Spectator podcast: Labour's Gender War

[SionnachRuadh]

Madeline Grant and Michael Gove do a deep dive on where the government is currently at on genderwoo, including Bridget Phillipson's delay of the EHRC guidance and Wes Streeting on the puberty blockers trial.

Maddie has been clued up on this subject for years, but it's good to get a long discussion in front of the Speccie audience, and Gove has obviously been paying attention too.

Your recollection is correct. Hudson, and also Jenner’s much publicised transition and ‘woman of the year award’ that year were very significant in raising our attention, which combined with the pre-existing strong strand of many of us being ‘gender critical’ (in the Let Toys be Toys, Delusions of Gender meaning not directly to do with transgenderism at all) led to the recognition of the impact that the push for de facto ‘self ID’ would have on women’s rights and child safeguarding. The problems around puberty blockers and surgery on teenagers probably wasn’t yet apparent - this was before the big surge of supposedly ‘gender questioning’ children, I think.

The history of FWR and ‘gender critical feminism’ does sometimes get rewritten - sometimes innocently but occasionally not - by people who weren’t on here at the time.

Some ‘true believers’ such as Penny Mordaunt (who was Minister for Women and Equalities in 2018/2019) have, I believe, close family members who are trans.

Caroline Nokes was horrendous. And of course Jamie Wallis (now Katie), Tory, was the first transgender MP.

If we're going to play, 'Who started it', The Gender Recognition Act of 2004 which allows people to change their birth certificate, was passed by a Labour Government. As recently as 2023, Annelise Dodds was describing the GRA and Equality Act as 'one of Labour’s crowning achievements, not just of the last period of government, of any period.' (Guardian, July 2023)

As noted, the Conservatives are far from blameless but one difference I observed (and as a former Labour voter, envied) was the way dissenters inside the Tory party were tolerated. If anyone can name a Conservative MP who felt forced to withdraw from their own party conference or hustings, as Rosie Duffield was, then I'd be very interested to hear it.

And here's a tip: if Labour ever want to get my vote back then brushing off all criticisms as the work of closet Conservatives isn't going to cut it. You're welcome.

I believe her twin brother is an alphabet community activist. So she's always been gay friendly and I think saw this for a long time as just an extension of gay rights.

She is able to read an opinion poll and see when a policy is unpopular, and flip flopped when running for leader, but wasn't able to explain her reasoning, with the result that neither side believed her.

Not many politicians have the ability to say "I thought about this issue and changed my mind." Wes Streeting is one of the few, and he's a slippery customer.

I'm sure there are some Tory politicians who have trans family members. Multiple Labour ministers have trans identified children (and they say it isn't a social contagion!)

That was exactly when I started looking into it and came to FWR. I expect FWR is wider reaching now, but it was lefty radfems that I learned from on here.

Yes…after all the ‘RF’ in the term TERF applied to women’s rights supporters is ‘radical feminist’. It’s never been accurate but it’s astonishing how we’ve apparently gone from being portrayed as a clearly very left wing movement to somehow (Christian) right wing.😂

In reality neither transactivism or women’s rights have ever been aligned with party politics.

One of the effects of the resistance to GI is that many left-wing women have found the Left has left them. (Too many 'lefts' but can't think how else to phrase it.) The left has always been keener on ideology. It used to be class that was the central concern - in the olden days every issue was subject to a 'class analysis' in order to form a view. But class has been fading for a long time, and is now decisively replaced by identity.

I suspect we are seeing the last remains of Labour's Methodist roots in its devotion to gender identity. The Christian underpinning of early Labour, which gave it a particular devotion to underdogs and victims has now vanished, leaving only the idealisation of the sacral victim. And this, combined with the erosion of the industrial working class, one half of the Labour coalition, has left the concerns of the other half, the Fabian middle class, dominant.

Gender Identity is a perfect ideology for the left. It relates to their most important supporter base, and presents a perfect sacral victim the most oppressed people in the world! while giving almost unlimited opportunities for ideological purity.

By contrast Conservatives tend to be pragmatic and relatively unideological (except perhaps over economics). They were happy to go with Cameron's social liberalism because it was popular in the country. When they saw that GI was not going to be a vote winner, they let it go. As Floisme said, they haven't cut off people who disagree and thrown them into the outer darkness, as Labour has.

I think the conservatives have always tended to be more accepting of a broader church than Labour. They seem to have more internal squabble, rebels and backbench dissent. Which I think are all good things in a democracy. As parliament stands at the moment, we are heavily reliant on Labour rebels to stop the government pushing through anything it wants, which is worrying.

The Christian underpinning of early Labour, which gave it a particular devotion to underdogs and victims has now vanished, leaving only the idealisation of the sacral victim.

