Main Edition
US
FR
He can't say he wasn't warned (NIKLAS HALLE'N/AFP via Getty Images)
He can’t say he wasn’t warned. Sir Keir Starmer’s embrace of gender ideology was always unwise, and made worse by his refusal to listen to dissenting voices. He has ignored pleas from feminists in the Labour Party, refused to show support to female MPs bullied by activists, and dismissed every warning about the risks posed to women by transactivist extremists. So what does Starmer do now, as the shaky edifice of gender ideology crashes down around him?
The unintended architect of its demise is a shaven-headed double rapist with a facial tattoo and a blonde wig. The appearance of Adam Graham, aka Isla Bryson, in a Glasgow court last week exposed the absurdity of insisting that anyone who claims to be a woman has to be treated as one. Trans women are women? Always? Every single one of them? Not any more, as even the most ardent advocate of this empty slogan has had to acknowledge. It’s a damning indictment of a former Director of Public Prosecutions, who should know a thing or two about the manipulative behaviour of sexual predators, that Starmer stuck to the line for so long.
Even before the Graham case, a growing number of Labour MPs were becoming disillusioned with Starmer’s stance. Few are as brave as Rosie Duffield, the Labour MP for Canterbury who, in an article for UnHerd, described her experience in the Labour Party as akin to being in an abusive relationship. Starmer’s refusal to uphold the right to oppose gender extremism has persisted for so long that Labour MPs concerned about the erosion of women’s sex-based rights have to meet in secret. The Sunday Times reported yesterday that they are among a cross-party group who receive briefings from concerned groups, such as Fair Play for Women. The report added that the group’s braver members wear dinosaur badges, a reference to a remark by the shadow foreign secretary, David Lammy, that compared gender critical feminists to dinosaurs who want to “hoard rights”.
For feminists, Lammy is a prime example of a Labour frontbencher who speaks confidently on the subject of humans changing sex — an impossibility, as rational people know — without seeming to know much about it. Starmer once chided Duffield for suggesting that only women have a cervix, while Lammy admitted that trans women don’t have ovaries but appeared to suggest they could acquire a cervix by taking hormones and having unspecified “procedures”.
This is pretty much what we had come to expect from Starmer’s Shadow Cabinet until the Graham case blew up the core tenets of trans ideology. The Labour Women’s Declaration estimates that at least 12 of the 31 MPs on the shadow frontbench are broadly gender-critical, but it’s also stuffed with shadow ministers who, until about five minutes ago, were wedded to the mantra that trans women are women. Now the party line is changing in the wake of events in Scotland last week.
Even Starmer’s deputy, Angela Rayner, who made a point of saying that all women, including trans women, are welcome in the party during a Labour Women’s Network dinner last year, has discovered a strand of trans-inclusive thinking she doesn’t like. “That person should not have been put into a women’s prison,” she said through gritted teeth, unable to bring herself to utter Graham’s name — or names. Elsewhere, while the party’s chair, and shadow women and equalities secretary, Anneliese Dodds, was last year unable to give a straight answer to the question “what is a woman?”, last week she was talking about the 2010 Equality Act setting out “protections for biological women” on the basis of sex. Speaking on Any Questions, she added that “every opinion poll” shows that’s what the public wants too.
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.
SubscribeOne can be an honest, sincere socialist without being a supporter of the Labour Party. Indeed, failure to see through the rank hypocrisy within that party across a whole raft of issues typifies a particular attitude. The treatment of women that this article explores is but one example, and one might think it’d give further pause for thought on the way in which the party looks down its nose at the working class as another group whose interests it claims to represent – but apparently not.
The most valuable thing that women such as Joan might consider doing is, instead of waiting for a meaningless apology, leave the abusive relationship. Publicly declare your withdrawal of support. By doing so, you’ll retain your political integrity whilst doing something useful in support of women. No time like the present.
Here, here. Let’s smash this nonsense that Labour are the party of the people. They are not
Blair’s great insight (or rather Clinton’s) was that you could hoover up the votes of affluent middle class graduates by combining progressive rhetoric with right wing policies.
Following the loss of Scotland, Keir doesn’t have much choice but to double down on that strategy.
Yep.
Yep.
Blair’s great insight (or rather Clinton’s) was that you could hoover up the votes of affluent middle class graduates by combining progressive rhetoric with right wing policies.
