Keir Starmer to end Tory Culture Wars

[Sausagenbacon]

Oh what a relief. Where would we be without him?

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/exclusive-keir-starmer-says-he-will-end-tory-culture-wars-if-he-becomes-prime-minister_uk_6666d7d2e4b02fc48bf3ec39?d_id=7763591&ncid_tag=tweetlnkukhpmg00000001&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=uk_main

No, not really, Cassie.

If you disagree, you can either explain why those things are not true, or you can engage in childish game of, "I know you are, you said you are, so what am I then?"

Your choice.

OK
Let's take the example of "Violence and and the threat of violence are acceptable for a virtuous cause." as a core belief of the modern left.

I have seen absolutely no examples of violence and the threat of violence being condoned or accepted by anyone on the "modern left" in the UK. In fact I've seen violence being universally condemned. I have no idea why PP wrote such a statement, but I find it extremely offensive and stereotypical bollocks.

It is not possible to "rebut" a prejudiced statement like that. It's impossible to prove a negative. All I could do is ask for evidence, which will turn no doubt into a rabbit hole of GB news esque nonsense.

So I parodied it with similarly prejudiced statements. Strangely you don't like those, although you do agree with PPs.

I would like to see any examples of people from the left condemning violent and threatening behaviour against women's rights supporters at speaking events and film showings in public venues, universities and open air spaces.

I would like to see condemnation of signs like "Decapitate TERFS" from leading members of the SNP, a self-professed "progressive" party, some of whom were photographed grinning in front of one such sign.

• the key duty of companies is to make money for shareholders. This is the most fascinating of all these trends. It used to be that what one would demand of businesses is that they maintain working conditions, avoid exploitation, and generally act in an economically liberal manner. This has been replaced with the expectation that the key requirement of businesses is to make money for shareholders. Thus, Nike can employ exploitative (and some would say slave) labour in the developing world, but it doesn't matter as long as it turns a healthy profit and strong dividends.

I don't normally engage with your posts but just wanted to bring this up as it's patently false.

Under the Cadbury Code and Combined Code, a Board's principle fiduciary duty was to maximise shareholder profit.

Starting in 2015 the Codes have been amended to optimising value for all stakeholders, and institutional investors in US and UK increasingly require stringent ESG criteria before they are allowed by their own compliance committees to invest.

This is why for example the Shein IPO is having such a hard time getting away and why it won't be eligible for the FTSE 100. It falls down on employment and supply chain/environmental standards.

So there has been a trend in equity investing and corporate codes but in exactly the opposite direction from what you are suggesting - it's gone from in the past enshrining profit above everything to demanding a much more holistic view of stakeholder value.

The fact that you can get such a basic tenet of corporate practice wrong, I mean this isn't even MBA stuff it's A Level Business stuff, makes me wonder how much I can trust in any of your posts.

Is 'bringing people together' the new rebranded slogan for all spaces being mixed sex?

My only hope with this utterly dimwitted man is that he will seek to end this whole debate by simply doing nothing and changing nothing and hoping it all fizzles out.

I made it up to parody this:

• The key duty of companies is defer to progressive viewpoints: this is the most fascinating of all these trends. It used to be that what one would demand of businesses is that they maintain working conditions, avoid exploitation, and generally act in an economically liberal manner. This has been replaced with the expectation that the key requirement of businesses is to act in a socially liberal manner. Thus, Nike can employ exploitative (and some would say slave) labour in the developing world, but it doesn't matter as long as it sends the right social message about diversity.

Again, that went unremarked on by you, so you have also neatly proved my point.
I can't trust anything an echo chamber says either, so no worries about your low level of trust in my posts.

Do you think TRAs are representative of the "progressive left"?
In that case, can I say Tommy Robinson is representative of the modern Conservative alt right?

Please would you explain

Sexual essentialism is the basis of the trans movement

Wouldn’t sexual essentialism be the idea that there are two ( biological) sexes and no one can change their sex, trans people included.

Isn’t it more that gender essentialism, based on the cultural stereotypes associated with either sex, is the basis for the trans movement?

Very traditional, Christian ( and probably Muslim) people probably believe in both the idea that there are only two sexes, and that the cultural expression of these should follow the traditional stereotypes.

No let's talk about gender critical beliefs in the UK.

Gender critical beliefs in the UK are predominantly left wing. They are founded on the left wing liberal position about human rights as they formed after world war II.

They formed out of the understanding that the state and large organisations and individuals could abuse, harm and exploit people and that certain people were more vulnerable than others so needed particular protections.

That's where the European Court of Human Rights came from.

Within this, it was understood that all people were deserving of rights regardless of whether they had done something wrong. Because it was about the principle of justice and the dangers of injustice. (Remember a feeling of injustice over the settlement from WWI was one of the drivers for WWII).

