Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Ash Sarkar on the News Agents - the backpedaling continues...

181 replies

mantaraya · 23/02/2025 14:08

Apparently identity politics is silly and divisive. According to Ash, oppression is not a competition and the left is eating itself up accommodating to "woke" victimhood. Any quotes that sound like she has been pushing this line of thinking have been taken out of context.

On trans - this is very unlikely to be in anyone's top 3 issues politically so we should all just shut up about it and focus on the real problems (please ignore the fact that Ash has been banging this drum for years). Oh and the reason the left (i.e. Ash) has supported (ridiculous) things like transwomen in women's sports is because there aren't enough trans political organisations leading the way so they're just trying to do the right thing and defend vulnerable trans people. Ahem.

Quite amusing to listen to just for the various attempts at arse covering. I only wish I could have been the interviewer!

https://open.spotify.com/episode/2tdUDCkv3oc3kBjN9VkzGI

OP posts:
Thread gallery
8
Merrymouse · 25/02/2025 15:49

RoyalCorgi · 25/02/2025 12:18

I'd be mildly interested - though not interested enough to read her book - whether Sarkar has any sense of British labour history. The trade union movement, the match girls' strike, Keir Hardie and the founding of the Labour Party, the Jarrow March, Nye Bevan and the founding of the NHS, the Dagenham workers' strike - all that kind of thing. Does anyone know?

She certainly wasn't aware of Julie Bindel's campaigning and I suspect she wouldn't know about Anya Palmer's legal work for Stonewall, working on test cases establishing equal rights for gay men and lesbians. (Particularly given her claims that Stonewall isn't capable of strategy)

Her knowledge seems very patchy.

NotNowFGS · 25/02/2025 17:14

CarefulN0w · 24/02/2025 08:38

Ash can write a book if she likes, but she can't rewrite history.

Witty. But as I gnash my teeth, I'm going to make two predictions. One) the turnaround crowd will make themselves a lot of money out of their books & podcasts. Two) no responsibility will be taken. It will [somehow] all be the fault of the evil terfs who made them do it.

Both of these piss me off big time.

Love it BiscuitBiscuitBiscuit

Lalgarh · 26/02/2025 18:33

I always thought Sarkar was most likely to bail out of the Novara self described clique of coke raddled hip young gunslingers advocating Luxury Communism and fins herseld like other one time trots Janet Daly or Peter Hitchens writing for the Telegraph.

Bit obscure, this, but in their pomp on Twitter, Novara were aspiring to be a Corbyn governments ' think tank. Their group mentality suddenly got exposed, (before #MeToo, summer 2017) when they decided to host rape apologist George Galloway on as a guest and it sparked a boycott, including an account of an attempted rape by one of Novaras' hangers-on

There are references to it here

https://libcom.org/forums/general/novara-who-are-they-who-are-you-04102013

"the boycott was started after Aaron Bastani appeared on George Galloway's radio show. People objected to this because George Galloway has described rape as "bad sexual etiquette", and denied that it was rape.
that wouldn't be enough for people to call for a boycott normally but novara has several times hosted content by or done interviews with people where are rape apologists, or abusers. so when bastani said "sorry i didn't know" noone really thought he was taking things seriously or that novara wasn't going to carry on as before in this regard, especially since he has previously mentioned that galloway was no platformed *via
so #BoycottNovara was started by some who is a survive and is sick of the left not dealing wit this shit
about a week after this Bastani made this apology statement and then Novara relised a complaints procedure and a code of conduct
and that would most likely have been the end of it except novara people posted pictures of Bastani and James Butler wearing tshirts with "problematic" stickers on them, which came across as mocking survives, and Bastani made a facebook post complaining about how unfairly a group of saboteurs called the Bloomsbury 10, or B10, had been treated. B10 sabotaged a accountability process against a serial abuser, some infor about that in this thread by the person who initiated the process
so noone is calling for a boycot right now, but its hard to belive that novara actually wants to deal with this shit..."