Following the loss of Scotland, Keir doesn’t have much choice but to double down on that strategy.
Which is exactly what I & many others have done. #labourlosingwomen
The problem in your whole argument is that you assume that a) it’s merely about support for a party (labour in this case) and that b) it’s an “abusive” relationship which implies that the women are helpless victims who are losing out.
I would suggest that the women supporting labour are smart, and quite capable of taking care of themselves. And it’s not about “Labour” but the whole philosophy of no biological differences, “diversity and equity” (which relies entirely on the concept that there are no differences between genders and the ONLY reason for < 50% women in coveted fields is sexism).
Once you accept the above, you can see why so many modern, educated women would not openly oppose this trans debacle (or reject Labour for supporting those trans "women").
Because, if those women did come out and openly state that men and women are different, or that men are physically superior – what next? What if, then, someone says: aha! So does that mean male tennis and football players should be paid more, or not a good idea to pump the military full of women, or maybe there are reasons why there are more male tech workers or CEOs?
And so, you see, it's purely down to where the economics work out. Of course, those privileged upper class women would hate to lose any of their privileges. But if you had to choose? You are talking about those were happy to support Labour after the horror of the grooming gangs, because the thousands of victims were lower class women, and not worth sacrificing the very, very useful paradigms of "evil white males". Similarly, are a few violent men in female jails worth sacrificing quotas and "inclusion" for CEO roles or upper manager roles?
That's a no brainer.
Agreed. The forthcoming ban on so-called conversion therapy, which is a completely made-up problem designed to promote the victimhood narrative, is advanced by the Tories. These issues are not party political.
Agreed. The forthcoming ban on so-called conversion therapy, which is a completely made-up problem designed to promote the victimhood narrative, is advanced by the Tories. These issues are not party political.
I’m a lifelong Democrat (American) and I’ll be voting for the GOP’s nominee in 2024. I will not support the grossly misogynistic erasure of sex based rights under law. Women Exist. I refuse to vote for any party which denies that fact.
“Respect Female Existence Or Expect My Resistance!”
Here, here. Let’s smash this nonsense that Labour are the party of the people. They are not
Which is exactly what I & many others have done. #labourlosingwomen
The problem in your whole argument is that you assume that a) it’s merely about support for a party (labour in this case) and that b) it’s an “abusive” relationship which implies that the women are helpless victims who are losing out.
I would suggest that the women supporting labour are smart, and quite capable of taking care of themselves. And it’s not about “Labour” but the whole philosophy of no biological differences, “diversity and equity” (which relies entirely on the concept that there are no differences between genders and the ONLY reason for < 50% women in coveted fields is sexism).
Once you accept the above, you can see why so many modern, educated women would not openly oppose this trans debacle (or reject Labour for supporting those trans "women").
Because, if those women did come out and openly state that men and women are different, or that men are physically superior – what next? What if, then, someone says: aha! So does that mean male tennis and football players should be paid more, or not a good idea to pump the military full of women, or maybe there are reasons why there are more male tech workers or CEOs?
And so, you see, it's purely down to where the economics work out. Of course, those privileged upper class women would hate to lose any of their privileges. But if you had to choose? You are talking about those were happy to support Labour after the horror of the grooming gangs, because the thousands of victims were lower class women, and not worth sacrificing the very, very useful paradigms of "evil white males". Similarly, are a few violent men in female jails worth sacrificing quotas and "inclusion" for CEO roles or upper manager roles?
That's a no brainer.
I’m a lifelong Democrat (American) and I’ll be voting for the GOP’s nominee in 2024. I will not support the grossly misogynistic erasure of sex based rights under law. Women Exist. I refuse to vote for any party which denies that fact.
“Respect Female Existence Or Expect My Resistance!”
One can be an honest, sincere socialist without being a supporter of the Labour Party. Indeed, failure to see through the rank hypocrisy within that party across a whole raft of issues typifies a particular attitude. The treatment of women that this article explores is but one example, and one might think it’d give further pause for thought on the way in which the party looks down its nose at the working class as another group whose interests it claims to represent – but apparently not.
The most valuable thing that women such as Joan might consider doing is, instead of waiting for a meaningless apology, leave the abusive relationship. Publicly declare your withdrawal of support. By doing so, you’ll retain your political integrity whilst doing something useful in support of women. No time like the present.