It also recognised that sometimes there was a need to balance interests because they produced conflict points. The key point was to look at the individual situation and protect life first, prevent harms second and protect dignity next and lastly to respect others.

This crucially was something that didn't happen in the US because it wasn't directly affected by the war in the say way. So post war ideas of rights have developed in different ways in the US and Canada compared to Europe.

There's also the fact that the UK and Europe have a long history of socialism which the US and Canada have had.

In the UK we identified that women face risks from male violence and discrimination. The equality act identifies this, not based on gender roles in society but on the basis of sex. Our laws about rape and sexual violence identify this. Indeed rape explicitly talks about this:

(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b)B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
(2)Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.
(3)Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.
(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.

Thats the actual text.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/1/crossheading/rape#:~:text=Rape-,1Rape,reasonably%20believe%20that%20B%20consents.

In theory, I guess you could argue it's legal to rape if you have a bit of paper say you are female because this makes your pronoun her and the law explicitly states 'his penis' not 'her penis' (not even joking here as legal language terms are explicit).

So we recognise sex based violence and sex based protections and dignity as legally bound.

Note the word sex. Not gender. The law explicitly separates sex from gender reassignment as two separate legal characteristics.

We do not talk about 'gender roles' as the basis of gender critical arguments in the UK. We are talking about the upholding of liberal perhaps even lefty law within the UK as it stands and how this has been undermined.

There are also further arguments in terms of the implications for homosexuals because this is defined as same sex attracted. Some see trans advocacy as 'transing away the gay'. If gender replaces sex this affects the rights of gay people most because they effectively lose some of their sex based protections in law.

A lot of the arguments over the last few years in the UK have been about the law not protecting those it was supposed to protect and Stonewall Law which is a misrepresentation of the law and in a nutshell is actually unlawful.

It isn't about the removal of the rights of trans people at all. It's about recognition of the existing previously agreed and understood need for protections for women and why they were created in the first place. Violence against women and the number of male offenders and the percentage of women affected is relevant to this. Also see sport and the creation of womens sport for a similar argument - including why anti doping measures were bought in - which included preventing harms to female competitors.

And yet here we are being lectured by someone who tells us that:

Gender traditionalism is the basis of the gender critical movement. The majority of the GC movement is based on the notion that sexes are inherently distinct, have discrete interests, and that the key defining point of an individual is that individual's sex

First of all, it's doing that thing of trying to conflate sex and gender as the same thing and having the same legitimate status from the word go.

No. The legally recognised position is sex. Gender reassignment is something different. This is a current legal position and has been for years. Women don't want to lose existing rights because they been fought for and were designed to help prevent male violence.

Male violence patterns are retained despite transition. This is kinda problematic. And indeed the data on sex offenders and transition is particularly troubling.

The efforts of activists to undermine the protections based on sex in prison isnt a radical one or a traditionalist one. It's a basic safeguarding one to protect human rights and prevent crime. It's not about societal roles.

Then we have actual biology. And how this isn't a 'gender roles'.

The problem with this poster is they keep reading too much American created bollocks and are trying to apply it to the UK against UK laws and established understandings of why women have rights.

They also then try and associate the Christian right politics from America to the UK. Which isn't reflective of the vast majority of gender critical women in the UK who come from liberal and/or left wing socialist backgrounds.

And then have the nerve to talk about internet sources for teenagers to use all.

No wonder young people are fucking confused because they are being taught toot wafflepiffle and then accuse others of 'brainwashing' rather than being able to explain the history, origins and purposes of why the law was created in the UK, it's intentions and why it's wording was and remains relevant and how when talking about this the difference between sex and gender is important.

This isn't about removing the rights of trans people. It's about the upholding the rights of women and homosexuals as well as maintaining the principles of freedom of speech.

Let's talk about the principles of freedom of speech in the UK.

Short abbreviated version: because we recognise that the state can abuse the people (hello EHCR) we recognise that provided you have a legitimate aim and purpose to what you say to prevent the harm of yourself or others, it is legitimate to say whatever you like. This includes the point about Authoritarianism and the importance of saying what you see with your own eyes (thanks George)

Then we have ethics. Medical ethics.

At this point I'm just going to say Mengele and Cass because quite frankly I'm bored of repeating myself to people who still willfully want to represent this as a 'culture war' rather than a ram raid attempt to slash and grab existing women's rights and homosexual rights.

The political bullshit in the US is marred by a whole load of other stuff. But above all it's not relevant to English Law!

Anyway as you were. People defending the status quo as outlined by parliament in various legal acts are not who you reasonably describe as 'brainwashed' rather than spouting toot toot wafflepiffle.

