Some women won’t accept breadcrumbing, until they are sure the Labour loaf won’t be mouldy come the General Election

[IwantToRetire]

Why should these women, or any woman, restrain their anger or sweeten their bitterness? Children have been seriously harmed because those same women were ignored — granted not only by Labour politicians, but the women in those parties are right to expect that theirs are the politicians who should most apologise, because they turned a blind eye and a cold shoulder to the left-wing women who still did not desert them for doing so.

I think any request for women to restrain such angry outbursts shows a level of class prejudice and snobbery. Working class women, for example, are often categorised as not being very clever or strategic when they express anger, as though they are too lacking in intelligence to restrain themselves. The suggestion being that spontaneous anger is a limited and limiting response. It is unfair to say women are right to be angry about what has happened but “not that angry” or “not like that.”

Isn’t it the case that incandescent rage splattered over social media gathers the attention of politicians in a way that a privately furrowed brow and a stern letter does not? Likewise, feeling hopeful and grateful at the first sign of political breadcrumbs scattered in the direction of women, is not the same as dragging them into the open and making them apologise and commit to firm and concrete reparation of harms done. Honest righteous anger yields better results sometimes, than quiet, patient strategic waiting, which might not. Some women won’t accept breadcrumbing, until they are sure the Labour loaf won’t be mouldy come the General Election. Permit them their rage.

Part of a much longer article at https://thecritic.co.uk/a-labour-of-unrequited-love/

What kind of voters is the Labour Party actually trying to appeal to? They're doing nothing to win back the disillusioned leftists and the pissed-off feminists, the Corbynite branch consider Starmer a red tie Tory, and the TRAs will never be satisfied with any political party. Meanwhile the disillusioned Tory voters have been given little idea of what meaningful changes Labour can and do want to make.

I can see some appeal from people who've suffered under the Tories so much that they'd vote not-Tory out of desperation. I can see some appeal from the wealthier social classes who can look good without having to sacrifice too much of their lifestyles. And I don't doubt that Labour will win this election.

But how many people in the voter base are going to be enthusiastically and unapologetically pro-Labour?

He doesn't have the courage or honesty to say it straight out, but by saying 99% of women don't have penises, KS is saying TWAW. AdamRyan is adding the gloss that KS means that TWAW legally if they have a certificate. It comes to the same thing. That men can be women (if they have a GRC). That a male body can be a female body. That sex is not entirely biological.

Someone who believes that a certificate or a feeling deep inside makes a man a woman is a misogynist who cannot be trusted to uphold women's sex-based rights and protect our single sex spaces, services and sports.

Strange isn't it that even on a forum aimed at women, that a thread that is about how women feel about the Labour Party based on the actual reality of how they have been treated and what has or hasnot been said by party leaders, there are still some who think they can come and tell women that how they think is wrong think. ie our feelings aren't real and / or we are too stupid to understand what these feelings really mean.

Let alone the fact that one contributor has now admitted they dont think sex and gender are an issue.

Next thing you now when someone starts a thread about how they feel about men after being disrespected and ignored and physically abused, there will be someone who will come along and say, aren't you silly you women, not only are you not intelligent enough to think but your emotions are also wrong.

But what is so absolutely astonishing is that if these posts aren't meant to encourage women to feel more positive about Labour they are a complete own goal.

Anyone with even a smidgeon of brain power would be thinking how can Labour engage with women who feel like this? Think about how to provide confidence in Labour.

But in fact they do the exact opposite. Confirm, as the article explained so well, Labour think women should just STFU and do what they are told. And daily bless the Labour Party for being so considerate as to allow us to be part and even vote for them.

Women know your place.

Sometimes cant help feeling that these posters who pop up to admonish us for being so naughty as to question the Labour Party are in fact Tory apparatchiks fermenting dissent!!!

Don’t be ridiculous. Labour as a party are in thrall to this malevolent ideology. Indeed it was Labour who introduced the very GRA from whence the problems arise.

Labour’s party line is pushing, and defending, this flat earth bs. Even now, still, no matter how morally bankrupt, untrustworthy and downright dishonest they show themselves to be on the subject of women and women’s rights. I don’t think the Conservatives are better in many ways, but Labour get the medal for their complete and utter contempt for women on this one. I am a single issue voter now. If women and girls don’t have equal rights which allow us to navigate society fairly and safely, it doesn’t matter how nice the society which favours males will be. Places and spaces are knowingly being made more dangerous or/and uncomfortable for women and girls. Some will self-exclude. If they can. Women and girls in more vulnerable situations may not have the choice. Elderly care etc.. Funding for sports fields and changing areas that women and girls can’t compete fairly, or safely on. And so on. I won’t be fiddling nicely for men’s priorities, or primacy, while the female half of the world is being deliberately burnt down.