What would really shift the terms of the debate is the acknowledgement that these men like the latest r*pist in a women’s prison aren’t bad apples, they’re representative. If the r*pist is taking advantage so is the average “trans woman”, i.e., an intact heterosexual male. Violation of boundaries is the whole point. Just spend some time in trans Twitter or Reddit, where they talk among themselves, sharing stories of going into women’s toilets, where they do disgusting things and take photos of themselves in a state of excitement while dressed like a cheap hooker. These men are predators not “the most vulnerable” in society. I don’t see Starmer et al admitting this any time soon.
Spot on, and backed up in these links by some great analysis of the violent perverts influencing Scottish governance, followed by an analysis of how trans people are statistically far far far more likely to comment sex crimes than men or women:
https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-grooming-of-holyrood/
https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-rorschach-test/
Anyone who thinks we’re scaremongering, being unreasonable, over sensitive etc about the trans issue should be forced to spend a couple of hours on Reddit looking at some of the men demanding to share women’s single sex spaces and services.
Take a look at the SkirtGoSpinny video What is a Woman: Wrong Answers Only on Odysee.com (it was on YouTube as well but has probably been removed again). Warning: avoid watching near mealtimes and put hot drinks down first.
Had heard of that video, and went looked.
What’s mind boggling is the sheer number of them. It’s not just a handful of creeps and perverts.
What’s happening to society?
I’m so sorry this conversation is hilarious to me. You have been spending your time on which parts of the Internet? I will pass on googling that thank you. Advice from a millennial – don’t do it. It’s not real life. If you want clicks on sites like you’re visiting – you are going to expect some extreme stuff. Oh my days.
You do realise theres a war on? By the time your done fighting your culture war we may be at real actual nato war. Then won’t you have something worry about.
I hear this argument a lot about ‘culture wars’, but surely it is those pushing transgender ideology on to school children and weaving it into social infrastructures who are guilty of waging it? By all accounts, people are losing their jobs, being arrested, or even receiving death threats for not going along with the belief that you can change sex at will. Governments coercing people to accept and regurgitate lies based on wider acceptance of a sexual fetish is a bad thing, regardless of whether war is being waged in other parts of the world, don’t you think?
OK. But if you care about it. Go and find out WHY it is happening and WHO is pushing it instead of watching weird videos and writing weird over descriptive posts about the matter using phrases like ‘cheap hooker’. How old are you people? Seriously. Track some sources, go alex jones source tracking but don’t go alex jones mental. OK. Maybe it’s just me. Tell me to shut up if you like.
Firstly, please don’t shut up. I would rather hear your opinion no matter how much I may disagree with it. Secondly, I prefer reading about things to watching videos so have no idea what those videos you mentioned contained.
Thirdly, the people pushing this seem to be billionaire dynasties with ties to big government, big media, and big Pharma. With so much power and propaganda behind this movement it is very difficult for ordinary people who have very little control of media outlets to push back.
I guess the reason I care about it so much is that I’ve always worked in education which, at its most basic level, is about the dissemination of truth. If I go along with something that I know is not true, even though it might be considered kinder to just go along with it, I feel like I’m doing myself and those around me a deep disservice.
“When people are forced to remain silent when they are told obvious lies, or even worse they are forced to repeat the obvious lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is in some small sense to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control.” – Theodore Dalrymple
Thanks, the person posting I replied to wasn’t directing people to anywhere sensible exposing anything though, apart from too much male skin.
Yes we need to find out who is pushing this and why, I agree, I’m just saying sources that provide information as to who and why this stuff is being pushed would be more useful than ‘skirtgospinny’ videos. In my humble opinion.
Thanks, the person posting I replied to wasn’t directing people to anywhere sensible exposing anything though, apart from too much male skin.
Yes we need to find out who is pushing this and why, I agree, I’m just saying sources that provide information as to who and why this stuff is being pushed would be more useful than ‘skirtgospinny’ videos. In my humble opinion.
Firstly, please don’t shut up. I would rather hear your opinion no matter how much I may disagree with it. Secondly, I prefer reading about things to watching videos so have no idea what those videos you mentioned contained.
Thirdly, the people pushing this seem to be billionaire dynasties with ties to big government, big media, and big Pharma. With so much power and propaganda behind this movement it is very difficult for ordinary people who have very little control of media outlets to push back.
