Luke Tryl from More in common frames support for women's right as socially conservative

[Theeyeballsinthesky]

In a wider thread where he suggests progressives are on the back foot. https://x.com/luketryl/status/2099139172598505890?s=46

he is getting push back about his framing of women's rights v "gender identity" as its somehow socially conservative that women's rights are supported

because he's very clear with his framing that socially conservative should be seen as a bad thing

He's confused why things he supports can't become law or are not supported by the majority of the population.

Rather than looking at why the AD bill failed, or why laws cannot make men into women, he has to frame it the fault of the status quo.

The policies he wants aren't progressive, they are ideals that dont touch people like him. But he cannot begin to understand that.

So he's what, arguing that misogyny and subordination of women is a labour/left wing political virtue?

Well I suppose at least someone's finally being honest about it.

At least my replies tend to make sense, rather than being unhelpfully cryptic. 😉

@alcovecupboards

Never mind these replies. It isn’t you. They do this to anyone they aren’t familiar with or that have opinions that aren’t exactly like theirs.

What! Take the piss out of idiots, yep that's us. 😁

Two words. Nice try.

Should I worry because I understood the Theresa May comment.

This claim of yours is so provably false that its almost laughable as its the extreme left who are enforcing strick gender roles not the Conservatives.
whereas its the so called progressives who came after gay rights and womens rights not the socially Conservative groups who have infact been protecting them by saying no to the outrageous and dangerous demands of the so called progressives.
Your scaremongering wont work anymore as we've all seen what's behind the progressive mask and we say no to you and your lies

The only wolf is the left and their not in sheep's clothing but woman's and they also claim to be women but we can all see that they are male wolves now but nice try

Yeah, argument by analogy has its limits.

At the moment the “Christian right” in the UK is protecting the bane of all authoritarian movements, free speech.

We are at a point where “right wing” or “far right” is failing as a thought stopping cliche because the left have overplayed it. It just is not far right to insist on clear reality based definitions.

I don’t think Christianity is a wolf in sheep’s clothing - it’s a divided house but that has always been the nature of all religions.

In the comments Luke does get challenged on calling the policies socially conservative and he does back track and reframe a bit to - losses for the consensus of the liberal elite.

A much more honest framing.

Incidentally, for this thread's resident TRA warning women about <checks notes> standing up for sex-rights leading inevitably to Gilead - I wish the shadowy hard right funding would hurry up. I've been terfing at my own expense for years, it's cost me a fortune.

It’s all right @teawamutu @Boiledbeetlehas been investing that money for us for years and assures me she is getting an excellent return. I am looking forward with confidence to getting my kitchen done and having a swimming pool put in.

Absolute confidence…

Funnily enough it was Brendan Cox that led me to the Feminism and Women's Rights board on Mumsnet where I encountered the trans madness.

I was ten years and three children into parenting and had been on Mumsnet occasionally for parenting related stuff.

I heard about the allegations against Brendan Cox and was so disappointed that a man so widely considered a good guy turned out not to be. I felt so sad and sickened for Jo Cox. It reawakened my feminism which had been somewhat dormant in the early parenting years.

I found the feminists on Mumsnet as I thought they must have something to say about Cox. There were threads about Cox, but there were also threads about Maria McLaughlin and Bruce/Caitlin wotsit and Pips Bunce. I learned what a TERF is and, to my surprise, found within about ten minutes of reading that I am one.

The rest is history and all that.

Lots of people cling to their youthful passions - even as they age. Look at Jeremy Corbyn; he's not changed his tune since the 1960s - and sees this as a virtue. See Billy Bragg for reference too. Their whole identity revolves around their politcal allegiance; and even though 'trans' wasn't a thing when Bragg was in his prime in the 1980s - he's absorbed it because that is where the youth ( mostly Millennials, I suggest) have taken it. Same for Corbyn. They see it as a way to nurture and encourage a younger generation and they think it keeps them young and 'current' themselves.

And to those we are familiar with if they post nonsense.

No. I did too, but I've been in this fight for a lot longer than many and know its history. It was May's decision in 2107 to back the reform of the GRA which first got me involved and the rest followed.

Aye.

We can be fucked over by people who agree women are female but don't care about female people, or we can be fucked over by people who don't agree women are female but also don't care about female people.

The option for female people to not be fucked over, or at least the option for political voice and activism in our own right as female people to fight being fucked over, is apparently not on the table.

So-called "Progressives": we'll support you on certain things linked to your biology as long as we never have to acknowledge your biology or how your biology affects things for you in wider ways than just abortions, birth control and sexual double standards.

What a time to be alive.

Yes, but what’s the relevance to this thread specifically? May thought self ID was an easy win for her “progressive” credentials as a Tory. The public disagreed and have been continuing to do so increasingly harder ever since. It’s not because of her involvement that people aren’t convinced, it’s because it’s ridiculous and harmful.

However it was an interesting period.

Left wing feminists like Rosa Freedman were trying to point out the problems with self ID, but I think the Tories were instinctively resistant to hearing their voices.

It was around this time that Philip Davies was elected to the equalities committee because he thought women's rights had gone too far and Dominic Raab made a big thing about not being a feminist when he ran for the leadership in 2019.

I think May and Mordaunt and Miller wanted to be seen as socially liberal in a fun David Cameron way, but believed it would be politically toxic for them to engage with women's rights.

Absolutely. And because it’s a Labour gov who aren’t giving them everything they want now, the refrain from TRAs is that even Theresa May is more progressive than Starmer and Burnham. It’s quite common to read on Reddit.

Some of these people seem unable to imagine that individual women work out their positions and beliefs on subjects (including their own rights and freedoms) from first principles, without a controlling organisation telling them what to think.

It speaks volumes for their own thought processes, or lack thereof.

They also often don't know what the left vs right wing political divide is, They only know the societal aspects of the omnicause.

Yes, I see on Twitter that when challenged Tryl walked back his comment a bit and made an unconvincing explanation that he was trying to capture a backlash to “hyperindividualism” and used the term “socially conservative” as meaning the status quo.

what does 'hyperindividualism' mean?

Thinking for oneself (?bad?) or insisting everyone has to have a gender (?good?).

He was trying to link up the assisted suicide and gender identity campaigns as being “hyper individualistic” which didn’t really gel with what he was saying about social conservativism and “progressive” which are both loaded terms