SionnachRuadh · 26/02/2025 19:48

There are parts of the left activist world that have this chronic issue with rape apologism, when they're not actively covering up rape. I could write a book about all the right-on lefty men who turned out to be rapey as fuck once you got a close look at them.

Peter Hitchens is a gent, by the way. I don't always agree with him, but I find it a bit sweet that he didn't just stop being a Trot, he's spent 40 odd years explaining why he's no longer a Trot. A large part of which is the really awful people he met in "the movement".

Ash Sarkar will never be that transparent. She'll spend the rest of her life saying that what she believes now is exactly the same as what she's always believed.

Crouton19 · 26/02/2025 19:55

I'm listening to it, giving it a fair hearing. Just got to the bit where 'can a woman have a penis?' is being discussed as a political gotcha question of a couple of years ago and yeah, they really don't understand where that came from or why it was being asked. This discussion also appears to have zero to do with her book, so it's her and LG having a good laugh at what clever clogs they are for spotting that it was a loaded question designed to make the interviewee look silly. Lots of sweeping statements about the right, no examples given other than something about Thatcher.

I've started so I'll finish but so far it seems she has got half of a good idea for a book.

HoppityBun · 26/02/2025 20:12

KohlaParasaurus · 24/02/2025 10:56

Until Ash Sarkar comes straight out with, "Yes, I did push for the acceptance of males in women's spaces, and I was wrong, and it wasn't anyone else's fault, and I have changed my mind," she's just a piece of straw blowing around in the breeze.

I agree but I’m so disappointed in her. When I first came across her, she seemed young, articulate and informed.

mantaraya · 27/02/2025 06:41

The story she told about Roger Hallam really stuck with me. For those who haven't listened to it Roger Hallam (the XR / Just Stop Oil guy) was speaking at some sort of labour/lefty activist meeting. He referred to the people in the room as a "bunch of c*s" for being all talk and no action on climate. Obviously he was being provocative but apparently he got absolutely lambasted by the people in the audience who were shouting at him telling him his words were "literal violence" and as a white man he'd made people of colour feel unsafe and all the rest of it.

Apparently Ash found his remarks quite funny and thought people in the audience were being ridiculous. But yet when asked if she said anything or defended him she said no. Why? Because she didn't want the rage turned on her.

Whatever you think of Roger Hallam I thought the contrast between him and Ash Sarkar to be pretty stark. One activist who is willing to stake their popularity (and even freedom) for what they believe in vs one who's too scared to stand up to her own bully mates.

OP posts:
miri1985 · 27/02/2025 07:01

Merrymouse · 25/02/2025 10:01

One of the clips being circulated by the newsagents demonstrates exactly where she stands. She hasn't changed at all.

She starts by nutpicking 'somebody who said that Anne Frank had white privilege' to demonstrate that of course she isn't anti-semitic, criticises people who point out that their disabilities mean they rely on home deliveries, and then says what she really means:

AS: But I think some of the examples which are most laughable and I think actually get much less attention in our current media environment is that there is weaponisation of this of this form of identity politics in the interest of pro-Israeli advocacy. So at the Francis Crick Institute, some researchers wanted to put on a bake sail to raise money for medical aid for Palestinians. There was then a flurry of complaints to HR saying that it was an 'allegedly' peaceful bakesahle and it made them feel personally threatened and unsafe. If you feel unsafe around a slice of lemon drizzle cake, that's on you.

LG: I think that's a really interesting point because we often, the way it is often portrayed in the media is, I mean you're alluding to sort of the idea in a sense of snow flakery, right? And that's often used as a term of abuse or an insult from the right to the left. But the truth is, what you're describing, I agree with you, I think it is a really pervasive problem. This kind of cult of brittleness, this cult of endless kind of subjectifying or objectifying your own subjective experience, that's there on the right as well.

I don't know anything about this cake sale, but she is making a partisan political point here. This is not just an example, but the 'most laughable' example. She can't accept that the people who are upset might just be Jewish. She even throws in the trope of blaming the media. For Lewis Goodall to then editorialise that as 'right wing' 'snowflakery' is shameful.