I guess the reason I care about it so much is that I’ve always worked in education which, at its most basic level, is about the dissemination of truth. If I go along with something that I know is not true, even though it might be considered kinder to just go along with it, I feel like I’m doing myself and those around me a deep disservice.
“When people are forced to remain silent when they are told obvious lies, or even worse they are forced to repeat the obvious lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is in some small sense to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control.” – Theodore Dalrymple
OK. But if you care about it. Go and find out WHY it is happening and WHO is pushing it instead of watching weird videos and writing weird over descriptive posts about the matter using phrases like ‘cheap hooker’. How old are you people? Seriously. Track some sources, go alex jones source tracking but don’t go alex jones mental. OK. Maybe it’s just me. Tell me to shut up if you like.
I hear this argument a lot about ‘culture wars’, but surely it is those pushing transgender ideology on to school children and weaving it into social infrastructures who are guilty of waging it? By all accounts, people are losing their jobs, being arrested, or even receiving death threats for not going along with the belief that you can change sex at will. Governments coercing people to accept and regurgitate lies based on wider acceptance of a sexual fetish is a bad thing, regardless of whether war is being waged in other parts of the world, don’t you think?
Had heard of that video, and went looked.
What’s mind boggling is the sheer number of them. It’s not just a handful of creeps and perverts.
What’s happening to society?
I’m so sorry this conversation is hilarious to me. You have been spending your time on which parts of the Internet? I will pass on googling that thank you. Advice from a millennial – don’t do it. It’s not real life. If you want clicks on sites like you’re visiting – you are going to expect some extreme stuff. Oh my days.
You do realise theres a war on? By the time your done fighting your culture war we may be at real actual nato war. Then won’t you have something worry about.
The irony is, most men would behave very decently towards women, but would still be labelled as misogynistic or predatory by our “betters” in college campuses or elsewhere.
Whereas these trans “women” are genuinely predatory and have truly horrible attitudes, but they are being waved into the most intimate of women’s personal spaces.
Yes, this is my exact thought. Men are toxic until they put on a dress and then they are as docile as sheep, apparently.
Oh I’ll try that with my man. Docile as a sheep I’ll have him hoovering and doing the dinner at the same time.
Sorry. I’ll stop.
I was relating a liberal media trope, B 😉
You are way more down with popular references on this than I am 🙂
I found this research paper really interesting. It discusses the reasons why gender ideology is deeply unpopular in Poland and also goes a long way to explain my own antagonism toward it.
https://web.archive.org/web/20191028192839id_/https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/D2FF3A537FB39E4A11B00F593B8F945B/S1743923X19000576a.pdf/div-class-title-and-if-the-opponents-of-gender-ideology-are-right-gender-politics-europeanization-and-the-democratic-deficit-div.pdf
Good effort. It depends how you approach the issue. You have to decide if its becoming an issue because its being aggressively funded or if its actually a social issue I suppose.
Good effort. It depends how you approach the issue. You have to decide if its becoming an issue because its being aggressively funded or if its actually a social issue I suppose.
I found this research paper really interesting. It discusses the reasons why gender ideology is deeply unpopular in Poland and also goes a long way to explain my own antagonism toward it.
https://web.archive.org/web/20191028192839id_/https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/D2FF3A537FB39E4A11B00F593B8F945B/S1743923X19000576a.pdf/div-class-title-and-if-the-opponents-of-gender-ideology-are-right-gender-politics-europeanization-and-the-democratic-deficit-div.pdf
You are way more down with popular references on this than I am 🙂
I was relating a liberal media trope, B 😉
Oh I’ll try that with my man. Docile as a sheep I’ll have him hoovering and doing the dinner at the same time.
Sorry. I’ll stop.
Yes, this is my exact thought. Men are toxic until they put on a dress and then they are as docile as sheep, apparently.
I have a feeling that the straight male supporters of trans rights experience a similar frisson of excitement when considering trans life
I’ve thought that too.
I’ve thought that too.
Spot on, and backed up in these links by some great analysis of the violent perverts influencing Scottish governance, followed by an analysis of how trans people are statistically far far far more likely to comment sex crimes than men or women:
https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-grooming-of-holyrood/
https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-rorschach-test/
Anyone who thinks we’re scaremongering, being unreasonable, over sensitive etc about the trans issue should be forced to spend a couple of hours on Reddit looking at some of the men demanding to share women’s single sex spaces and services.
