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

It's a well known TRA tactic. Just saying! 🤔

I have contacted MNHQ to ask why and to explain exactly what it was that I said. Given that quite a few threads have posts where people have got quite heated I cant understand why an opinion that reflects my experience of being on some threads should be censored.

I did look up the MN guidelines which didn't clarify anything but was interested to see they have a policy on trolling https://www.mumsnet.com/i/trolls and it made me wonder whether they should have one for mansplaining?

I've had a warning about trolling, as well. Seems that pointing out deliberate derailing is going to get you a deletion

You were told then? I only found out because I clicked on the link in the 'You've been thanked' email and it took me to a deleted post! 🤷‍♀️

Weekend staff are more prone to using the delete button, it might be worth asking the Monday office hours staff about it?

Either via email or by making a post in Site Stuff?

There used to be a long running 'Public service announcement' thread that discussed these kinds of issues and posting patterns in a very helpful way. I've not seen it for ages and I'm not sure what happened to it - maybe that too fell foul of the rules in the end?

I think someone has had an itchy trigger finger! It's probably easier than justifying the bullshit labour take on 'whether women as a sex class even exists'

I've just done an advanced search for those 'public service announcement' threads and nothing came up. I will draw my own conclusions.

They definitely have fallen foul of the rules before and women have got a slap on the wrist for posting on them.

I asked MNHQ a while back and had very clear guidance you might find interesting.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/site_stuff/5002264-political-postsgeneral-election

From my perspective the rules are clear, the Troll policy linked upthread is clear too.

Yes, tempting though it is to warn women about disrupters, de-railers and twits in general, HQ will often take a dim view.

I guess they think one should just personally ignore it. Which works, obvs.

I guess they think one should just personally ignore it. Which works, obvs.

It does.

This thread has been quite enlightening.

It's brought to mind reverse psychology. The more that I am being told that someone isn't a misogynist etc etc, the more convinced he is (not that I needed convincing). The more I'm told 'nothing to see here' regarding the LP lack of intention to protect women and children, the more I'm convinced that there IS something to see here.

Very disappointed that the Cass review has not led to the LP (as far as I know but I haven't been online all that much) to openly retract it's statement on conversion therapy because I can't see how they can ban 'all forms of' conversion therapy at the same time as following the Cass guidelines.

Given that the LP know that there are a fair few voters for which this is the single issue, along with women's rights, it's surprising that they haven't more unequivocally stated that now they have this 'new information' (in inverted commas because it isn't new at all) they will back track on the conversion therapy promise. I'm not sure Streeting's statements go far enough.

Labour are proposing implementing the Bill developed by the Conservatives under Truss. It is here:

www.gov.uk/government/consultations/banning-conversion-therapy/banning-conversion-therapy

The government is aware of concerns regarding the impact of legislation. We recognise there is a plurality of experience in this area and that there are adults who seek counselling to help them live a life that they feel is more in line with their personal beliefs. We do not intend to ban adults from seeking such counselling freely, but consent requirements will be robust and stringent. The person entering the arrangement must have freely consented and received all the appropriate information about the potential impacts, short and longer term, of such counselling to allow them to do so, otherwise this would amount to an offence.^

Wes Streeting has been clear an incoming Labour government will work to implement Cass' recommendations.

https://twitter.com/wesstreeting/status/1777835770184634751

The problem for many posters on here is they won't believe it until they see it. Which is not going to happen if Labour aren't voted in.

I find the opposite to you dime. The more posters attack "the left", shut down dissenting views and use hyperbole like calling Starmer an "extreme misogynist" the more I think those posters are not using their logical brain to make decisions.

Of course pro women pp on FWR are being logical. It’s one strength which finally is showing in the move away from harm, atm for children in Cass review and stopping puberty blockers but hopefully more changes to come.

We’ve been consistent in rationally pointing to the harm and now have the Cass Review thankfully backing it up.

I expect Karmer has made a statement on the Cass report, I just haven't gotten round to reading it yet. I'll look for it after lunch.

Realistically, MN cannot control derailers. There are tonnes of threads that deviate from the subject of the OP, and often that's what makes MN interesting and fun. How do you distinguish a deliberate derail?

As MN cannot do it, it is up to all of us how we respond, when we suspect someone is derailing. I'm not criticising anyone, as I am 100% guilty of this myself but, quite often, FWR posters just cannot let something go, even when it's obvious that the person with whom they are arguing is not open to debate and, in some cases (am not saying this is true of anyone on this thread), is not arguing in good faith.

It's incredibly frustrating when a good discussion gets lost in a fight between two or three posters - again, recognising that I am myself sometimes one of the people guilty of this. We all need to have the discipline to move on from a particular point or poster, in the interests of everyone else and of useful debate.

@MissLucyEyelesbarrow yes that's all fair comment.

quite right, fully agree

Yes, I've noticed that too

Yes. I can (unfortunately) be like a dog with a bone when I get going. 😳😬

However, I do find it easier not to engage when others also aren't, as I can't then be drawn back in by a discussion being had with somebody else.

It's interesting about "derailing".

I think a derail is when people go onto a totally unrelated topic. E.g. coming onto a thread about conditions for women at work and starting talking about male soldier deaths in WW1.

A difference of opinion on a relevant point if debate is not a derail. And if all threads are kept to violent agreement about whatever is being discussed, that's an echo chamber, not a discussion.

I linked MNHQ post upthread because they were quite clear about having misrepresentation challenged on a thread. It is entirely possible to disagree without insulting people, troll hunting or making accusations.

It's also 100% impossible to determine if someone is "bad faith" or has a difference of opinion. If one finds oneself regularly thinking "bad faith" poster, best strategy is first to challenge your own cognitive dissonance and then choose if you want to disengage or make your point for the lurkers.