How dim is Stella Creasey?

[Sausagenbacon]

Today she tweeted about how great the Milad ad Nabi march was in Walthamstow.
Of course, it's segregated and the women get to march afterwards or celebrate in halls.
According to Stella, the Garrick Club is problematic because it only allows men to join. But this is fine.
I know that she is pandering to her constituency, but she really seems to have no awareness.

My response would be....keep your knickers on and stop foaming at the mouth..

How disappointing.

I do think it's so important for MPs to be able to explain what they believe, but apparently even her supporters have no clue.

We will all just have to continue to be baffled.

Having one rule for muslims and another for everybody else smacks of patronising double standards. That Creasy, and others like her, are seemingly happy to view women's rights as being culturally relative rather than universal is surely quite a strange place for her to end up?

We all know what happens next and is already happening. In order to keep muslim women 'pure' and away from the corrupting influences of western culture single sex muslim schools are being set up; and some leisure centres, for example, have instigated 'muslim only' swimming sessions etc - so that muslim women can be free to swim without the presence of men. I imagine Creasy would be supportive of this - of permitting exemptions for some groups?

Perhaps Creasy thinks muslims are too 'unevolved' to appreciate and respect 'trans rights' or 'women's rights' and that we should be protective towards that sort of 'cultural ignorance and prejudice'. Are women's rights and protections not a universal standard to strive for - or are they really only culturally relative. What takes precedence?

Did you intend to sound like a character from the Benny Hill show?

Another one to put down as a "Don't Know".

My point is she's not dim. She's highly intelligent, plucky and impressive imo. Whether you agree with her point of view is another matter. Certain points of view don't equate with dimness. That's all a bit ad hominem isnt it.

Ooo err missus...i dont know

Tone policing always helps and I do love a good old drive by scolding, there seems to be a lot of it lately

Essentially calling women hysterical: that go down well in lieu of reasoned argument

Certain points of view don't equate with dimness. That's all a bit ad hominem isnt it.

Actually some points of view do tend to equate with dimness.

However, criticising a point of view because it doesn't make sense is the opposite of ad hominem and all I am asking you to do is explain her point of view.

You can save her from the accusation of dimness if you can explain what she thinks. Why for instance is she attacking the EHRC when their guidance makes no difference to the law? How is she proposing to change the law? As an advocate for her intelligence, I assume you have the inside track on all of this.

Lighten up

Some points of view are rooted in ideological dogma and, as such, have no common sense, nor ability to reflect upon themselves critically.

No. O saw an MP.on telly yesterday talking about it , and I got quite confused and dont actually underdtand what is being said because this MP seemed to be sayingbthe opposite of what I understood the law to be. So I'm.confused.

Why does Stella Creasy respect these women's right to congregate separately from men, but also not respect women's right to congregate separately from men?

Because the first concerns freedom of association under Article 11/Schedule 16 (and is perhaps also covered by the religious exemptions that permit separate worship and male-only officiants).

Whilst the second concerns single-sex services under Schedule 3, WR1992 etc.

Also, how can the Equality Act protect the rights of women if it cannot clearly define sex?

I agree that it cannot, but Creasy is in the grip of a metaphysical belief about the meaning of sex which she thinks morally right to impose on the rest of us (it isn’t – see Article 9).

And finally, does she not realise that the EHRC interprets the law but does not make the law, and that if she wants the law changed she will need to put forward legislation?

Well maybe, or maybe she accepts FWS but thinks, like RMW, that transwomen should be a special exception (like small children, plumbers, cleaners, and emergency workers). I don't agree, but it's not totally incoherent either.

(There's a wider question of why TRAs don't lobby for a law change, resorting instead to stalling tactics, lawfare, creative reinterpretation of FWS, and rank insubordination. I asked a transwoman friend: it's because it would require them to debate and negotiate openly with people who disagree with them, and this would be like asking the Jews to negotiate with the Nazis. So, now you know.)

I don't think it's fair to characterise Creasy as stupid or evil. She's dealing gracefully with the torrent of shit being directed at her on X. And it's her job to engage with Muslim constituents, amongst others. To those sneering at the 'future engineers' comment, what are they doing to mitigate the harms to adherents of minority religions? The only way is through education, rigorous application of the law, setting a good example, and saying what we want to see. Encouraging a handful of Muslim women to see themselves as future engineers might be a drop in the bucket, but it's not nothing.

Because the first concerns freedom of association under Article 11/Schedule 16 (and is perhaps also covered by the religious exemptions that permit separate worship and male-only officiants).

However, I don't think she thinks the apocryphal lesbian's walking group should be allowed to to exclude men under Schedule 16. (But it would be great if she could confirm this either way).

Well maybe, or maybe she accepts FWS but thinks, like RMW, that transwomen should be a special exception (like small children, plumbers, cleaners, and emergency workers). I don't agree, but it's not totally incoherent either.

It would be coherent if (whether or not we agree) she could say that transwomen have x qualities and can be identified using x criteria, and that therefore, like small children/cleaners, for x reasons they are a special case. This would necessarily exclude many people who currently identify as transwomen. I don't think she has ever suggested this and again it would be great if she could clarify.

I commend her for engaging with muslim women in her constituency.

I just wish she would also engage with women in her constituency who want to protect sex based rights. I don't understand why this is such a stretch for her, particularly given that women's rights are supposed to be one of her priorities.

it's all very odd.

