Because the UK Parliament was dissolved on May 30, every seat in the House of Commons is now vacant, but they’ll be filled in a general election tomorrow. And the head of the party that gets the most seats will become Prime Minister. Matthew gives us the following information in response to my questions:
The PM is, by default, the leader of the largest party. Although they are, of course, named by the head of state – the monarch. On Friday there will be what is known as the ‘kissing of hands’, which involves the leader of the largest party meeting the monarch and being made PM. In the case of no clear majority (as in 2010 – a ‘hung’ parliament), the parties negotiate between themselves, and effectively nominate a PM (in that case, Cameron), who is then approved by the monarch.
The Tories are going to be voted out, it seems to be a question of quite how crushing is their defeat. Labour will be the government on Friday morning.
The new PM will be Sir Keir Starmer, who got his knighthood as a formality for being the Director of Public Prosecutions (a kind of national DA) in the noughties.
Like most Americans, I’m woefully ignorant of politics outside the U.S., for our news is quite parochial. But it’s widely known that Labour had its issues with antisemitism, issues that I hope have now been resolved (Since Labour seems to be the UK equivalent of the Democratic Party, I suppose I’d vote for that party were I a Brit). But according to two articles below—curiously, one in the conservative Times of London and the other in the left-wing Guardian—Labour is said has a new set of issues, especially for women: issues involving gender activism. According to J. K. Rowling, writing in the Times, Labour has fallen prey to that activism, while the Guardian reports that “many [women] are frustrated at failures to tackle inequality, the climate and Labour’s struggle to define a woman.”
I’ll just report on the “struggle to define a woman,” which, of course, is something I’ve followed regularly on this site, and which I’ve talked about in public.
The issue appears to be that Labour not only won’t define women as biological adult females, but wants to include trans women in that mix as well, adhering to the mantra “trans women are women.” The consequences include not only confusing people about biology, but, more important, giving trans women some privileges that entail equating them with biological women in every sense. And that’s what Rowling (and I) object to. Let me quote Rowling from the Times piece on what she believes, and what I adhere to as well:
For left-leaning women like us, this isn’t, and never has been, about trans people enjoying the rights of every other citizen, and being free to present and identify however they wish.
This is about the right of women and girls to assert their boundaries. It’s about freedom of speech and observable truth. It’s about waiting, with dwindling hope, for the left to wake up to the fact that its lazy embrace of a quasi-religious ideology is having calamitous consequences.
To clarify, trans women (and trans people) should indeed enjoy the rights (well, nearly all of them) of every citizen, with just a few exceptions, and can “present and identify however they wish,” Simple morality and civility dictate that.
The rights I don’t think that transwomen (the topic of both articles) should possess include competing in sports against biological women, being put in jail with biological women, and being able to act as rape counselors or staff in women’s shelters. That’s not a huge list of “non-rights” (there may be a few I haven’t thought of), but people like Rowling raise these issues because they are not fair to biological women. (I’ve discussed this at length, and won’t do so here.)
But my view on the few “nonrights” for trans women has predictably earned me opprobrium from gender activists, and I regularly get emails of denunciations calling me a “transphobe”, a TERF (Trans-Exclusive Radical Feminist), and, in the latest one, simply “offensive”. Well, too bad for that. It’s free speech, Jake, and I can ignore it. Again, there are only few issues on which biological women’s rights trump transwomen’s rights.
I found Rowling’s piece because it’s in her latest pinned tweet:
With apologies to Strike fans waiting for book 8, I spent much of today writing this.https://t.co/j6rGaM8XZI
— J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) June 21, 2024
And you can read her Times piece by clicking below (I’ve given the archived link, which is also here.
Rowling is struggling because she’s always been a Labour voter, but now finds Labour imbued with gender activism, to the point where their politicians can’t or won’t define “woman,” and also consider transwomen completely equivalent to biological women in every respect, including the issues above.
What prompted Rowling’s piece was a book launch she recently attended. The book is called The Women Who Wouldn’t Wheest, with the last word being Scottish argot for “shut up”. In other words, it’s a series of chapters by “uppity” women, described by Amazon like this:
Through a collection of over thirty essays and photographs, some of the women involved tell the story of the five-year campaign to protect women’s sex-based rights. Author J.K. Rowling explains why she used her global reach to stand up for women. Leading SNP MP Joanna Cherry writes of how she risked her political career for her beliefs. Survivors of male violence who MSPs refused to meet are given the voice they were denied at Holyrood. Ash Regan MSP recounts what it was like to become the first government minister to resign on a question of principle since the SNP came to power in 2007. Former prison governor Rhona Hotchkiss charts how changes in prison policy in Scotland led to the controversy over Isla Bryson.
Unfortunately, by 2021, Starmer’s answer had to be seen in the context of a Labour Party that not merely saw the rights of women as disposable, but struggled to say what a woman was at all.
