Author Topic: Trans Rights and the Labour Party  (Read 35 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Vertigo Swirl

Trans Rights and the Labour Party
« on: February 14, 2020, 06:17:52 PM »
Couldn’t agree more with this article.  I was supporting Nandy in the leadership election but she’s gone done the wormhole like Wrong Daily now, so Keir it will have to be.   


Labour’s trans pledge says anyone who disagrees is a bigot
new
There is a bizarre race for ideological purity on the issue of trans rights and it is making many party members uneasy

Janice Turner
Friday February 14 2020, 5.00pm, The Times
Lisa Nandy brands herself as Labour’s truth-speaker. Rational, grounded, fearless of factions, the only leadership candidate prepared to tackle the self-delusion and disconnect which lost four elections, she’d won many prospective votes, including mine. Until Tuesday, when Nandy signed up to a witch-hunt of thousands of (mainly female) party members, including me.

The Labour trans pledge is an astonishingly totalitarian document. It not only demands signatories “accept there is no material conflict between trans rights and women’s rights” but says anyone who disagrees is a bigot. It names Woman’s Place UK and the LGB Alliance as “hate groups” whose supporters are transphobic and must therefore be expelled. Even though these were set up chiefly to defend women’s single-sex spaces enshrined in Labour’s own 2010 Equality Act and upheld in the party’s 2019 manifesto.

So calm, thoughtful, unite-the-party Lisa Nandy wants to expel supporters of the very platform on which she was just re-elected! Chuck on the pyre life-long trade unionists like NUT president Kiri Tunks and Ruth Serwotka, Corbyn policy chief Lachlan Stuart, ex-MP Laura Pidcock and Stonewall founder Simon Fanshawe. Sprinkle the bonfire with thousands of horrified women members who tweeted, Spartacus-style. #expelme. Shove on top John McDonnell and Andy Burnham, who have both met WPUK and, Lisa, who will be left?

I mention Nandy because although every leadership candidate except Sir Keir Starmer has now signed this pledge, she has doubled down. There are no spaces at all, she said on Radio 4’s Today programme, where male-bodied people should be excluded. She likened the debate over women’s refuges to fights between Eritrean and Ethiopian boys when she worked at a Centrepoint homeless shelter: ie a woman and any male who self-identifies as a woman are materially the same and must be treated as such. From changing rooms to sports to, presumably, female beauticians being compelled to wax — as Canadian trans activist Jessica Yaniv demanded — a trans woman’s testicles.

Nandy is not the first politician who, sucked into the gender vortex, loses all reason. This week Labour MP Lloyd Russell-Moyle confounded biologists by saying that “sex is not binary”. During the election Lib Dem Dr Sarah Wollaston denied that a baby’s biological sex is observed at birth; potential Lib Dem leader Layla Moran believes women can differentiate male predators from self-identified trans women by looking into their souls.
Meanwhile in the US Democratic primaries. Elizabeth Warren, desperate to seduce Bernie Sanders’ supporters, posted her pronouns on her Twitter page, pledged that every trans woman prisoner (regardless of having committed sexual offences) should be relocated to the female estate, and then declared that as US president her education secretary would first be interviewed and approved by a designated “trans child”.

How have LGBT issues, in particular gender self-ID, become such a moral test of politicians in progressive parties? Sociologists speak of how organisations can be overwhelmed by “purity spirals”. This is when a group grades its members by a single value, which has no upper limit or agreed interpretation. Those who seek power must demonstrate their purity in ever more abstruse ways: those judged “impure” are denounced and destroyed.

Both Labour and the US Democrats have several concurrent purity spirals. Members fight to demonstrate their anti-racism by denouncing perceived white supremacy or by supporting no-border immigration policies. A US gay rights purity spiral means that although married to a man, Pete Buttigieg is accused of being “not gay enough” because as a chino-wearing, church-going ex-serviceman his lifestyle apes “heteronormative” society rather than “queer culture”. No matter that he’s bravely challenging prejudices of mainstream US voters for whom he’s too damn gay. Fighting a primary now, Barack Obama would be shredded as not black enough.

But the trans issue — specifically whether gender self-ID should be enshrined in law — is the purity spiral du jour. The Labour trans pledge transformed the leadership election from a civil, even dull contest, in which feminists felt they had a choice, into a grim, least-worst-option scenario. Every candidate has recited the catechism “trans women are women”, leaving members to assess whether they mean it literally, like Nandy, so single-sex exemptions are toast, or as an assertion of existing legal rights of trans women to be recognised as women, in most circumstances, which no one would dispute. This is the position it is hoped that sane lawyer Starmer holds.

So why are they submitting to this test? Because progressive politicians’ fear of being “on the wrong side of history” trumps all sense. Gender self-ID is constantly presented as the new gay rights. Yet gay men and lesbians only demanded to love freely. They did not materially encroach on any other group’s rights. Nor do most trans folk who simply wish to live without discrimination or violence and are horrified by activists who demand in their name that women surrender hard-won rights and safeguards.

