Jeremy Corbyn at the PinkNews Awards 2019. Credit : Eamonn M. McCormack/Getty Images
“My name is Jeremy Corbyn and my pronouns are he/him.”
These were the opening words from the Labour Party leader at the Pink News Awards yesterday.
Corbyn hadn’t want to miss an opportunity to virtue signal — on International Pronoun Day, no less. He has impeccable trans-inclusive politics, even supporting the inclusion of men who identify as women on all-female shortlists. Corbyn’s self-appointed advisor on all things trans, Owen Jones, has made it clear to the Labour leader that in order to be on the “right side of history” one must put male-bodied trans women before actual women.
At the @PinkNews awards, @jeremycorbyn introduces himself by saying: “My name is Jeremy Corbyn, and my pronouns are he/him.”
pic.twitter.com/WZcTy6VCoy
— Owen Jones (@owenjonesjourno) October 16, 2019
So, as the bearded, twice married father stepped up to the podium at the awards, Corbyn ensured that everyone knew that he identified as male, as opposed to either a woman (she/her) or non-binary (they/them, or ze/zim).
Most of my friends and colleagues block the extremely trans-woke Pink News site from their social media feeds because of the toxic levels of misogyny on its pages. But Corbyn’s words did make it through to the mainstream. They were widely reported by the wokeing class dudebros who were as proud as punch of their Absolute Boy.
But I don’t see anything to be proud of. Indeed, this obsession with pronouns is extremely worrying. Especially now the police have joined in. The same week that government statistics were released showing rape convictions down to a shocking 1.4% of those reported, Deputy Chief Constable Julie Cooke of Cheshire Police found the time to make a video to mark IPD, telling us that for many people, “Being misgendered can have a huge impact on somebody and their personal wellbeing.” So can being raped, but let’s get our priorities right, shall we?
Today marks #pronounsday – seeking to make sharing, educating and respecting personal pronouns commonplace. @pronounsday pic.twitter.com/pe9x9GWTJj
— Julie Cooke (@JulieCooke40) October 16, 2019
For all those lesbians who are constantly told we “look like men” because we refuse to wear make-up, high heels and corsets, and dress for the benefit of men, it is offensive and deeply anti-lesbian to now get asked “what are your pronouns?” We have struggled for years to win respect and acceptance as women — why should we have to spell it out.
There are women I know that look absolutely nothing like men, but who are called ‘sir’ in restaurants or stores, for the simple reason that they reject femininity. The lesbians I know have developed a sense of pride to be able to assert that we are women, despite the fact that we do not exist only in relation to men. To then be asked whether we are he/him or even they/them is ridiculous.
One woman I know who is part of an LGBTQQI+ choir was even put through an arduous and upsetting disciplinary process because she refused to wear a pronoun badge.
The trouble with being able to choose your own pronouns is that it can be abused. If men aren’t identified as men, then they can no longer be held accountable for patriarchy and misogyny. And whether we like it or not, men are the ones to blame for the oppression of women.
Women, on the other hand, are unable, however much some of us may wish, to identify our way out of being oppressed by the male sex class. We cannot escape atrocities such as FGM, forced marriage, rape, or domestic abuse simply by giving ourselves new pronouns.
My generation of feminists fought for the right of women to have single sex services in order to protect us from male violence. We also fought for equal pay, maternity rights and abortion rights, and we stand up against male violence. If men are freely allowed to identify themselves as ‘she/her’, what will happen to all those rights? Our ability to evidence our discrimination and oppression in relation to men will be slowly eroded.
Jeremy Corbyn, the man who took money from a regime that executes men for being gay can present himself as super-woke by telling us he, ahem, identifies as male. But let us also remember that this is the same man who made the ludicrous suggestion that a solution to sexual attacks on the underground was to assign women-only carriages. Does he not see the flaw in his logic? If such a thing existed, all a male-bodied sexual predator would need to do to gain access would be to wear a pronoun badge declaring that his pronouns were ‘she/her’.
My badge? Stop/This/Madness.