Take Anneliese Dodds, the shadow secretary for women and equalities, who, when asked what a woman is, said, it “depends on what the context is”. Take Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary: “I’m not going to get into rabbit holes on this”; Stella Creasy, Labour candidate for Walthamstow: “Do I think some women were born with penises? Yes … But they are now women and I respect that”; Emily Thornberry, the shadow attorney-general: “Women who are trans deserve to be recognised, and yes — therefore some of them will have penises. Frankly, I’m not looking up their skirts, I don’t care.” Dawn Butler, the former MP for Brent Central, actually announced on TV that “a child is born without sex at the beginning” (I choose to believe she meant the lesser of two insanities here: a sex, not that children really are delivered by stork.)
Some of this is almost funny, but loses its humour when real-world consequences of gender ideology arise. When asked whether violent sex offenders who transition should be rehoused in women’s prisons, Lisa Nandy, the shadow secretary for international development, said: “I think trans women are women, I think trans men are men, so I think they should be in the prison of their choosing.”
Rebecca Long-Bailey, the candidate for Salford, said female victims of male violence shouldn’t use their trauma “as an argument to discriminate against trans people” and vowed to change laws to stop women’s refuges excluding men who identify as women.
David Lammy, the shadow foreign secretary, called women like me “dinosaurs hoarding rights”. Lammy, too, has form on the vexed question of cervixes: “A cervix, I understand, is something you can have following various procedures and hormone treatments.” It’s very hard not to suspect that some of these men don’t know what a cervix is, but consider it too unimportant to Google.
Apparently, Duffield has received a bunch of hate for her views, but that’s free speech; what’s worse is that she’s gotten death threats so serious that she’s hired personal security and has been advised not to campaign in public. According to Rowling, Tony Blair said things almost identical to what Duffield maintains, but never got into trouble for them. Times have changed.
Yes, Rowling is a one-issue candidates about this, but remember that this is an issue she takes seriously, and, importantly, has the clout that renders her not only publicly respectable to many, but also makes her immune to cancellation. Her voice for the rights of biological women has been the loudest and most important. As to how she’ll vote tomorrow, she says this:
An independent candidate is standing in my constituency who’s campaigning to clarify the Equality Act.
Perhaps that’s where my X will have to go on July 4. As long as Labour remains dismissive and often offensive towards women fighting to retain the rights their foremothers thought were won for all time, I’ll struggle to support them. The women who wouldn’t wheesht didn’t leave Labour. Labour abandoned them.
A few quotes:
Many of the women who responded to an online callout or spoke to the Guardian expressed frustration with politics that had failed to address poverty, inequality, healthcare for women and children in particular, the climate and Brexit, and voiced acute fears for their and their families’ future: mothers of children with SEN (special educational needs) or mental health issues, mothers unable to afford childcare, or with adult children unable to buy homes, unpaid carers, women feeling exploited in low-paid jobs with no prospects of progression, and women with disabilities fearing harsher welfare conditions in future.
Scores also said they were concerned about rising extremism and political polarisation, misogyny, violence against women and girls, antisemitism and Islamophobia.
From an anonymous “Sharon”:
“However, the final straw for me is the issue of women’s rights,” she added.
Sharon was one of hundreds of women who shared that sex-based rights for women and girls was a main political concern of theirs this election.
Women from across the country, dozens of them economically disadvantaged or with disabilities, said they would abandon Labour, the Lib Dems or the Greens over this issue and vote either Conservative, Reform or spoil their ballot – particularly women from marginal areas Labour is hoping to gain, such as Lincoln, Darlington, Derbyshire, Warrington North and Truro and Falmouth.
Various said they felt “politically homeless” because of this issue, with Starmer having repeatedly referred to the debate over trans rights as “divisive and toxic” culture wars.
“This ain’t a culture war,” said Kerri Clarke, a 46-year-old stay-at-home mother from Hertfordshire. “I’ll be voting Conservative for the first time in my life, as the child of Labour activists.”
Clarke worries that the current Labour party is “utterly uninterested in women, our rights to safety and dignity”.
“This is about supporting our sisters in prisons and women’s shelters,” said Anne, 61, from Burnley, Labour’s “most winnable seat”.
Having always voted Labour, Anne said she might abstain for the first time unless she heard something positive from Labour on the protection of women’s and girls’ “safety and opportunities” this week.
Tracy, from Kent, in her 40s and usually a Labour voter, is likely to spoil her ballot. “I want to vote Labour but I can’t bear to support a party that so struggles to define the word woman.
“There are some contexts where biological sex matters, and women’s rights have been affected in recent years by a failure of law and policy to recognise this. Starmer wants this to go away, but it’s not going to go away.”