Working on the 2019 Labour manifesto, Lachlan Stuart observed that LGBT activists were not “driven by a motivation to improve the quality of life for trans people” such as increased mental and physical health provision, only “to erode or erase the political rights of female people.” Their alarming central goal was to open up all female single-sex spaces to anyone who identified as a woman.

How will voters, who have hitherto been unaware of this arcane debate, feel about a Labour Party fully committed to ending historic safeguards? To a party which believes any male person should be allowed to legally change sex without qualification or checks, leaving women and girls vulnerable yet unable to object? Will Labour leaders pull out of the purity spiral and heed the fears of thousands of women members? Or will they, as that nice Lisa Nandy demands, simply chuck them out?
"The answer is that no-one here believes the parents were directly involved in MM's disappearance" - G-Unit.

Offline Eleanor

Re: Trans Rights and the Labour Party
« Reply #1 on: February 15, 2020, 10:30:59 AM »

I have to admit that I don't understand most of what appears to be going on.  But Transgender Men sent to Women's Prisons are committing Sexual Assault.  And Teenaged Girls forced to share changing rooms with Transgender Boys are obviously at risk.  Perhaps we need a Gang Rape Scandal.

Offline Faithlilly

Re: Trans Rights and the Labour Party
« Reply #2 on: February 15, 2020, 11:21:44 AM »
Couldn’t agree more with this article.  I was supporting Nandy in the leadership election but she’s gone done the wormhole like Wrong Daily now, so Keir it will have to be.   


Labour’s trans pledge says anyone who disagrees is a bigot
new
There is a bizarre race for ideological purity on the issue of trans rights and it is making many party members uneasy

Janice Turner
Friday February 14 2020, 5.00pm, The Times
Lisa Nandy brands herself as Labour’s truth-speaker. Rational, grounded, fearless of factions, the only leadership candidate prepared to tackle the self-delusion and disconnect which lost four elections, she’d won many prospective votes, including mine. Until Tuesday, when Nandy signed up to a witch-hunt of thousands of (mainly female) party members, including me.

The Labour trans pledge is an astonishingly totalitarian document. It not only demands signatories “accept there is no material conflict between trans rights and women’s rights” but says anyone who disagrees is a bigot. It names Woman’s Place UK and the LGB Alliance as “hate groups” whose supporters are transphobic and must therefore be expelled. Even though these were set up chiefly to defend women’s single-sex spaces enshrined in Labour’s own 2010 Equality Act and upheld in the party’s 2019 manifesto.

So calm, thoughtful, unite-the-party Lisa Nandy wants to expel supporters of the very platform on which she was just re-elected! Chuck on the pyre life-long trade unionists like NUT president Kiri Tunks and Ruth Serwotka, Corbyn policy chief Lachlan Stuart, ex-MP Laura Pidcock and Stonewall founder Simon Fanshawe. Sprinkle the bonfire with thousands of horrified women members who tweeted, Spartacus-style. #expelme. Shove on top John McDonnell and Andy Burnham, who have both met WPUK and, Lisa, who will be left?

I mention Nandy because although every leadership candidate except Sir Keir Starmer has now signed this pledge, she has doubled down. There are no spaces at all, she said on Radio 4’s Today programme, where male-bodied people should be excluded. She likened the debate over women’s refuges to fights between Eritrean and Ethiopian boys when she worked at a Centrepoint homeless shelter: ie a woman and any male who self-identifies as a woman are materially the same and must be treated as such. From changing rooms to sports to, presumably, female beauticians being compelled to wax — as Canadian trans activist Jessica Yaniv demanded — a trans woman’s testicles.

Nandy is not the first politician who, sucked into the gender vortex, loses all reason. This week Labour MP Lloyd Russell-Moyle confounded biologists by saying that “sex is not binary”. During the election Lib Dem Dr Sarah Wollaston denied that a baby’s biological sex is observed at birth; potential Lib Dem leader Layla Moran believes women can differentiate male predators from self-identified trans women by looking into their souls.
Meanwhile in the US Democratic primaries. Elizabeth Warren, desperate to seduce Bernie Sanders’ supporters, posted her pronouns on her Twitter page, pledged that every trans woman prisoner (regardless of having committed sexual offences) should be relocated to the female estate, and then declared that as US president her education secretary would first be interviewed and approved by a designated “trans child”.

How have LGBT issues, in particular gender self-ID, become such a moral test of politicians in progressive parties? Sociologists speak of how organisations can be overwhelmed by “purity spirals”. This is when a group grades its members by a single value, which has no upper limit or agreed interpretation. Those who seek power must demonstrate their purity in ever more abstruse ways: those judged “impure” are denounced and destroyed.

