Labour councillor quits party over puberty blocker ban

[ArabellaScott]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy89e1g71ppo

'Zoe Hughes, Exeter City Council member, said the party's support of a ban on puberty blockers for under-18s questioning their gender identity was "a policy I refuse to stand by and accept".
Hughes was elected as the Labour councillor for the Pennsylvania ward in May and will now serve as an Independent.'
...
Hughes said: "As a queer person, I have often felt alone and marginalised within society. However, I historically have felt that at least the Labour Party had my back."
Hughes, who uses "they" and "them" as personal pronouns, said they were "nervous" when the Prime Minister Keir Starmer said he wanted to meet the author JK Rowling, who has expressed concerns about how trans issues affect women's rights.
Hughes said there would be "increasing self-harm" as a result of the decision on puberty blockers in "an already vulnerable and marginalised group".
They added: "We have let the LGBT+ community down and I want no part of it – there is no LGB without the T for me, it is that simple."'

Good point. If they is plural they should be we.

It's only other people's speech they wants to control, duh.

Does zoe represent a university area? If not hopefully the next election will see someone with more sense take over.

What a tit. Hope she doesn't have any children.

How dare you insult her myriad Zoes ?

But , on a more serious note : why isn't she joining the Greens I wonder? Perhaps even the GP is edging back to reality and doesn't meet her purity test anymore.

So she’s flouncing because Labour won’t support harming children? Good riddance.

Imagine this being your line in the sand.

My local council is like this. It's been the same couple of families on the borough council for 30 years. Only the first names of the councillors change.

Puberty blockers have been banned for dysphoria since March 2024 now. Despite all the crazy claims that there would be blood in the streets, and despite the cardboard coffins being delivered to Wes Streeting's office, we haven't actually seen an increase in suicides at all. I'm sure it would have been front page news had a single case occurred.

It's interesting to see that the TRA line has changed now, and instead of threatening suicide the new threat is an increase in self harm. By this time next year maybe the things they threaten will be downgraded even further.

I remember Susie Green bringing up the suicide risk in every single interview. It's looking more and more as if this pillar of TRA ideology was entirely made up.

amazing. or, maybe not, given that if you actually believe people can change sex then, de facto, your grip on reality is shaky at best.

Question is why the BBC decided this tantrum was newsworthy.

Ooh, Miss, Miss! I know the answer to this, Miss!

This irritates me and i know it is a somewhat minor point,but: "no LGB with out the T". No, they are different things,and what you mean, at best, is "No LGBT without the T." You can't argue the case,so you go for emotional manipulation and try to piggy back on something different so the public at large don't ask questions.

Yes what it basically says is "our group is going to hold your group to ransom unless we're included".

Oh. Yes, that had escaped me. Logically it should be 'no LGBT without the T', implying that the community shouldn't exclude 'T'. But 'no LGB without the T' is actually a threat, isn't it?

I read on here that people with DSDs formally said to Stonewall that they don't want to be included any more and now Stonewall has had to update their website to say that they no longer represent 'intersex' people.
I've noticed that the 'i' has quietly been dropped from LGBTI. Why hasn't there been more media coverage of this?

'Stonewall works with intersex groups to provide its partners and stakeholders information and evidence about areas of disadvantage experienced by intersex people but does not, after discussions with members of the intersex community, include intersex issues as part of its current remit at this stage.'

https://www.stonewall.org.uk/resources/list-lgbtq-terms

I've always read it as a threat. Like, "You can't self organise or form groups without the T."

Quite where these people think they get off, I don't know. As if anyone needs trans people's permission to form groups without them. The audacity is really quite impressive.

It an interesting article. The space given to the rational and scientific aspect to the story is as large, if not larger, than the reporting of the tantrum. And the pro-puberty blockers “argument” is not really presented at all.

It’s almost as though “operation let them speak” was being employed at the BBC.

But maybe I’m just being too optimistic.

Don't count on it, people in my ward not only re-elected the councillor who did sod all, they also voted his wife in as councillor number 2 for the area. Independents, because "anything is better than Liebour" and "over my dead body would I vote for the Tories"

(I didn't vote for either of them and they have continued to do sod all)

Are there any pillars of gender ideology that aren't entirely made up?

As soon as I read a sentence starting “As a queer person” I can pretty much guess what’s coming so an almost involuntary Fuck Off escapes my lips.
I am old enough to know this term as a slur and I don’t like the way it has become normalised and forced on to gay people who are not trans worshippers.

As per PPs, this sort of story always brings out my inner Sgt Major Williams.

Though looking for logic from genderists is always akin to searching for rocking horse poo 👍😁

Wouldn't it be terrible if all insane TRAs resigned from positions of influence and went home to sulk...

Simply ghastly.