is so far away from this world that it is fairly odd to speculate about.

I don't follow you at all. Get over yourself! I'd prefer a block user option, if truth be told.

And you're the one who disingenuously asked for examples. Maybe don't ask if you don't want to be told the truth.

Let’s redefine all the words so we can shout gotcha at people we disagree. Let’s have our heads so far up our own arses that we can’t see truth when it bites us on that arse. It’s working so well and we’re winning people over to our cause with every sentence. And most importantly, we’re stopping people saying things we don’t like by filling the thread up with blah blah blah. GOTCHA blah blah blah

k?

Except every word you write demonstrates more clearly why I can’t vote Labour. Your twisting and turning to claim the high ground is so manipulative and dishonest, and buys right into the authoritarian handbook. Ironic as that’s your big fear.

The boards are far too small. We keep bumping into the same obstacles.

No matter how frantic some posters are with their denials, there can be no doubt that Labour have repeatedly smeared and aggressively bullied women in and out of the Labour party. And the "oh no he's not a misogynist" Starmer has failed to condemn or speak out about any of it. He's had loads of opportunities, but fails every time - as he picked the wrong side of history

So when they come looking for my vote back, unless there's some acknowledgement from Starmer that he got it wrong, ( see Wes Streeting if he's struggling to find the words), I'll treat Labour as I treat all aggressive misogynistic men - avoid them.

So you admit that you did say that despite your detailed of that fact this morning. You're still all over the place.

Dear God. It's no better this morning. I'm going to stop engaging with Adam this morning too. We're just getting a continuation of last nights drunken debacle and it genuinely is starting to feel cruel to let Adam keep digging holes for themself. There's no real points being made anyway. Adam doesn't think denying women as a sex class, and all the associated negative consequences of that is misogynistic. Everyone else does. OK, this is a free world. Adam is entitled to their view even if it convinces no one else.