Take a look at the SkirtGoSpinny video What is a Woman: Wrong Answers Only on Odysee.com (it was on YouTube as well but has probably been removed again). Warning: avoid watching near mealtimes and put hot drinks down first.
The irony is, most men would behave very decently towards women, but would still be labelled as misogynistic or predatory by our “betters” in college campuses or elsewhere.
Whereas these trans “women” are genuinely predatory and have truly horrible attitudes, but they are being waved into the most intimate of women’s personal spaces.
I have a feeling that the straight male supporters of trans rights experience a similar frisson of excitement when considering trans life
What would really shift the terms of the debate is the acknowledgement that these men like the latest r*pist in a women’s prison aren’t bad apples, they’re representative. If the r*pist is taking advantage so is the average “trans woman”, i.e., an intact heterosexual male. Violation of boundaries is the whole point. Just spend some time in trans Twitter or Reddit, where they talk among themselves, sharing stories of going into women’s toilets, where they do disgusting things and take photos of themselves in a state of excitement while dressed like a cheap hooker. These men are predators not “the most vulnerable” in society. I don’t see Starmer et al admitting this any time soon.
First off, there should probably be a statue erected to Andy Graham ( Aren’t they always looking for something controversial to pop on the ‘fourth’ plinth ? Although it would be better done in Scotland, preferably right in front of Holyrood, to remind MSP’s of their crass stupidity). Surely Mr Graham has done more than anybody, with perfect timing, to remind everybody (although, let’s be honest, most of the ‘uneducated’ thick as sh*t, prol’s were country miles ahead of the politically captured ‘intellectuals, who are so far up their own backsides that they wouldn’t know a bad idea if it came up and poked them) of the ‘lie’ that says we must, to be kind, accept whatever we are indoctrinated with, unless we can ‘compete’ in the labyrinthian, intellectual, mental linguistics that passes for debate in the modern, Western, world.
I also take issue with words like ‘feminist’ and ‘misogynist’’ being bandied about, as if it is ‘only’ feminists that are under attack, or take issue, with this ’intellectual’ ballcocks , sorry, I mean ‘deceit’, supposedly promulgated by men, to attack women. It is not ‘ after all, if the Scottish political ‘intellectuals’ are to be believed, then Transwomen ARE women, PERIOD (even, it seems, without the need for a uterus). The vast majority of the population, and ‘probably’ a higher proportion of men, are utterly bewildered by the antics of the chatter-arty who profess to know all and wish to ‘bully’ us into their ‘Machiavellian machinations.
Who would have guessed, in the modern retelling of the Emperors new clothes that it would be a double rapist, rather than a young child, who would expose the hypocrisy of ‘modern, be kind’ political activism.
Yes. You really do have to be every kind of stupid to believe that, given the opportunity, male criminals won’t choose to serve their sentences in women’s prisons. The clue is in the name: they’re CRIMINALS, you dumb f*cks.
Yup, the stupidity of the SNP, Greens and Labour in Scotland in not seeing that cannonball coming is amazing! But it just shows how much they’ve been captured by the trans activists – they’ve lost all grasp of common sense.
I am still of the persuasion that Graham was not allowed into Cornton Vale prison for his own safety. Mind you he would have been castrated faster than under the NHS. But we will never know.
This is an excellent point, and one that is rarely made. The notion that trans-women would necessarily be safer in a females-only environment seems to me to be an unexamined assumption, at best. I’ve worked at homeless shelters where residents were separated according to sex, and those ladies were formidable and not to be trifled with. I suspect many of them would have strong opinions on the proposition that women can have penises. I imagine this is even more true in prisons.
This is an excellent point, and one that is rarely made. The notion that trans-women would necessarily be safer in a females-only environment seems to me to be an unexamined assumption, at best. I’ve worked at homeless shelters where residents were separated according to sex, and those ladies were formidable and not to be trifled with. I suspect many of them would have strong opinions on the proposition that women can have penises. I imagine this is even more true in prisons.
Yup, the stupidity of the SNP, Greens and Labour in Scotland in not seeing that cannonball coming is amazing! But it just shows how much they’ve been captured by the trans activists – they’ve lost all grasp of common sense.
I am still of the persuasion that Graham was not allowed into Cornton Vale prison for his own safety. Mind you he would have been castrated faster than under the NHS. But we will never know.