There are lots of other issues discussed, and some remind me of problems that centrist Democrats have with the newly progressive Biden, , including immigration, the women’s issues described above, and failure to hear the concerns of the middle class. And, like the “progressive” Democrats, Labour has embraced “woke” political positions that could drive voters into the hands of the right wing. This is distressing for Left centrists like me, but we don’t have a party acceptable enough to get our “X”. (I suppose mine will go for Biden—if he winds up being the candidate.)
I had hoped, at least that Labour had abandoned its patina of antisemitism, but that still seems to be a concern for many.
For the record, a “TERF” is a “Trans-Exclusive Radical Feminist”, so you can be one, too! As am I, I suppose, although I prefer to call myself “gender-critical”.
Sorry, I stand corrected and have changed it. And yes, I am at least a second wave feminist!
Yes, that’s what the National Women’s Law Center calls it in their post “Happy Pride. Don’t Be a TERF.” They also use Rowling as the poster child for TERFs.
“Duffield has received a bunch of hate for her views, but that’s free speech”.
“Tony Blair said things almost identical to what Duffield maintains, but never got into trouble for them.”.
It’s worse than that. Rosie has suffered a deluge of vile abuse, including from Labour MPs, for saying that women need single sex spaces. She’s been saying it for 4 or 5 years.
Starmer stood by and did NOTHING as she was abused. BUT suddenly last month, Blair declared that “a woman has a vagina and a man has a penis” [Source https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/17/tony-blair-labour-trans-views-gender-general-election/%5D and suddenly Starmer is saying it. Utter hypocrisy that he ONLY agrees when a *man* says it. Classic misogyny.
Starmer still hasn’t apologised to Rosie.
Highly recommend “The Women Who Wouldn’t Wheesht”.
The focus is on Rosie Duffield but not on feminist Labour MPs who supported ‘transwomen are women’. Stella Creasy, Nadia Whittome, Zara Sultana, Harriet Harman, even Jess Phillips. What is this to do with misogyny? Because of the omertà of feminism these figures do not come for criticism.
This problem was brought to us by ‘women who would wheesht’
The misogyny I’m referring to here is specifically about Starmer, for ignoring women and only paying attention when a man, Blair, says sex is real.
Yes, there are many women who don’t care about safeguarding. GCs call them handmaidens, or Aunt Lydias. They insist that transwomen aren’t a danger. They just don’t get that this is about ALL men, as it’s impossible for a 14yo girl undressing to swim to tell whether the penis beside her is on a ‘safe’ TW, a dangerous TW or a paedo just pretending to be trans.
That’s why every decent man already stays out of women’s spaces, and that includes many who call themselves transwomen. Any man accessing women’s spaces without our permission is, by definition, a predator.
Hear hear!
A decent man: https://twitter.com/i/status/1808250897467666880
Yes but why do you direct your attack solely at Keir Starmer and why do you foreground Rosie Duffield but ignore the promotors of this culture who are mostly female. I have listed their names above, there are plenty of other ‘women who would wheesht’. Why won’t feminists call out these people? Why do they only point the finger at Owen Jones at the Guardian but not its editor Katherine Viner? Do I detect a whiff of misandry here?
This isn’t ALL about men as you say, data from the Tavistock showed three times more people ‘transitioning’ from female to male.Okay because we are dimorphic species (something feminists have been in denial about) they don’t pose the same dangers.
Julie Burchill refers to “feminists” who support the trans cult as “transmaids.”
She has a way with words, mind: she coined “crybullies” too.
@Philip Griffiths
“solely at Keir Starmer”
I don’t.
“promotors […] who are mostly female”
Wrong.
“Why won’t feminists call out these people?”
Every week a man asks us that. You are seriously misinformed. You just haven’t listened to women or read articles by Doc Stock, Helen Joyce, Susannah Moore, Maya Forstater, Bev Jackson, Emma Hilton, Kellie-Jay Keen, Megan Murphy et al.
You clearly missed the furore about Viner vs Susannah Moore, criticisms of Harriet Harman’s planned job in equality and outrage at Jess Phillips listing trans victims but not women.
“Why do they only point the finger at Owen Jones”
We don’t. Most ignore him. Check my twitter.
“a whiff of misandry”
Nonsense. Women are anti predator, not anti men. I’m friends with many men and TW who respect women. Feminists acknowledge that two key people supporting us are men. Graham Linehan and Stu Campbell.
“data from the Tavistock”
We’ve had the stats for years. It’s sad that so many women think they can avoid misogyny by denying their sex. We need to ask why.
“we are dimorphic species (something feminists have been in denial about)”
That is so ludicrous I literally laughed. Women need single sex spaces *because* humans are dimorphic 🤦♀️ Are you in the USA? Many, not all, men there seem not to understand what feminism is.