The thing is though for all Ash says if the bakesale had been to raise money for families of the people who were kidnapped on October 7th then I have no doubt that she would still support people who said they felt "unsafe" because of a bakesale.

Shes the epitome of a cool girl calling the rest of us squares for having boundaries when her status and wealth innoculates her from the dangers of her luxury communism.

fromorbit · 27/02/2025 12:23

Interesting review in the Times

Ash Sarkar’s misadventures in the culture war
In her leaden book, Minority Rule, the Corbyn fangirl and ‘viral outrage generator’ looks back at her years on the political front line — it is a tale of recriminations and stark failure

https://archive.is/79o4S

Of the three mains on Novara Ash was always the most dogmatic. Bastini has been drifting towards being anti identity stuff for a long time though he steers away from trans stuff as far as i can see, Michael Walker made some mild criticisms of trans stuff a few years ago and there was a storm where he was targeted. Ash is still friends with him.

Galloway and Hitchens both accept biology they have been on Novara. Notably they haven't had any of the many lefty women who thinks genderism is capitalist sexist nonsense on the programme.

So you can platform a male right wing Mail columnist, but not women who appear in the Morning Star.

eatfigs · 27/02/2025 13:05

Some extracts of her book have been posted on Twitter:

Can a woman have a penis? Once upon a time, this was the kind of thing you'd expect to find scrawled on a toilet wall. Then, all of a sudden, in the spring of 2022, it was all over political media. We'd graduated from asking "what is a woman?" to peering quizzically down people's trousers. Any time a front-bench politician went on LBC, or Sky News, or Talk TV, they could expect to be asked whether they think a woman can have a penis. Troupes of MPs - including Ed Davey, Rishi Sunak and PM-in-waiting Keir Starmer - were marched into studios and pressed on what precise constellation of genitalia a woman can have. Just in case that was too classy, some journalists combined their knob-preoccupation with toilet talk. "The trans woman with a penis would use which lavatory?" barked LBC's Nick Ferrari at then-Shadow Education Minister Bridget Phillipson during the 2024 general election campaign. "She's got a door with a woman on it, she's got a door with a bloke on it, which one does she go in?" It was like the keeper of the Bridge of Death had taken a particularly lewd turn.

There is no clearer example of an issue where minority rights are presented as being in conflict with, or threatening to, majority rights than the "transgender issue". Even that phrase, reducing an entire community to a political problem, is inherently dehumanising. It's misleading to try and boil the entire terrain of the conflict to a single issue, like self-identification, puberty blockers, gender recognition certificates or pronouns. All of these issues are various fronts in the same war - one where the very existence of trans people, being able to live as themselves, is at stake. Transgender people are consistenty presented as a dangerous minority, seeking to impose their ideology - and their bodies - on others. Whether it's the NHS using trans-inclusive language or young people socially transitioning, the story is always framed in the same way - trans people are amalign influence and want to corrupt otherwise "normal" people and institutions. Once more, we're seeing a minority community - in this instance, 0.5 per cent of the population in England and Wales - being turned into hyper-visible hate figures. And yet again, real, material vulnerabilities are rendered invisible. Trans people experience greater rates of homelessness than the rest of the population, with a quarter of transgender Britons having experienced homelessness at some point in their lives. One in eight trans people report having been attacked while at work, and half of all trans and non-binary people report having to hide their identity from employers because they're afraid of being discriminated against. Transgender people are at the sharp edge of material dispossession, while at the same time being used by the press and politicians as a means of distracting people away from economic issues. It's a classic minority rule strategy of division.

It's not my intention to close down good-faith conversations. It's important to talk openly about where we, as society, establish the threshold for being legally and socially recognised as your chosen gender. But that discussion has been hijacked by a highly motivated ideological network to clamp down on the rights of transgender people. They don't want to consider the idea that trans people, and transgender women in particular, are just as deserving of respect as they are. And they've managed to conveyor-belt themselves into mainstream media and politicsin order to radicalise others and create a hostile policy environment when it comes to trans rights.