Yes. You really do have to be every kind of stupid to believe that, given the opportunity, male criminals won’t choose to serve their sentences in women’s prisons. The clue is in the name: they’re CRIMINALS, you dumb f*cks.
First off, there should probably be a statue erected to Andy Graham ( Aren’t they always looking for something controversial to pop on the ‘fourth’ plinth ? Although it would be better done in Scotland, preferably right in front of Holyrood, to remind MSP’s of their crass stupidity). Surely Mr Graham has done more than anybody, with perfect timing, to remind everybody (although, let’s be honest, most of the ‘uneducated’ thick as sh*t, prol’s were country miles ahead of the politically captured ‘intellectuals, who are so far up their own backsides that they wouldn’t know a bad idea if it came up and poked them) of the ‘lie’ that says we must, to be kind, accept whatever we are indoctrinated with, unless we can ‘compete’ in the labyrinthian, intellectual, mental linguistics that passes for debate in the modern, Western, world.
I also take issue with words like ‘feminist’ and ‘misogynist’’ being bandied about, as if it is ‘only’ feminists that are under attack, or take issue, with this ’intellectual’ ballcocks , sorry, I mean ‘deceit’, supposedly promulgated by men, to attack women. It is not ‘ after all, if the Scottish political ‘intellectuals’ are to be believed, then Transwomen ARE women, PERIOD (even, it seems, without the need for a uterus). The vast majority of the population, and ‘probably’ a higher proportion of men, are utterly bewildered by the antics of the chatter-arty who profess to know all and wish to ‘bully’ us into their ‘Machiavellian machinations.
Who would have guessed, in the modern retelling of the Emperors new clothes that it would be a double rapist, rather than a young child, who would expose the hypocrisy of ‘modern, be kind’ political activism.
Talking about nerve, what about Sturgeon? I don’t know how she can show her face in Scotland now, but incredibly people still support her.
Didn’t Mr Trump once say that he could “stand in the middle of fifth avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose votes”? It’s rather the same with Ms Sturgeon.
Yup, she can stand in the middle of Sauchiehall Street shouting how much she hates the English and the Scots will just vote for her, regardless of other ‘policies’.
Scottish women must be pretty stupid too not to have seen this coming.
Scottish women have been campaigning for years about this, and continue to do so. Sturgeon will not be forgiven for listening only to groups who are government funded.
Scottish women have been campaigning for years about this, and continue to do so. Sturgeon will not be forgiven for listening only to groups who are government funded.
Yup, she can stand in the middle of Sauchiehall Street shouting how much she hates the English and the Scots will just vote for her, regardless of other ‘policies’.
Scottish women must be pretty stupid too not to have seen this coming.
Didn’t Mr Trump once say that he could “stand in the middle of fifth avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose votes”? It’s rather the same with Ms Sturgeon.
Talking about nerve, what about Sturgeon? I don’t know how she can show her face in Scotland now, but incredibly people still support her.
“…The painful truth is that Labour, under Starmer’s leadership, has become a hotbed of misogyny…”
It’s ok Ms. Smith, this just a displacement activity, moving on from Labour under Corbyn’s leadership being a hotbed of despising Jewish people. The common theme is not the group targeted for dislike but the fact that you gotta have someone to dislike. It’s nothing personal, it’s just (Labour) business.
Yeah they’re having to keep quiet now about their dislike of the working class, since that didn’t work out too well at the last election.
Yeah they’re having to keep quiet now about their dislike of the working class, since that didn’t work out too well at the last election.
“…The painful truth is that Labour, under Starmer’s leadership, has become a hotbed of misogyny…”
It’s ok Ms. Smith, this just a displacement activity, moving on from Labour under Corbyn’s leadership being a hotbed of despising Jewish people. The common theme is not the group targeted for dislike but the fact that you gotta have someone to dislike. It’s nothing personal, it’s just (Labour) business.
It should be clear by now, after all these years of vacillation and opportunistic flip-flopping, that Starmer can’t be trusted at all, let alone on the gender question. He’s weak and unprincipled and the people around him are weak, unprincipled and catastrophically dim.
It should be clear by now, after all these years of vacillation and opportunistic flip-flopping, that Starmer can’t be trusted at all, let alone on the gender question. He’s weak and unprincipled and the people around him are weak, unprincipled and catastrophically dim.