And Cassie if you continue to spout toot toot wafflepiffle in the manner of Boris Johnson bluffing his way through something he hasn't got the first fucking clue about I will continue to respond accordingly.

This is about UK law and legally defined terms.

Not some nonsense you made up.

Where's the meme about the centre staying put and the left running off into the distance shouting at the centre being far right when you need it?

Labour's manifesto is due out tomorrow, apparently. Let's see how clear he's being in that.

Also, what's he doing about WASPI women & aircraft carriers? Those are hot topics in my neck of the woods. If they're not in the manifesto, fully costed, I'm not voting Labour.

One more time, since you seem to be struggling:
I was parodying another poster who stereotyped the left.
Most of the words were PPs. Take it up with them if you object.

BULLSHIT

Honestly. Hilarious.

Compare and contrast:

PP: Racial essentialism is the basis of critical race theory. The majority of American race theory is based on the notion that races are inherently distinct, have discrete interests, and that the key defining point of an individual is that individual's race.

Me:
Gender traditionalism is the basis of the gender critical movement. The majority of the GC movement is based on the notion that sexes are inherently distinct, have discrete interests, and that the key defining point of an individual is that individual's sex.

Both are rubbish. Mine is a parody to make the point that this board accepts any old rubbish about "the left" but not the exact same about "the right". You've now wasted a huge amount of time arguing with that parody.

It easily shown. Go to page 9. Read it.

Here:
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5094288-keir-starmer-to-end-tory-culture-wars?reply=135964157&utm_campaign=reply&utm_medium=share

And here:
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5094288-keir-starmer-to-end-tory-culture-wars?reply=135964680&utm_campaign=reply&utm_medium=share

Here's my first reply
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5094288-keir-starmer-to-end-tory-culture-wars?reply=135964556&utm_campaign=reply&utm_medium=share

This is what I said I was doing:
Yes. Stated as fact. Adds as much to the debate as if I were to write a list of my view of "modern alt right conservative". But go on. I will and we will see if it adds to the debate or provokes outrage and accusations that I am a TRA.

And lo and behold.....outrage ensues.
It's very funny.

Cassie Please can you explain what you mean by alt right modern conservative ? It seems to be a new creature in the menagerie of political animals.

TOoooottttttttttt

The "substantive point" appears to be another posters view that teenagers go to 4chan and KF.

Nope, but well done on avoiding the issue of non-progressive teenagers once again. It's quite something.

And I'm going to ask once again, is Reddit a "forum"?

If you're not condemning the acts of violence perpetrated by trans activists on a daily basis against women who disagree with them - and in particular if you are a left wing politician happy to pose in front of a placard with the words "decapitate Terfs" on it, I will assume you condone it.

There'll be a fair amount of pandering shitwittery and something about trains.

Without in any way disrespecting contributions to this thread, I sat down to catch up with it, and overwhelming felt I was caught in groundhog day - again.

Is there not a way to carry forward discussion and contributions without getting sent off into a diversion.

Once you see the sign for a diversion you can decide to avoid it as being a detour we dont have time for.

I had wanted to post about how the concept of the culture wars is, if anything, weaponised by the media for no other reason than to get shrieking headlines, which masks what way be significant changes in attitudes. And in this instance what that may mean for women.

And that what is now called the culture wars is another arm of the queer activist strategy to challenge norms, for no other reason than to challenge, with out regard for how those "norms" may in some instances not be norms, but a way of life and attitudes that actually recognises the lived experience of, for example, women.

It is the right wing version of the "modern radical-progressive" as per the PP:
I think it's worth pausing for thought as to what "left wing" and "right wing" might actually mean. For instance, some of the core beliefs of the modern radical-progressive are:

I have a "non progressive teenager"!
He does not get his information from 4chan or KF (or reddit).

Why are you repeatedly asking me about reddit? Yes in my opinion it is a forum.

Just to remind everyone, this is a thread and I was replying to this point:

"Some of them are going to the far left it's true but under the rarae more and more are going far right. Look at the social media sites where young people REALLY say what they think - not Insta, Tik Tok and X, but kiwifarms, Reddit and 4chan."

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5094288-keir-starmer-to-end-tory-culture-wars?reply=135962886&utm_campaign=reply&utm_medium=share

Teenagers/"young people" don't in my experience spend loads of time on those sites. Because they find reading text and forums a boring old person way of getting information.

Of course it's always possible that by "young people" PP meant 35 year olds.

And then you are happy to extrapolate that one photo to the "modern Liberal progressive" having a "core belief" that "Violence and and the threat of violence are acceptable for a virtuous cause"?

And you don't see any problem with doing this, while also maintaining that other people have been pushed towards the far right because people wouldn't engage with their points but just applied lazy stereotypes to the person?