Fear and hatred exist in feedback loop. What this chapter is about is how those primal impulses are nurtured to fuel a sense of panic around demographics, i.e. the composition of the population. In examining the moral panic around transgender people, and racist conspiracy theories around the Great Replacement, I want to show how an obsessive fixation with identity minorities fills the space where class consciousness should be. Though I'll be talking about first one, and then the other, both transphobia and the Great Replacement open up onto the same moral panic - that the "right" people, i.e. white people, aren't having enough children, and that unless authoritarian measures are taken, a multi-racial nation will emerge in which the dominant group no longer enjoy numerical supremacy. This is a key component of identity formation - defining who you are by creating hate figures out of who you're not.

So back to whether women can have penises. This phrase has its origins in trans-hostile political activism. Stickers in the shape of - well, you can imagine - started popping up around the country in 2018, bearing the words "Women can't have penises" (an activist called Venice Allan took credit for the design). That same year, I took part in a Channel 4 discussion as part of a show called Genderquake alongside Caitlyn Jenner, Munroe Bergdorf and Germaine Greer. Over the phone, producers had assured me that it would be a respectful, collegial debate where all sides of the issue could hear each other out and put their own case across. I wanted to speak from the perspective of being a woman of colour, who didn't always feel welcome or understood in feminist spaces, and who could draw on that experience to empathise with transgender women. I know how it feels not to fit the mould of idealised femininity. But what actually ended up happening was, to use the technical term, an absolute shitshow.

DisappearingGirl · 27/02/2025 13:15

@eatfigs
Okay Ash thank you for that. So ... Can a woman have a penis or not?

Lalgarh · 27/02/2025 13:29

I wanted to speak from the perspective of being a woman of colour, who didn't always feel welcome or understood in feminist spaces, and who could draw on that experience to empathise with transgender women.

Tsk. cis woman of colour, showcasing your innate cis privilege by arrogantly assuming your so called oppression in the absolute nazi hell hole of white privileged feminist spaces is in any way like the utterly horrific active encouragement of Literal Genocide by Trans Hostile forces of Late capitalist euro centric cis heteronormativity
#DoBetter

mantaraya · 27/02/2025 13:59

I wanted to speak from the perspective of being a woman of colour...I know how it feels not to fit the mould of idealised femininity

Massive eyeroll for this. Are we supposed to take from this that Germaine Greer does fit the mould of idealised femininity then? A grey haired, sweary, belligerent childfree woman in her 80s? Give me a break Ash.

OP posts:
Lalgarh · 27/02/2025 14:02

DisappearingGirl · 27/02/2025 13:15

@eatfigs
Okay Ash thank you for that. So ... Can a woman have a penis or not?

She can have any number of penis's if she chops them fast enough

ArabellaScott · 27/02/2025 14:03

It's important to talk openly about where we, as society, establish the threshold for being legally and socially recognised as your chosen gender.

Go for it, Ash. Where's your threshold?

DisappearingGirl · 27/02/2025 14:24

ArabellaScott · 27/02/2025 14:03

It's important to talk openly about where we, as society, establish the threshold for being legally and socially recognised as your chosen gender.

Go for it, Ash. Where's your threshold?

Exactly - we hear this so much from politicians - "we need to be able to have open and respectful conversations about this topic"

Yes agree - go on then, let's have the conversation! But in real practical terms not vague waffle

RoyalCorgi · 27/02/2025 14:49

Reading the excerpt posted from eatfigs, it's obvious she hasn't understood the gender-critical arguments at all. I don't know whether that's because she genuinely hasn't grasped what her opponents are saying, or whether she is wilfully misrepresenting them. It does feel as if debate with someone like that is completely futile.