“Trans women are women? Always? Every single one of them? ”
The answer is obviously none of them. They could, theoretically be something other than a man but they are definitely not women (we have a millenia old definition and it does not include men who think they ‘feel like a woman’.
“Trans women are women? Always? Every single one of them? ”
The answer is obviously none of them. They could, theoretically be something other than a man but they are definitely not women (we have a millenia old definition and it does not include men who think they ‘feel like a woman’.
“…For feminists, Lammy is a prime example of a Labour frontbencher who speaks confidently on the subject of humans changing sex — an impossibility, as rational people know — without seeming to know much about it…”
And yet, I bet very large numbers of people, the author included, MP Duffield included, knowing that they are a part of groupings participating in large scale social self-delusions, will nevertheless carry on careering down the same path, and lending their tacit support to the direction by in fact *not* changing direction, in the hope of eventual outcomes pretty much the same as those which transpired for the leader of the opposition. By that I mean a stance which would be self-justified as “staying in and fighting” but in truth is simply hoping that the win eventually falls into your lap because of chaotic events in a time of great societal flux.
What I am (fairly awkwardly) trying to convey is illustrated by the following: imagine you had asked a 25 year old Lammy or Starmer, not long out of Uni and full of fresh-faced socialistical fire burning to put the world to rights, if a man could change sex simply because they decided they wanted to. I doubt either would at that point have vehemently insisted ‘transwomen are women’ Are we then saying that they have been persuaded over the years by the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence? Or do we acknowledge the stance adopted by the leader of the opposition or that buffoon Lammy is in fact no less cynical than the Tory Party spivs they so volubly disdain? In which case this begs the question: why do you think they will eventually turn out to be better leaders (or even better administrators) than the Tories? They will in fact (it is pretty obvious to me) turn out to be as much orthodoxy embracing technocratic robots as the current lot, with a load of additional guff about how they are working for ‘the most marginalised, abused and vulnerable people in society’ thrown in. We have had Spreadsheet Phil following on from Spreadsheet George, and followed of course by Spreadsheet Rishi and Spreadsheet Jeremy. I for one, do not remotely welcome our new Spreadsheet overlords, Spreadsheet Rachel and Spreadsheet Keir joining in in The Dance of the Spreadsheets.
“…For feminists, Lammy is a prime example of a Labour frontbencher who speaks confidently on the subject of humans changing sex — an impossibility, as rational people know — without seeming to know much about it…”
And yet, I bet very large numbers of people, the author included, MP Duffield included, knowing that they are a part of groupings participating in large scale social self-delusions, will nevertheless carry on careering down the same path, and lending their tacit support to the direction by in fact *not* changing direction, in the hope of eventual outcomes pretty much the same as those which transpired for the leader of the opposition. By that I mean a stance which would be self-justified as “staying in and fighting” but in truth is simply hoping that the win eventually falls into your lap because of chaotic events in a time of great societal flux.
What I am (fairly awkwardly) trying to convey is illustrated by the following: imagine you had asked a 25 year old Lammy or Starmer, not long out of Uni and full of fresh-faced socialistical fire burning to put the world to rights, if a man could change sex simply because they decided they wanted to. I doubt either would at that point have vehemently insisted ‘transwomen are women’ Are we then saying that they have been persuaded over the years by the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence? Or do we acknowledge the stance adopted by the leader of the opposition or that buffoon Lammy is in fact no less cynical than the Tory Party spivs they so volubly disdain? In which case this begs the question: why do you think they will eventually turn out to be better leaders (or even better administrators) than the Tories? They will in fact (it is pretty obvious to me) turn out to be as much orthodoxy embracing technocratic robots as the current lot, with a load of additional guff about how they are working for ‘the most marginalised, abused and vulnerable people in society’ thrown in. We have had Spreadsheet Phil following on from Spreadsheet George, and followed of course by Spreadsheet Rishi and Spreadsheet Jeremy. I for one, do not remotely welcome our new Spreadsheet overlords, Spreadsheet Rachel and Spreadsheet Keir joining in in The Dance of the Spreadsheets.
For once the use of that phrase, first they came for the Jews seems to be apposite for the Labour party. But once they’ve come for the women, who is left? Maybe they’ll plunge deeper into the ‘identity black hole’, like all revolutions do, and tear themselves apart denouncing each other for not being extreme enough.
An example of how extreme the identity revolution has become – there is news this week that theatre groups around the world are banning white people from performances, so that black people can feel safe viewing such performances from their own perspective; and banning white critics from reviewing these performances.