Well, maybe it is only ' ideological dogma' because you don't like the angle, and therefore label it as such. I've noticed Tories do this a lot. As soon as something doesn't sit with their world view then it becomes ' idealogical dogma' and can be conveniently discredited as such. Kemi does this all the time. Everything Labour stands for is ' idealogicsl dogma' and can conveniently be parcel up ans put in the bin. They are always invoking some mythologocal commie era when unions dominated and everyone wore a flat cap and waved the red flag while plotting to overthrow the state while supping beer down the working men's club. It"s a load of old bollocks.

Still unable to explain her point of view then?

No, you were saying because she believes certain things that' blanket' makes her a dim.person. I was saying it doesnt. Everything then gets wrapped up in the criticism of idealogical dogma and conveniently dismissed. I may or may not agree with different ponts of view, but I certainly don't believe you can write off a person because of a particular atance on a particular thing. ' dimness' is a rather generalised, nebulous term .

No, I said that from a philosophical point of view, some view points do suggest dimness. 'Farage is an honest man' for instance. I didn't mention Creasy.

Re: Creasey, I simply asked you to explain her point of view, because I don't think it is coherent.

You still unable to do this.

Or unwilling because I refuse to get drawn into a false argument. To suggest Creasy is too dim to compute certain strands of an argument is , imo, utterly absurd.

To suggest Creasy is too dim to compute certain strands of an argument is , imo, utterly absurd.

You might as well say

"To suggest Farage is too dim to compute certain strands of an argument is , imo, utterly absurd."

You might well think that, but it isn't going to persuade other people that the argument he is making has merit.

From what I can see, she wants to dismantle the legislation that women have depended on since 1975 by removing the protected characteristic of sex from anti discrimination law.

Ironically, there is some cross over with Reform who want to completely revoke the Equality Act.

I might be wrong, but as she is unwilling to explain her point of view or engage with feminists defending women's rights, it's difficult to tell.

JK Rowling on X:

I see that Stella Creasy is accusing me of leading a pitchfork mob against her, because I opined that she is less likeable and more hypocritical than the wild parakeet she mistook for an escaped pet.

For those who don’t know, Creasy is an elected politician and self-proclaimed ‘old-fashioned feminist’ who is ‘still fighting the patriarchy’. She’s more than once publicly defined herself against me (and my reaction was not to accuse her of leading a mob, even though I was probably averaging a dozen death threats a day at the point when the article below appeared.)

I thought it might be instructive for those of us who don’t share Creasy’s brand of ‘feminism’ to examine her campaigning record, so we can learn to do better.

Creasy wants women admitted to the male-only, exclusive, London-based private members Garrick Club, a change that would benefit rather privileged women like Creasy. Creasy is a mother who wants better accommodations for working mothers, a change that would benefit Creasy. Creasy takes selfies at a men-only Muslim march because that reminds everyone how non-racist she is, which benefits Creasy. Creasy asserts that ‘trans women are women’, which keeps her in good odour with her party’s most aggressive activists, and benefits Creasy.

However, keeping cross-dressing heterosexual men out of nurses’ changing rooms doesn’t benefit Creasy, because Creasy has never had to mop up other people’s piss, blood and vomit at work. Challenging the notion that a male basketball player becomes a girl if he says he is doesn’t benefit Creasy, who has no sporting ambitions. Speaking up against the patriarchy as practised by non-white men doesn’t benefit Creasy, who wants those selfie-opportunities. Criticising an ideological movement that persecutes, harasses and openly threatens women who don’t believe some women have penises wouldn't benefit Creasy, because she's already fully-signed up to self-id, where any man who says he's a woman must be taken at his word.

As the late Gloria Steinem said: ‘“Feminism has never been about getting a job for one woman. It's about making life more fair for women everywhere.’

Creasy the patriarchy-challenger is provably more than happy to cosy up to men and misogynist movements when it suits her public profile and career advancement, no matter the harms those men might be causing less privileged women. By Steinem’s definition, what Stella espouses is not feminism, but Creasyism, and I suggest the emblem for this brave new rights movement should be an indignant parakeet with severely ruffled feathers.

telegraph.co.uk/women/life/ste…

Stella Creasey in the linked article

And one of the things that happens to trans women is that they are oppressed because the patriarchy goes, ‘Oh well you’re a woman, right that’s it, let’s pick you apart’. So it’s right for me to stand with my trans sisters and say: ‘Let’s fight these battles together’.”

No, the patriarchy does not go 'oh well you're a woman'. They say 'you are a man who is not conforming to gendered expectations, and that threatens me, but heaven forbid that anyone should threaten your perception of yourself or that I should have to welcome you onto my sports team. It is women's work to respect men'.

I'm not worried about the patriarchy 'picking me apart'. I'm worried about losing the services and anti-discrimination law that I need specifically because of my sex (some of which Creasey temporarily remembers when she has just had a baby) because she has rendered sex meaningless in law.

I'm not a Tory. Though for people who view the world in terms of Left versus Right they tend to interpret everything that is not in agreement as being 'far right', 'right' or 'Tory' The Left is particularly susceptible to ideological doctrines and to purity tests - which is why there tends to be so much in-fighting and factionalism on the Left ( and there always has been ) - as each sub group holds claim to ever purer versions of doctrine.

Anyone who follows the transgender creed ( as Creasy does) is someone who is influenced by ideology. Transgender Ideology. An ideology is a whole view of the 'self'with an developed and established set of terminologies and prescriptions

Well, in the case of Farage I would most definitely assert that he is too dim to compute anything.
Yes, I dont like the sound of what Creasy isxsaying there but that doesn't, to my reasoning anyway, suggest she is a moron.