Crouton19 · 27/02/2025 16:24

RoyalCorgi · 27/02/2025 14:49

Reading the excerpt posted from eatfigs, it's obvious she hasn't understood the gender-critical arguments at all. I don't know whether that's because she genuinely hasn't grasped what her opponents are saying, or whether she is wilfully misrepresenting them. It does feel as if debate with someone like that is completely futile.

To understand would be to concede they had misunderstood before and these people are far too clever to ever be wrong (unless and to the extent they can get a book deal out of it).

mostlymisty · 27/02/2025 16:39

She has long been a total idiot.

mostlymisty · 27/02/2025 16:50

This from the Spiked article on her:
Sarkar encounters a working-class kid – just 17 – in a West Ham top. He’s nervous and inarticulate. He fluffs his lines. He says there are too many people coming here and ‘taking our jobs’ but he also says ‘they’re not working’. Sarkar looks right into the camera, at Novara’s audience of well-heeled faux-radicals, and arches an eyebrow. And there it was, the look that would come to define what passes for leftism today: the cocked eyebrow of bourgeois derision

This. This reaction after Brexit (she does the interview after Brexit to ask working class white people why they voted for it),. this attitude that laid bare the utter contempt for working class people that so many lefties who previously had claimed to champion the working classes, is one of the key things that turned me off the Left. So many of my friends espoused similar attitudes.

Tomatotater · 27/02/2025 16:59

From reading the Times review posted, it sounds like she had a fine old time sneering and abusing people she didn't know who didn't agree with her, then she found that actually when it all got turned on her a tiny bit ( she married a White man and they joked she'd been colonised between the sheets) she decided it actually wasn't that nice and she didn't like it. She will do exactly what The progressive Left in the form of Stonewall etc do, and walk away whistling ' not me guv' and take no responsibility for their sneering superiority, their turning a blind eye once they've sent their social media attack dogs after people who disagree with them ( Owen Jones style) and their confused and hectoring luxury beliefs rhetoric.

Tomatotater · 27/02/2025 17:04

ArabellaScott · 27/02/2025 14:03

It's important to talk openly about where we, as society, establish the threshold for being legally and socially recognised as your chosen gender.

Go for it, Ash. Where's your threshold?

So where was she during the ' Trans women are women No debate era?' Was she saying that then? What about the 'When people say they are women, they are' pre Isla Bryson era after which suddenly a person who said they were a woman really wasn't?

TempestTost · 27/02/2025 17:29

RoyalCorgi · 27/02/2025 14:49

Reading the excerpt posted from eatfigs, it's obvious she hasn't understood the gender-critical arguments at all. I don't know whether that's because she genuinely hasn't grasped what her opponents are saying, or whether she is wilfully misrepresenting them. It does feel as if debate with someone like that is completely futile.

I suspect that she and others like her are blinded because of incorrect premises.

One being the minority hierarchy of power. But the other the whole idea that there is a coherent meaningful social group of people who have a "trans identity".

She is incapable of other lenses.

It's an interesting phenomena, it used to be that going to university taught people how to see things from differernt points of view, now it seems to do the opposite.

eatfigs · 27/02/2025 19:36

Next bit from that chapter:

The panellists were literally surrounded, like it was a theatre-in-the-round, by the studio audience. And somehow, anti-trans activists had managed to infiltrate the crowd. Any time that Munroe or Caitlyn (both of them trans women) opened their mouths to speak, they were met by a barrage of vulgar abuse. Trans-hostile feminists screamed the word penis at the top of their lungs - Venice Allan amongst them - even when cisgender women like me were talking. It was later alleged that the audience had been actively encouraged to heckle by producers. Hundreds of complaints were made to OFCOM, the broadcast regulator. But ultimately, the hecklers had the final word - their slogan that "women can't have penises" was adopted by the mainstream press.

Though many feminist and LGBTQ rights groups condemned the sticker campaign, the slogan became prevalent within a section of the feminist movement who believe that trans people shouldn't be accepted as their chosen gender. "CAN A WOMAN HAVE A PENIS?" became the standard interrogation for a particular kind of online transphobe, who would inevitably scoff and harrumph if the reply was yes. The only acceptable answer in these online contexts was one which excluded trans people. Journalists like Kay Burley, whether due to ideological affinity or social media osmosis, ended up being mainstream mouthpieces for the talking points of online extremists.