I think it's difficult to draw clear lines. In focusing on the 'most marginalised' rather than conflicting rights, I think there is also a similarity with the Conservative paternalistic, charitable tradition that doesn't disrupt the existing order.

When women say "Actually, that doesn't work for me, I need the world to take account of my needs to the point where I am no longer 'marginalised'" that is a threat to men on the left and right.

Similarly, there is nothing new about the conflict between Labour's traditional industrial base and social justice warriors called Tarquin.

Thinking about this a bit more, I suppose it should be obvious that the conservatives are a broader church more prone to squabbles; fundamentally the right is about individual freedoms, and the left is about equality.

I think this is the wrong way round. Labour is a broad church prone to squabbles over ideology. The division over Brexit was the only occasion I can remember where the Conservatives were divided over ideology. In general they are united by a pragmatic desire to gain and stay in power.

I don't think it's an entirely true characterisation that the right is about individual freedoms, though. You could say that there is an equivalent on the right to Labour divisions over class vs identity and what equality means with respect to those; and that is the division between the desire to preserve the institutions and traditions of the nation and the more right wing emphasis on individual liberty and the free market. A division between conservatism and libertarianism, perhaps. And that has been playing out in the Tories since the seventies, and (I think) is also at play in Reform.

I think the left (broader than Labour) is more ideologically totalising than the right. The left is much more prone - I think especially in recent decades - to think there's a correct view on everything and this should be enforced.

Maybe it comes down to collectivism v individualism - not just Tory politics but that old strain of Nonconformist liberalism.

So someone on the right of centre might be informed by a framing belief in Christian values or the liberties of Englishmen or whatever, but within those framing beliefs there will be very wide policy differences. If you think of Enoch Powell, almost anyone talking about him today - whether a detractor or less commonly an admirer - will reduce Powell to his line on immigration. his Eurosceptism and maybe his unionist stance on Northern Ireland. You never hear discussion about his opposition to the death penalty or his support for decriminalising homosexuality or his support for nuclear disarmament.

I'm not endorsing Powell there, I'm just saying he was a complex man with lots of different views, and not the full spectrum reactionary that the current ideological regime needs him to be.

The right seems more able to cope with this. I'm not saying none of my right wing friends buy their politics as a job lot, but they don't do it nearly as much as my left wing friends.

It's the contrast between a Nigel Farage who says, if you agree with me on some things let's talk, and a Zarah Sultana who says, if you don't agree with this massive laundry list of positions you can't be in my club.

Yes, agree with all this. Issue clustering is much more of a feature of left politics -- hence the omnicause.

I always think it's interesting to look at those issues where dividing lines get more complicated. Assisted dying/suicide is one of them. The committee stage saw a fascinating alliance between Naz Shah and Danny Kruger.

Assisted suicide is an issue on which I found myself agreeing with Diane Abbott, and disagreeing with Robert Winston.

I couldn't stand Michael Gove but have to admit I love that Spectator podcast. I think he's funny, witty, intelligent and entertaining. Don't always agree with him, but I'd rather watch him any day of the week than Campbell and Stewart. I actually think he'd make a great DG at The BBC, but the media world would spontaneously combust.

totally agree. The podcast has changed my mind about Gove.

Michael Gove was responsible for the introduction of the adoption support fund in England - it doesn't exist in the other nations. He is adopted himself. He is much more complex than he is often made out to be.

I've always felt he was a better journalist than politician, but being a journalist who's been in the cabinet gives him an interesting angle, especially when he's reflecting on what the last government got wrong. He does a bit of that in the latest podcast, touching briefly on self-ID:

I find TRIP difficult to listen to, because I dislike Campbell but he sometimes has a useful insight - here's how Blair used to do things, here's my experience of how the PM and his head of comms interact - but as soon as he starts on one of those insights, Rory jumps in with a monologue of dubious relevance.

Occasionally I dip into Political Currency with Balls and Osborne, which has got the same centrist dad vibe, but it's a bit less pretentious and more like two friends swapping anecdotes.

The Spectator also does well by giving us the awesome grumpiness of Tim Shipman, maybe the best chronicler of our useless political class.

I was struck by a substack by a former Labour MP, Tom Harris, called Mea Culpa. It was discussed on Mumsnet before but I'm rubbish at linking. He voted for the original GRA hence the title but he made the mistake of listening to the (rational) arguments of the nay sayers and had genuine concerns. Norman Tebbitt was showing real foresight in the Lords and anticipated problems such as public bodies and officials being required to participate in a lie. He raised his concerns with the then chief whip, Hillary Armstrong. Her response was a thinly veiled threat warning him not to risk a potential ministerial career for a minor bit of legislation that nobody will care about in a week's time.
That sums it up for me.
And I'm a Labour member. Fighting the battle from within.