If Labour truly cannot be neutral politically you just take the “gender critical” side as that’s the position that if forced most of the swing voters would take.
Yes you’ll upset a bunch of your activists and get smaller majorities in London. But you’ll be OK in the seats you need to win.
If Labour truly cannot be neutral politically you just take the “gender critical” side as that’s the position that if forced most of the swing voters would take.
Yes you’ll upset a bunch of your activists and get smaller majorities in London. But you’ll be OK in the seats you need to win.
The GC side could just as easily say the trans rights side are throwing women under a bus. Neither statement would be very helpful. We probably need to lower the temperature so we can talk about details and nuances of what a workable compromise might look like.
I really wonder about people who call themselves feminists and yet think women are such delicate flowers that they are threatened by the mere presence of transwomen. I can see maybe being annoyed if it comes to an argument over who is more feminine, but that’s kind of silly. I am personally kind of annoyed at seeing terms like “pregnant people” or the idea that someone’s medical ID should reflect their legal gender and not their sex at birth, but none of this is personally threatening to me as a woman.
I do wonder if the habit of trans allies all announcing their pronouns muddies the debate by making it look like there are far more trans people than there really are--if a lot of fear is that you never know what sex someone is, really, and that’s very disorienting to a lot of people.
Like, what actual workable compromise are you imagining? Transphobia is literally killing people and the so called gender critical concerns are just modern "gay people are pedophiles" bullshit. The UK press is far too soft and both sides on this stuff when there's a very clear power imbalance.
I'm afraid I don't have a solution. I was saying we might be able to begin to figure out some kind of solution that all sides can agree on, if only the tone of the debate were to become less heated.
You're assuming both sides are here in good faith but I think we can see clearly from the open far right culture war approach in the USA that the "gender critical" approach is just the transphobic wedge. This is like assuming we need to find a middle ground between teaching evolution and intelligent design.
But we do actually have more than a century of scientific proof of evolution--gender science, such as it is, is pretty new, which is not to say it isn’t real, just not as solid because it is an area that people are still feeling their way along and don’t really know cause/effect. I’ve seen stuff about transpeople who might have been born intersex, but that’s not common enough to account for everyone who identifies differently from their birth sex. There is news about gender fluidity being associated with autism.
One thing that comes out quite clearly from the survey, and that makes a lot of sense, is that a lot of people are very confused by the whole issue. The worst thing that trans rights people do is accuse anyone who confused (ie not automatically on board with trans rights and self ID) of being a TERF or transphobe. That is political suicide.
What’s most concerning, though, since it very much impacts everyday life, is the majority being afraid of transwomen using the women’s restroom--what is with this? What do you people do in restrooms that this should be an issue? Do people have sex in the restroom a lot over there? (I’m in US) I figure public restrooms are a place where you go in, close the stall door, do what you need to and leave. Don’t understand this notion that a rapist would go to the trouble of not only dressing up but inventing a persona for the sake of attacking women in the restroom, rather than just wait until someone is alone in there and just go in and attack them. It’s bizarre. Making a transwoman use the men’s room seems like the kind of thing that is more likely to lead to an attack, on the transwoman.
As it’s a human rights issue one would expect the activists who care about it as an issue to be focused most strongly on persuading suburban swing voters that they are right.
And the traditionally best method for persuading people is to tell a good story - so you’d expect them to focus on that.
If Labour truly cannot be neutral politically you just take the “gender critical” side as that’s the position that if forced most of the swing voters would take.
Yes you’ll upset a bunch of your activists and get smaller majorities in London. But you’ll be OK in the seats you need to win.
Amazing take. Just throw trans people under the bus because magically the bigots will stop being Tories. No wonder the UK is cussed.
Which part of my analysis do you disagree with?
I'm replying to Matthew's comment here
The GC side could just as easily say the trans rights side are throwing women under a bus. Neither statement would be very helpful. We probably need to lower the temperature so we can talk about details and nuances of what a workable compromise might look like.
I really wonder about people who call themselves feminists and yet think women are such delicate flowers that they are threatened by the mere presence of transwomen. I can see maybe being annoyed if it comes to an argument over who is more feminine, but that’s kind of silly. I am personally kind of annoyed at seeing terms like “pregnant people” or the idea that someone’s medical ID should reflect their legal gender and not their sex at birth, but none of this is personally threatening to me as a woman.
I do wonder if the habit of trans allies all announcing their pronouns muddies the debate by making it look like there are far more trans people than there really are--if a lot of fear is that you never know what sex someone is, really, and that’s very disorienting to a lot of people.
Like, what actual workable compromise are you imagining? Transphobia is literally killing people and the so called gender critical concerns are just modern "gay people are pedophiles" bullshit. The UK press is far too soft and both sides on this stuff when there's a very clear power imbalance.
I'm afraid I don't have a solution. I was saying we might be able to begin to figure out some kind of solution that all sides can agree on, if only the tone of the debate were to become less heated.
You're assuming both sides are here in good faith but I think we can see clearly from the open far right culture war approach in the USA that the "gender critical" approach is just the transphobic wedge. This is like assuming we need to find a middle ground between teaching evolution and intelligent design.
But we do actually have more than a century of scientific proof of evolution--gender science, such as it is, is pretty new, which is not to say it isn’t real, just not as solid because it is an area that people are still feeling their way along and don’t really know cause/effect. I’ve seen stuff about transpeople who might have been born intersex, but that’s not common enough to account for everyone who identifies differently from their birth sex. There is news about gender fluidity being associated with autism.
One thing that comes out quite clearly from the survey, and that makes a lot of sense, is that a lot of people are very confused by the whole issue. The worst thing that trans rights people do is accuse anyone who confused (ie not automatically on board with trans rights and self ID) of being a TERF or transphobe. That is political suicide.
What’s most concerning, though, since it very much impacts everyday life, is the majority being afraid of transwomen using the women’s restroom--what is with this? What do you people do in restrooms that this should be an issue? Do people have sex in the restroom a lot over there? (I’m in US) I figure public restrooms are a place where you go in, close the stall door, do what you need to and leave. Don’t understand this notion that a rapist would go to the trouble of not only dressing up but inventing a persona for the sake of attacking women in the restroom, rather than just wait until someone is alone in there and just go in and attack them. It’s bizarre. Making a transwoman use the men’s room seems like the kind of thing that is more likely to lead to an attack, on the transwoman.
They'd be wrong though
I don’t think referring to people as “bigots” is particularly productive.
Especially when by the standards of 30 years ago they’d be judged as extremely progressive.
Referring to human rights as the mere concern of "London activists" isn't particularly helpful either
As it’s a human rights issue one would expect the activists who care about it as an issue to be focused most strongly on persuading suburban swing voters that they are right.
And the traditionally best method for persuading people is to tell a good story - so you’d expect them to focus on that.