Why even ask whether a woman can have a penis? On the face of it, the "answer" seems obvious. You cast your mind back to the first thing you learned about men-bits and lady-bits at primary school and manage to splutter out a "no". But maybe, just maybe, the intricate tapestry of our world has more to it than what we teach to six-year-olds. Biological sex is complicated. Chromosomes, hormones, reproductive organs, sexual organs and other physical characteristics don't always coalesce neatly around either end of the binary. According to Human Rights Watch, approximately 1.7 per cent of the world's population is intersex, that is, born with some combination of male and female biological traits. For some of these people, their external genitalia might not match up with their other bodily characteristics. It would take an especially cruel and unempathetic person to say that the shape of their genitals defines them more than how they live in the world. So, stopping to consider it, we'd accept that women with intersex conditions - some of whom may have male sexual or reproductive organs - are women. We certainly wouldn't think it's right to dictate what toilets they should use, or which changing rooms to access.

"Sure," I hear you say, "but that's a tiny minority of individuals. Most of the time, for most people, whether they have a penis determines which spaces they can access." But think about it a little more deeply. There are some contexts in which my sexual and reproductive organs really impact how I'm being treated as a cisgender woman. It matters for women who can't get the right treatment for endometriosis, because doctors are dismissive of their pain. It matters for women and girls who can't afford period products. It matters for black and Asian women, who are more likely than their white counterparts to be diagnosed with late-stage breast and ovarian cancers. It matters in contexts of sexual violence, strip searches and other forms of physical violation and degradation.

But most of the time, people aren't treating me as a woman because they've seen what's in my jeans. It's because I outwardly conform to what people think a woman is, through my clothes, build, hair, behaviour and voice. None of these things define a woman. There are cisgender women with short hair, muscular builds, deep voices, butch presentation - you wouldn't want them kicked out of the loos for failure to conform. In practice, my gender is being reflected back to me by others on the basis of how present myself, rather than any intimate knowledge of my body (and thank the Lord for that). The fact is, when I'm in the women's loos, I don't know if the person in the next cubicle over has a penis or not. I'm not peeking under the door, and they're not especially likely to show me. Other people's genitals are generally not something you see in the ladies' toilets. Gender segregation in bathrooms and changing rooms function on the basis of adherence to social norms, rather than biological ones. If someone looks like a woman, and in the words of Nick Ferrari, walks through the door "with a woman on it", that's usually all there is to it. You're not going to look down their pants to copper-bottom your first impression.

Here's what's tricky about gender: every time we look for a physical characteristic to pin it to, it wriggles and squirms out of our grasp. We find exceptions to every rule, hard facts which turn out to be assumptions. What makes a woman - or more precisely, what makes us willing to treat someone as a woman - isn't fixed. We're talking about clusters of characteristics, rather than a definitive list. You might not accept the idea that trans women are women, or that trans men are men, but the fact is that you've probably shared single-gender spaces with them without even thinking about it. Our ability to accept complexity and nuance in the real world is much better than it is when we're debating issues out of context. But questions like "can a woman have a penis" box politicians in. Unless they give a stupid and reductive response, they're pilloried as being clueless by a media class who were only ever willing to accept "no" for an answer. Keir Starmer was excoriated for even hinting at the idea that there might be exceptions to the rule that women don't have penises, which prompted relentlessly negative coverage in the Telegraph, the Spectator and The Times, and drew the ire of J.K. Rowling. Since then, the Prime Minister has rolled back on trans rights, promising to exclude trans women from female hospital wards and saying that trans women don't have the right to use female toilets. Politicians may get bullied, but it's minorities who pay the price.

eatfigs · 27/02/2025 19:37

Usual set of arguments. My bingo card is getting fuller with each page!