Julie Bindel is an investigative journalist, author, and feminist campaigner. Her latest book is Feminism for Women: The Real Route to Liberation. She also writes on Substack.
bindelj 
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThe Democratic Party is losing rank and file union support based on ideology and its hostility to the economic interests of working Americans. It’s really as simple as that.
Perhaps like racial minorities, labor unions are learning that the Dems no longer serve their interests, if they ever did. Today’s Democratic Party is, first of all, anti-democratic. Second, it is beholden to a few specific moneyed interests – Wall St, Silicon Valley, and Hollywood, to name a few.
It has no interest in people who work with their hands for a living and generally finds them icky. They’re not part of the credentialed class. They don’t spend their time fixating on why allowing abortion in the 7th month is a great idea.
Trump has first-hand experience working with union people. His properties were not built exclusively by non-union labor. That would be impossible in places like New York. He’s also a fan of Americans producing goods that American consumers want to purchase. And he’s not pushing open borders, which is a threat to the skilled as well as the low-skilled.
Linguistic quibble: It’s “toe the line,” not “tow the line.” That misuse is called an eggcorn. Which I didn’t know until I looked it up.
The author misses the most important point. There is a massive political realignment happening in America. The Republican Party under Trump has become the party of the working man and woman. The Democratic Party is now the party of the very wealthy who made their money from tech (not physical things made by workers) and the subsidized poor.
Trump was once a Democrat. He hasnt changed.
“politics not as a battlefield between moral values or ideological visions, but as a bargaining table on which rival material interests can be reconciled“
That is exactly what it should be but to work there has to be some power balance between the material interests. The competing forces of capital, unions, government, the law, the press and the church are no longer balanced.
In the U.K. the church has virtually disappeared and government has given away much of its capability to NGOs who are in hock to the worst instincts of activists, and impervious to democratic control. The law is rapidly becoming partisan as we’ve recently seen in two tier justice. Political parties are in hock to capital (as we’ve also just seen). Big capital is using its control to drive out small capital (through over regulation amongst other things) and has co-opted chunks of the political left with vacuous virtue signalling. Thatcher smashed the unions (necessary at the time but as always the pendulum can swing too far), and impartial journalism is a thing of the past.
The universal franchise, an impartial justice system, and the possibility of organised labour, briefly gave us a period of history where the little man had a say. We’ve let it be taken away.
The little man has plenty of ‘say’. In the UK he gets money whether he works or not, as well as all electronic devices, warmth and food. He can often work from home, so is able take the dog for a long walk as long as he carries his phone. Why should the little man care about who is in control in Westminster?
Purposely ignorant idea of “the little man”.
Why should the little man care about who is in control in Westminster?
Because Westminster cares about the little man. It cares about micromanaging his life, dictating his choices about what to eat, what energy sources to use, the size and nature of his dwelling, and a thousand other things that exist outside the extremely narrow confines of a smartphone screen.
In this scenario, the gentry would be compelled to deal with labour’s demands and perhaps give up their labour market preferences in exchange for guaranteed business investment; while unions in these parts of the country would accept the continued economic leadership and sway of the gentry in exchange for tangible concessions.
This sounds like the sort of socialism that kills; go along with labour demands in exchange for guaranteed investment from the government. If not then no investment (free money). The union would go along with the economic leadership in exchange for “tangible” concessions. What might those tangible concessions be, how would they be any different from now? As long as the unions are happy business will get the money. So we have a battle between business and unions over free money.
Where is the part about competing in a market where the customer decides the economic outcome,the success and growth of a small business. With free money who cares.
Who cares? As long as the politicians get the support they bought and paid for, no one.
That’s partly my point.
Have a look at the division in outlook from those in government and academic unions and those in private sector unions. The UAW, the United Auto Workers, have just over 25% of its workers in academia. Their views on climate, race, gender and Palestine maybe quite different than those of their union brothers and sisters assembling petrol fueled Chevrolets.
The Republican party attracts those who are in middle and working class and in private sector economy (not including Healthcare which is basically a subsidiary of the federal government). The Democrat party attracts those in government, academia and highly regulated industries such as healthcare.
Expect a close election.
Brokerage politics is indeed a viable path forward! A positive, illuminating response
Thoughtful essay.