Both Labour and the US Democrats have several concurrent purity spirals. Members fight to demonstrate their anti-racism by denouncing perceived white supremacy or by supporting no-border immigration policies. A US gay rights purity spiral means that although married to a man, Pete Buttigieg is accused of being “not gay enough” because as a chino-wearing, church-going ex-serviceman his lifestyle apes “heteronormative” society rather than “queer culture”. No matter that he’s bravely challenging prejudices of mainstream US voters for whom he’s too damn gay. Fighting a primary now, Barack Obama would be shredded as not black enough.

But the trans issue — specifically whether gender self-ID should be enshrined in law — is the purity spiral du jour. The Labour trans pledge transformed the leadership election from a civil, even dull contest, in which feminists felt they had a choice, into a grim, least-worst-option scenario. Every candidate has recited the catechism “trans women are women”, leaving members to assess whether they mean it literally, like Nandy, so single-sex exemptions are toast, or as an assertion of existing legal rights of trans women to be recognised as women, in most circumstances, which no one would dispute. This is the position it is hoped that sane lawyer Starmer holds.

So why are they submitting to this test? Because progressive politicians’ fear of being “on the wrong side of history” trumps all sense. Gender self-ID is constantly presented as the new gay rights. Yet gay men and lesbians only demanded to love freely. They did not materially encroach on any other group’s rights. Nor do most trans folk who simply wish to live without discrimination or violence and are horrified by activists who demand in their name that women surrender hard-won rights and safeguards.

Working on the 2019 Labour manifesto, Lachlan Stuart observed that LGBT activists were not “driven by a motivation to improve the quality of life for trans people” such as increased mental and physical health provision, only “to erode or erase the political rights of female people.” Their alarming central goal was to open up all female single-sex spaces to anyone who identified as a woman.

How will voters, who have hitherto been unaware of this arcane debate, feel about a Labour Party fully committed to ending historic safeguards? To a party which believes any male person should be allowed to legally change sex without qualification or checks, leaving women and girls vulnerable yet unable to object? Will Labour leaders pull out of the purity spiral and heed the fears of thousands of women members? Or will they, as that nice Lisa Nandy demands, simply chuck them out?

The substance of this debate is not what rankles me, it’s that so much time, energy and newsprint is being taken up with it while one in four of our children live in poverty. Who will best address this during the reign of a government with such a huge majority and very little moral fibre is the real debate we should be having.
'She ( Kate) did, she brought it up and that she, I mean, this is awful in retrospect as well, she asked what my opinion was on, erm, tut, on whether they were okay leaving the, the doors unlocked, because she was saying 'Is it better that if Madeleine wakes up she can get out and find us or', erm, 'or locking it and, you know, finding that we're not there and the door's locked if she woke up', because Madeleine had woken up, what I thought was the night before. Erm, tut, and it was in that context really, just asking, you know, what I thought. So it was obviously something that was on her mind a bit, huh'.

Offline Vertigo Swirl

Re: Trans Rights and the Labour Party
« Reply #3 on: February 15, 2020, 05:23:45 PM »
The substance of this debate is not what rankles me, it’s that so much time, energy and newsprint is being taken up with it while one in four of our children live in poverty. Who will best address this during the reign of a government with such a huge majority and very little moral fibre is the real debate we should be having.
I think the substance of this debate IS and should be troubling for women born women in this country.  Whilst it might be a distraction from other issues I don’t think the seriousness of what is being promulgated here should be downplayed.
"The answer is that no-one here believes the parents were directly involved in MM's disappearance" - G-Unit.

Offline Eleanor

Re: Trans Rights and the Labour Party
« Reply #4 on: February 15, 2020, 06:37:29 PM »
The substance of this debate is not what rankles me, it’s that so much time, energy and newsprint is being taken up with it while one in four of our children live in poverty. Who will best address this during the reign of a government with such a huge majority and very little moral fibre is the real debate we should be having.

This a misrepresentation, Faith.  Any child living in poverty is doing so because of their parents.

What has Trans Rights got to do with The Labour Party?

Offline Faithlilly

Re: Trans Rights and the Labour Party
« Reply #5 on: February 15, 2020, 07:33:45 PM »
This a misrepresentation, Faith.  Any child living in poverty is doing so because of their parents.

What has Trans Rights got to do with The Labour Party?

And why when we are told that more people are in employment than ever before is there more poverty ?
'She ( Kate) did, she brought it up and that she, I mean, this is awful in retrospect as well, she asked what my opinion was on, erm, tut, on whether they were okay leaving the, the doors unlocked, because she was saying 'Is it better that if Madeleine wakes up she can get out and find us or', erm, 'or locking it and, you know, finding that we're not there and the door's locked if she woke up', because Madeleine had woken up, what I thought was the night before. Erm, tut, and it was in that context really, just asking, you know, what I thought. So it was obviously something that was on her mind a bit, huh'.