Burnham - does he know what a woman is?

[Dragonasaurus]

Just that really - we’ve had Starmer prevaricating, fence sitting, “most women don’t have a penis” in fact women don’t have a penis’ but somehow I’m going to let Phillipson sit on the guidance which would ensure women’s single sex spaces (some of them anyway)…..

Would Burnham be any better? Does anyone know what his position is?

I think you’ll find she didn’t leave just because she was thrilled Labour got in.

No idea, I just recall having heated but ultimately civilized arguments with her on here.
I wonder if she would look at the last two years of a Starmer govt and say her predictions were borne out, and that the panic from GCs on women's rights under Labour were all unnecessary.

I imagine she would.

At least he now supports it. Chris Mason badgered him on it and was kind of criticising him for changing his mind but isn't that what we wanted? He can now be held to that.

And is she wrong?
Starmer doesn't mention the "cervix/99%" stuff anymore, Streeting has done as close to a 180 as you can get, Burnham recants as soon as he gets a sniff at No. 10.
Cass was not denied by the govt, and even though it took 13 months to sort, the official advice from govt re the SC ruling looks very secure.
AdamRyan would say a Reform govt would have panned out exactly the same re gender ideology...but women would have suffered as Farage rolled back long secured rights for women like equal pay, maternity leave, & SEND spending etc.
And she'd have reminded us all how piss poor the 2017-2024 Tory govt was re gender ideology, from May and Mordaunt push to gender self ID, to allowing gender ideology to flourish in schools, the NHS etc.

"We've got to move into the next phase and not constantly re-running the arguments."

Not like Brexit at all. Brexit was passed. There was a public vote. It happened. But the Supreme court had yet to clarify the meaning of 'woman' and 'sex'.
If people hadn't been pursuing that objective then we would still be "re-running old arguments". And even now, we have to persist to make sure that the ruling is now implemented correctly.

Totally like Brexit. Brexit was based on a load of lies as we all know. A re-run with accountability and sticking to truths would be great. We wouldn't be happy with accepting lies on the subject of who is a woman, would we?

Adam returned, under a different name, but I haven't seen her recently.

I was never particularly convinced by the "I'm a floating voter, but I'm going to tell you at excruciating length why I think Keir Starmer is the man to run the country" shtick. It seemed indistinguishable from what we'd hear from a tribal Labour activist.

She's been absent for some time. Maybe she'll return to tell us Andy Burnham is the man for the hour, but she seems to have been rendered silent by the Labour Party committing hari krishna in full public view.

My point was, as i'm sure you understand, that unless women had been "re-running old ground" and campaigning to the point that a Supreme Court judgment was issued then we would not have progressed or had any type of formal decision at all. We'd still have been subject to the silent edicts of trans ideology.

Whether you approve or not. Brexit was put to a public vote and was formally enacted. I'm sure trans activists will continue to bemoan the Supreme Court Ruling in the same way that 'Remoaners' continue to bemoan Brexit - but unless they wish to push for new legislation then the issue is done and dusted.

Andy Burnham has flexible ideals and principles on both matters. He's trying to pretend that he is not interested in re-enetering the EU, and he's pretending that his mind has now changed radically in favour of the maintenance of single sex provisions. He assumes both poses purely to win votes and to be popular.

There is no comparison of radical Brexit politics to radical GI politics.
You can argue misinformation was part of the Leave campaign, but none of it was denying physical reality.

My point was, of course, about the logical inconsistencies in Burnham's comments on " re-running" old arguments.

Brexit was setlled by public vote and enacted years ago; whereas the government has only this week released the guidance to accompany the recent ruling. It is therefore not a re-run of an old debate. It is still very much contemporary. Fact is, Andy doesn't like to be confronted with the evidence of his own words on the matter as he is now trying to win an election.

It's like the further they are from genuine meaningful power, the more Labour politicians, the more they can play to the peanut gallery.
Years ago, Burnham can attend Pride Manchester, extol he's a trans ally, pontificate that GC is a hateful minority attitude.
But now he's a stone's throw from being PM, he's obliged to face up to responsibility and science and women's rights, and critically, the law.
And so begins the reeling it back in.
Cowards all.

Andy might be aware that Manchester Pride is bankrupt and in constant need of a bail out.

How that is, I don't know. It's a huge event, so you'd think it would draw some custom to city centre business, and how expensive can it be to book Sophie Ellis-Bextor and H from Steps...

I got as far as Remoaners and checked out.

That is because you are trying to make a disgruntled point about Brexit rather than about what Andy Burnham had said about "re-running old issues". The Supreme Court ruling is not an old issue, it is very much a current issue - one which he'd rather have go away - based on his past comments and commitments in relation to it. That it has now unceremoniously cropped up again and at a time particularly sensitive for him is his real chagrin.

(As it happens I voted 'Remain' - but without any of the personal angst or identity tied up in it that so many other seemed to have.....and who couldn't seem to let it go all these years later)

I don't want to relitigate the pros and cons of Brexit, for that way madness lies, but surely the parallel is that there was a referendum, all MPs said in advance that they'd respect the outcome, then when the outcome was not what they expected, they spent the next three years behaving like a toddler refusing to put his wellies on.

The response of many politicians to the Supreme Court ruling in FWS has been quite similar.

There was a small number of Red Wall Labour MPs (Stephen Kinnock, Caroline Flint, Gloria De Piero and maybe one or two others) who took a line on Brexit of "we voted Remain, we're not thrilled about the Leave vote but we have to recognise it and try to get the best result we can for our constituents". Unfortunately nobody paid attention to them. I believe Leanne Wood took a similar line in Plaid, which is a big part of why she's been marginalised in the party.

I'm looking out for formerly TRA politicians who will say "I was wrong" or at least "I had my point of view but the Supreme Court has spoken and we have to recognise the new reality". I'm not seeing much evidence of them. Wes Streeting is the best we've got, and Wes blows with the wind.

Andy Burnham, like Bridget Phillipson, would obviously rather avoid the whole issue, and lives in mortal fear of annoying TRAs.

Nah. I just find it hard when people win votes based on lies. I'm hopeful that Andy B may actually have come to his senses but we shall see. Unfortunately the leave advocates show very little chance of being held to account. Particularly not the level of account some people are trying to hold others to.
And if you voted remain you should know better than using the term Remoaners. Says more about you than anyone else.

'Remoaners' in my mind are people who make every issue and topic about Brexit, over six years after it happened.

Andy Burnham hasn't let it go, either.....he's simply pretending he's not interested in re-joining the EU because he suspects it won't go down well in Wigan, where he wants to be elected. At least Streeting is honest about his intentions and beliefs.

For this reason Burnham ( dishonesty, lack of firm commitment) would be like Kier Starmer (mark 2) - but just with a more placid and bovine nature.

Both Brexit & Genderism employ magical thinking.

I actually think that Brexit was about Identity, more than anything. Most people didn't really understand the issues either way, but got really emotionally invested.

Have to say though, I'm really enjoying the Led By Donkeys campaign satirising the current government chaos.

Maybe if we're lucky Banksy will do some street art about it.

Disagree, but that's alright.
A party, or parties, could campaign for full Rejoin, there would be no shutting anyone up, no accusations of hate crimes.
Unlike genderism which is pure zero sum game culture war.

My point was the alleged benefits of Brexit showed magical thinking.

Andy Burnham splurged tens of thousands of pounds on Pride events and festivals last year, figures show, sparking fresh questions from critics about his Makerfield bid | Daily Mail Online