In my world that’s just extreme racism – but in the identity black hole, where logic is skewed nonsensically, it is apparently equality.
It’s all justified if you buy into the “white privilege” narrative.
It’s all justified if you buy into the “white privilege” narrative.
For once the use of that phrase, first they came for the Jews seems to be apposite for the Labour party. But once they’ve come for the women, who is left? Maybe they’ll plunge deeper into the ‘identity black hole’, like all revolutions do, and tear themselves apart denouncing each other for not being extreme enough.
An example of how extreme the identity revolution has become – there is news this week that theatre groups around the world are banning white people from performances, so that black people can feel safe viewing such performances from their own perspective; and banning white critics from reviewing these performances.
In my world that’s just extreme racism – but in the identity black hole, where logic is skewed nonsensically, it is apparently equality.
“If women like me, lifelong Labour supporters, are to trust the party again, it will take more than a change of tone. What we need is a proper, serious apology”
Joan would like an apology – Pretty Please. She doesn’t mind how insincere.
She does say “a proper, serious apology” so I think she is ruling out insincerity.
She does say “a proper, serious apology” so I think she is ruling out insincerity.
“If women like me, lifelong Labour supporters, are to trust the party again, it will take more than a change of tone. What we need is a proper, serious apology”
Joan would like an apology – Pretty Please. She doesn’t mind how insincere.
Having voted Labour in almost every election since 1968 I will never do so again this betrayal of women has wounded me too deeply. A new party is needed and maybe more attention paid to the average woman in the street!
Having voted Labour in almost every election since 1968 I will never do so again this betrayal of women has wounded me too deeply. A new party is needed and maybe more attention paid to the average woman in the street!
There’s no excuse for any politician here. I was a card carrying liberal, and supportive of trans rights for people with dysphoria, until I first heard of self identification. Nearly all of the problems that have now manifested became obvious to me at once, and I don’t claim to be a fortune teller.
Even if you think that gender identity exists self-ID is a clear nightmare. Would we have, if we wanted to increase the rights of disabled people, have allowed self ID for disabled people? The effects of self ID there on the resources used by the disabled, and the segregated spots assigned to then, in parking for instance, would have been swamped by free loaders. No politicians would pass that law.
Which means that the politicians are either true believers or stupid. This problem won’t go away either, so they will have to continue to live with it.
There’s no excuse for any politician here. I was a card carrying liberal, and supportive of trans rights for people with dysphoria, until I first heard of self identification. Nearly all of the problems that have now manifested became obvious to me at once, and I don’t claim to be a fortune teller.
Even if you think that gender identity exists self-ID is a clear nightmare. Would we have, if we wanted to increase the rights of disabled people, have allowed self ID for disabled people? The effects of self ID there on the resources used by the disabled, and the segregated spots assigned to then, in parking for instance, would have been swamped by free loaders. No politicians would pass that law.
Which means that the politicians are either true believers or stupid. This problem won’t go away either, so they will have to continue to live with it.
Can we trust Kier Starmer’s apparent moderation of his views on Gender Ideology? I wouldn’t be surprised if next month, he says the opposite under pressure. The views of shadow Labour ministers seems to veer around wildly, in a wholly unconvincing way…
Can we trust Kier Starmer’s apparent moderation of his views on Gender Ideology? I wouldn’t be surprised if next month, he says the opposite under pressure. The views of shadow Labour ministers seems to veer around wildly, in a wholly unconvincing way…
He doesn’t know what a woman is, so how can he work for them.
He doesn’t even what principles are, and probably misinterprets it as following whatever his master Blair wants!
He doesn’t even what principles are, and probably misinterprets it as following whatever his master Blair wants!
He doesn’t know what a woman is, so how can he work for them.
Well, the fact is that there are a lot of women who support the trans side.
Throw in the fact that the younger generations tend to be pro-trans and you see why this is a problem for Labour.
Well, the fact is that there are a lot of women who support the trans side.
Throw in the fact that the younger generations tend to be pro-trans and you see why this is a problem for Labour.
Starmer wants people with penises in women refugees.
Starmer wants people with penises in women refugees.
Starmer’s “addressing” of antisemitism is window dressing.
Starmer’s “addressing” of antisemitism is window dressing.
Fully agree with Joan.
Fully agree with Joan.