KJK standing for Bristol Central

[Sausagenbacon]

I'm delighted- someone to vote for !

What @dougalfromthemagicroundabout said. I'd be pretty unimpressed if that was the response I'd received. It seems obvious that the EA requires clarification, as @BackToLurk says. And 'leave it up to sporting bodies' really isn't good enough on TW in women's sport. What's wrong with 'no government funding unless they comply with biology'? But I suppose that would 'send a signal' and be unnecessarily confrontational? 🙄

It's so fucking wishy washy. I hate responses like that. What's the bloody point?

The response on women's sports is just 'Do it to Julia' i.e. even though we recognise women are likely to suffer permanent harm and unfair competition if forced (without consent) to compete with men, we don't want to be the ones to say this out loud in case the angry violent men come for us instead.

So we'll let the sports organisations deal with the violent tantrums instead.

Thangham is GC so it seems odd to stand against her. Especially when there's a very real risk that Greens could get in (I think Greens are good on a lot of issues but not women!).

So, has she said anything publicly to back up that she's GC? You know, where it counts.

She's also an excellent, hardworking MP.

I would like to have seen PP stand against Penny Mordaunt.
How that woman has the nerve to talk about women's safety after her embarrassing webchat on this board...!

I agree.
Doesn't mean that I'm deluded enough to think she's GC in any meaningful way.

I'm pretty sure Greens will get in, so for me, voting POW will send more of a message to Labour to pull their socks up on the issue.

I will however give TD a bit more grilling first in the hope she says something that I can be confident in voting for her on. If she's too pandering towards the TRAs in spite of her GC views then that, to me, is worse than being a TRA sympathiser!

I'm going to ask her whether she would vote in favour of defining sex in law properly and ask her views on the conversion therapy bill.

My dh has done a lot of canvassing for Thangham here. Gender never comes up on the doorstep. But the worry is Left Wing voters, often Labour, saying they'll vote Green , sometimes because of the Palestinian situation, sometimes because they want a change.they foresee Labour romping in with a massive majority and don't want that.
So I don't believe the gender issue will have any effect, it'll just scoop up voters like me, who wouldn't have voted for any of them.

I don't understand these people who a 'voting on Gaza'. What do they want/expect a Labour govt to do? They can't stop the war, or influence either side. They could commit to fully recognising a Palestine state, but even that would only be a token gesture. But it seems these days, token gestures are often preferable to real-life decisions that can make a real difference.

Yes

It is a voting factor for me. I want the UK government (of any persuasion) to put diplomatic pressure on Israel to stop killing and displacing so many Palestinians in their attempt to "eradicate Hamas". There is an awful article on the BBC today showing pictures of rubbish dumps next to the tents in Khan Younis, because all the infrastructure for collecting and safely disposing of refuse has been destroyed.

As with many things I like Labour's more centrist position (pressure for a ceasefire while condemning Hamas) but I can see why not everyone agrees.

There's a long history to this, and this is not the thread. But for some Labour Party members it is accumulative.

eg that in trying to get rid of anti semitism in the Labour Party, there was then a (sucessful) push to make it more than being anti-semitic but specifically pro Zionist. Many Jewish members of Labour have been pushed out, in much the same way as GC women, have for questioning the top down party line on what you can and cant say about Israel. (There is a lot of bitter feeling about this, because many of those pushed out are long time party members from families of party members.)

And more recently Starmer said in an interview that it was okay for Israel to use withholding food and water - which can be seen as a war crime.

He has later tried to retract, but it is comments like this that have led to him allowing family loyalties (in this instance his wife) to take precedence over principled behaviour. ie if you say it is okay for Israel to do this, how can you then criticise any other country or insurgent force from doing the same.

So for many, not just the Muslim community the idea that a man who seems unable to act on principle, and could be said to be biased, to be the Prime Minister of the UK is deeply worrying. Although in reality the only country with real power to influence Israel is the US. But in terms of arms sales, etc., it is a consideration.

Just to say, and i know I posted this before, just dont think KJK is standing in Bristol Central to oust Labour, but to make a dent in the Green Party campaign to get an MP, because they are so TWAW - and the added satisfaction that if she did help stop a Green Party sucess it would mean defeating the Green Party leader.

My personal favourite would have been for KJK to stand against Angela Raynor!

He has later tried to retract, but it is comments like this that have led to him allowing family loyalties (in this instance his wife) to take precedence over principled behaviour.

Is his wife part of the Israeli government?

Is his wife part of the Israeli government?

No - any more than his child is part of Stonewall, which has also been referenced as him being influenced by family members.

Wouldn't have thought I needed to spell this out.

How to say nothing in a whole heap of waffle

I have seen recent correspondence with Thangam's office about the failure to provide any female only abuse support in Bristol, because of the Council's requirement all service providers pretend TWAW. The silence from Thangam on this issue has been, and continues to be, deafening. And to be honest, very disappointing.
https://childrenoftransitioners.org/2024/04/13/the-trans-lobby-has-destroyed-provision-for-female-abuse-victims-in-bristol-and-elsewhere-and-will-do-the-same-for-the-victims-bill/

Thanks for this, I shall ask about it in my reply!

I have seen recent correspondence with Thangam's office about the failure to provide any female only abuse support in Bristol, because of the Council's requirement all service providers pretend TWAW

Is that true? ie that groups have to agree to trans inclusive support services, as opposed to what other funders do, which is that there should be single sex provision (ie based on sex) but must also offer trans services.

Not just about the election, but this should be made more public as even by Labour Party statements about supporting the SSE, why (unless Nicola Sturgeon has moved south of the border) would a local authority think that. Or do they want to twin with Brighton.

Maybe, after the election is over, and certainly by the autumn we need to compile a list of local authorities who are imposing this.

And then challenge the new Labour Government to stand by their supposed support of the SSE, to instruct councils etc., to make sure they fund such provision.

I don't understand these people who a 'voting on Gaza'

I agree. If Netanyahu won't listen to Biden then he sure as hell won't listen to Carla Denyer. Total waste of a vote and means Bristol will lose a solid MP and a voice at the top levels of government.

Yes it's true- not helped by language so maybe even the commissioners aren't aware of the dire situation for women in need of single sex services locally.
There's an article by a local organisation on sex matters website giving the links- the council will not do business with companies and organisations that believe that sex is a material reality https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/is-your-local-council-passing-unlawful-policies/

Providers say their services are 'women only' - because they pretend TWAW. The council's commissioners should be requiring single sex options alongside other options (easily done!) but they are failing to do so.

And to be very clear , it's not just domestic abuse support organisations - all of the support organisations funded by the council are the same. One that particularly shocks me is Sarsas, who provide rape and sexual abuse support in Bristol. They have a 'women only' group support option for survivors- but don't tell female rape victims it's actually mixed sex, as they pretend TWAW. (Yes even the 'women only' rape support group includes any man who identifies as a woman- it's so cruel). I think this is what 'sarah surviving' is bringing to court soon as this was her experience in Brighton. They could easily have both single sex and mixed sex options but they won't.

If anything, the experiences of trans identified people can be argued as distinct (especially if they have medicalised) - if you had "queer" or "trans" group therapy, the support could be much more personalised and useful!

It just seems to make so much sense to have single-sex provision for this, plus a third space for people in that community. Madness not to really!

It's disgraceful, reading that Sex Matters link, and the CoT one upthread. Women are shut out at every turn. And it's obviously quite deliberate. The new women are to be catered for first, and the old-fashioned cunty type are much less important.