Lisa Nandy wants the poor male rapists, and other violent chappies to go to into the female estate if the rapists wish to do so. Chappie only has to say he is a woman. Imagine being locked up for assaulting and abusing women then being given carte blanche to cause more distress to women - locked up women inmates who cannot get away from the situation. Labour representatives supporting the right of these men to torment women.

At the moment Starmer says that Ca 1% of women have penises. Will that rise in accordance with the percentage of men claiming they are ‘women’ rises? It is not based on reality. Maybe in the future Starmer will claim that fewer women have a cervix than have a penis and scrotum. Whatever way the wind blows, or number of chappies claim they are women that day. Do we believe that Starmer believes that men are women? And that women have penises?

We won’t mention Lammy and men just getting fixed up with a cervix. They can definitely do it in the spare parts shop. And what about his respect for women’s rights? Any at all, or is it more a snarl at women wanting rights are like hoarding dinosaurs. Nasty women wanting rights.

When Jess Phillips read out the list of women murdered by men, she included a male as one of that category of victims. He doesn’t belong on that list. A charade for Phillips to include a male among the female victims of male violence. Disrespectful to the female victims of male violence.

Her own party chuntering at Rosie Duffield.

Just lately, Dawn Foster (babies aren’t born with a sex) apparently using parliamentary privilege to spread disinformation (according to Dr Cass) about the Cass Report. I bow to the good Doctors words, so won’t say wilful lies.

Yeah, that lot will make sure women aren’t put at an increased risk of harm and distress by men in prison, refuges, hospitals, schools, society in general etc. etc. Those fine upstanding supporters of this abuse against women’s rights will make sure women and girls will be recognised and respected in society. Pull the other one.

I would fear they will stop any recovery of women’s rights cold in its tracks. I have never voted Conservative in my life. I now look back at my previous votes for the Lib Dem’s or Labour as something that would never happen with the parties as they now exist.

The Young Earth Creationists in Northern Ireland don’t appear so much of an outlier now. Or even relatively more anti-science. England, Scotland and Wales have launched their very own anti science, flat-earther equivalent politicians. As they have more power, I think they are much more malignant to women in particular, and society in general. All performing monkeys to show homage to this post modern effluent (to quote Dawkins).

Do you remember why they were voted out in the end?

In both cases their "fixes" were starting to come apart at the seams when they failed to be reelected.

Top post, @Cailleach1

I am so fed up of being lectured about this issue being a ‘single issue’ and instead I should be thinking about the ‘greater good’. This is not a single issue. This is about women’s fundamental human rights. If we are not recognised as a sex class within law then we are ultimately second class citizens - and for me that underpins everything else.

If they don’t care about women being recognised within legislation as a sex class, why would they care about women’s health, education, disabled women, women of colour, working class women etc.

Women always come as a second thought…’once we’ve sorted out this and that - then we’ll look after women and their rights’.

Not this time for me. For me, once our legitimacy and rights are protected in law, I will fight/protest and campaign for everything else. If our rights as a sex class are brushed away, we won’t be getting them back anytime soon and we will be in a much weaker position to have any influence or say over anything else.

Exactly, you'd have thought that, if they really wanted to persuade me back, they'd be trying to give me some hope by talking to me about all the good women still in the party fighting our corner. The Labour Women's Declaration for example, (although I've a feeling I already know more about them than they do).

If the process is simplified so that just one doctor is required to give a diagnosis of GD, wouldn't you just get some gender woo doctor setting up a clinic dishing out easy diagnoses of GD for money via online consultations?

While Starmer says only 0.1% of women are biologically male (which is silly enough in itself) he also means that 100% of men who want to be women can be. There's no conduct, attitude or criminality that can disqualify someone, all they need is to convince a doctor being male makes them sad.

You have not seen what has happened to this country during the last 13 years?... and all you care about is a single issue which, while important, is a very fringe problem compared to the rest of the shit show?

Go and direct that speech to Labour, the Lib Dems, the Greens etc...

They're the ones with the batshit single issue.

And they don't even have the excuse that it's "important". It is just batshit, and they're prepared to beclown themselves over it, demonstrating - at best - lack of character and inability to do the right thing when under pressure.

If they think it's so important to beat the Conservatives, how can they be so cavalier about making themselves look less competent than them and pushing people away?

Yes to this

The “Labour has a clear policy on this” line has been used on my doorstep, too.

I asked for details - was it ‘safe’ spaces or single sex spaces, did it include any biological males (eg if they have a GRC) and was told it was all fine. I said I’d wait and see what the manifesto says, and will be reading it in detail, and with an eye to any vagueness or fudges.

My local Labour candidate seems on top of the issues and well qualified. It would
be a shame if the manifesto made me unable to vote for them. Especially as I’m in a very marginal seat.

My recent Labour canvasser was a decent woman, doing her best but she didn't seem to understand the difference between 'safe spaces' and 'single sex spaces'.

My canvassers just refused to talk about it! Listened to me, then ran away. I know our council is really captured though, so I imagine they'd have been more Nandy than Duffield if they had engaged.

I really hope someone comes round so I can ask.

The LD councillor candidate got really flustered; this isn’t what local elections are about, why are you asking this?!!!

Its exhausting.

I actually voted Labour at the last GE (having previously voted Liberal/LD all my voting life, because I’m an out-and-out centrist) but did so on the basis that they had the one standout good policy of all the parties.

The tone and approach of those promoting and defending Labour on this particular issue on here makes it very unlikely I will give them my vote again.

Our council made it a local issue when they passed a motion saying TWAW and TMAM. If it wasn't a local issue, they shouldn't have wasted time on such bullshit.

I'm hoping our prospective Labour MP comes round before the GE. I've met him once before, and he seemed nice. I didn't get to ask him much though, as he was visiting the allotments at the time. No sign of idiocy on this issue on his TwiX account.

I just don't know if a brand new MP would be able to do anything other than toe the party line though. I suppose it depends what things they're Whipped on.

HelenaTranscart · 19/04/2024 19:19

I don't trust Starmer and the swivel-eyed lunatics like Lisa (TWAW) Nandy who surround him. I won't vote for them.

I couldn't agree more.

I hate the Tories but I'll hold my nose and vote Conservative on this single issue.

I can't bring myself to vote Tory and am likely to spoil my ballot paper, Labour is almost certain to win where I live, anyway. I can't find anything to suggest that Alan Campbell is TRA, but neither can I find anything to suggest that he's a sex realist.

Well since the few decent experienced MP’s in the party aren’t able to do anything either, I suspect you’re right.

AdamRyan

if you're so convinced you can trust the Labour Party on this issue, why do you think it is they're not coming right out and explaining their exact stance?

If they don't believe that rapists should be sent to women's prisons why don't they say so? If they don't think that women wanting to retain sex segregated spaces are dinosaurs, why don't they just say so?

Why do you think, personally, given your allegiance to the party, they're not reassuring women in a way that comes across as sincere and believable?

When women who would traditionally vote labour are left feeling utterly gaslit, lied to and fobbed off, and the party is in no doubt about this, why aren't they doing something about it?

I agree with you about the definitions snowy. I'd prefer to see TW being referred to as TW, and the GRA being a way to give them legal recognition as a separate group to "men".

Unfortunately no parties are proposing repealing the GRA. And only Labour are saying they will change it at all.

Therefore all the arguing about "Labour say 0.1% of women have a penis" is irrelevant. That's what we are getting after the election, regardless of who wins. At least Labour are honest about it.

I understand all the women who feel let down and betrayed by them. I don't understand the people who claim to be "ex Labour" and are repeating incorrect statements about Labour's position. Those people are just doing Les Anderson's job for him.

I think because thanks to Lee Anderson it's very clear the Conservatives want the election to be fought on this issue.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/lee-anderson-tories-election-trans-b2282185.html

You don't take a fight to an opponent on their chosen territory unless you want to lose.

Also all the parties are going to keep quiet until an election is called. Then we will see what's in their manifesto.

Why do you think, personally, given your allegiance to the party, they're not reassuring women in a way that comes across as sincere and believable?

I've only recently become a party member and I can't answer why other people don't find Starmer sincere and believable. Or even just more sincere and believable than Sunak. I do think he's sincere. If he was insincere he'd be parroting what people want to hear knowing he was going to let them down.

I wasn't a member under Corbyn, Corbyn and momentum seemed ridiculously misogynistic. Starmer seems to have done a good job of clearing them out, as shown by L'OJ's recent flounce.

Starmer has used two conflicting lines

The adult female one and penis one. Which one is the lie?

And he’s very keen not to see the issue raised with the ‘no one’s talking about it’ line

The very last thing he wants to do is respond accurately to direct questions

If he was insincere he'd be parroting what people want to hear knowing he was going to let them down.

Who would he be letting down?? TRAs?

Confirming that he agrees prisons and sport should be sex segregated shouldn't be 'parroting what people want to hear', ffs.

You don't take a fight to an opponent on their chosen territory unless you want to lose.

He should totally ignore women's and girls rights and safety on the basis that the Tories aren't. Got it.

As a Labour Party promotor Adam, you have the opposite effect.

You don't take a fight to an opponent on their chosen territory unless you want to lose.

Or, here's a cunning plan - how about NOT FIGHTING THEM on that territory?

When they're clearly in the right?

Or do Labour think they have to fight on principle?