I’ve cut this reply down as I have already typed a lot on the Prof’s space. I’m not going to comment further, but hope you will come to X where I can give evidence of every statement I’ve made. @joolzzt
On what other rights are problematic in the case of trans women. One case worth considering is same sex rooms and same sex wards in hospitals. Another case discussed in the Women Who Wouldn’t Wheesht book is that of intimate care for a severely learning disabled woman.
A decade ago, my mother-in-law was in home hospice. She asked me to call the hospice staff to schedule a bath for that week; my wife would normally assist with the bathing, but she was traveling. Later that afternoon, I answered the knock on the door. A young man, well built and over 6 ft tall, politely told me that he was there to give a bath, at which, following a very strong hunch, I informed him that my mother-in-law had changed her mind and wasn’t feeling up to it that day. Nevertheless, I invited him in and proceeded to her room to inquire. When I told her that the man was here to bathe her but that I had already told him that she wasn’t up to it, she nodded her head alternately “yes” and then emphatically “no.” She was clearly stunned—and speechless.
My wife followed up with a female hospice nurse who, apologetically, said that they had no choice. The State, it was claimed, considered it discrimination to bar a man from caring for a woman. Nor would hospice honor requests for same sex caregivers. I long wondered what the situation would have been like for a young woman needing recurring in-home care. She could choose either a male or female doctor if she were going to their offices, but if a minimally-trained young man were sent to her home to undress her and bathe her body, then get with the political program. Lack of concern for the wishes of women as only accelerated since then.
And, now, people sit amazed that those who dwell outside our bastions of higher education and urban enlightenment will vote for madmen to stop the preexisting madness.
I still have not heard a good explanation of what rights trans-identifying people are being denied. The right to use the bathroom of their choice? That’s not a right. The right to be referred to using pronouns of their choice? That’s not a right. The right to require others to pretend that they are a different sex? Not a right.
Well, the definition of “rights” has always been problematic. Think about the “right” to get an abortion, and the arguments about that. Although I use the word myself, I’d prefer an alternative that is less freighted.
Yes, some rights are controversial, but at least the claim to a right to get an abortion is a clearly stated assertion. The trans movement, in all its post-modern opacity, seems to be avoiding that kind of clarity.
I agree that “rights” is an excessively freighted term. (Thanks, PCC(E).)
I suggest it’s helpful to divide them into negative and positive rights. (We could even call them unfreighted and freighted rights!)
Habeas corpus is a negative right. It is unfreighted with a reciprocal obligation on anyone else to provide me with some good in my exercise of it. Just open the door of the jail cell. The rights contained in the 10 Original Amendments to the U.S. Constitution are further negative rights. They restrict the state’s power and it is usually straightforward to determine if an action by the state (like a law) breaches a right. We may disagree with the adjudication but the process is well-trodden.
A claimed “right to healthcare” is a positive right. It is freighted with the implied obligation of someone (who?) to provide it, usually for free (paid for by someone else.). But what if those Someones don’t want to? Is my right being abridged? By whom? What’s the remedy? I would say that positive, freighted rights are usually just rhetorical devices to compel the state to spend money on some social policy, except that…
Unfortunately civil rights legislation (human rights in Canada and I think equality rights in the United Kingdom). has created a whole menu of positive rights to protection against “discrimination”. My right not to be discriminated against on some basis confers a reciprocal obligation on you to watch your step around me me lest I enlist the power of the state to swat you. This is where my “right” to use non-grammatical pronouns confers an obligation on you to use them, too, on pain of penalty enforced by the state. The “right” of men to usurp women’s spaces is also a positive right because it is freighted with the obligation of women to submit to the breach of their traditional protections. The pernicious concept of identitarian group rights arises once rights become freighted with positivity against discrimination. The state can take action against you on its own initiative, citing “disparate impact” of something you are doing without ill intent.
The rights that trans people demand are all, every single one of them including the “right” to proselytize in schools, of this group-oriented, positive, freighted type. They already enjoy, as individuals, all the negative rights against the state that everyone else enjoys.
The difficulty with positive rights, and why they are so freighted, is that there is no clear way to tell if the right has been abridged. If the only abortionist or gender-quack in tiny Prince Edward Island retires, is he, or the province, guilty of a rights breach? If the province pays for Islanders to go to Nova Scotia, how generous does the reimbursement for travel costs and time off work have to be for patient and support person(s)?
It would be better if society confined itself to negative, unfreighted rights. But the genie of positive rights claimed by identity groups was let out of the bottle long ago by anti-discrimination laws enshrining civil rights. The trans activists do exactly use this concept to argue that the rest of society can be compelled to go along with their demands. Perhaps the best we can hope is that, rather than repealing all group-based freighted rights, the courts and legislatures will chip away at the concept that “gender” is a protected ground on the basis of which you cannot be discriminated against. Only sex is. Bogus criteria — “I feel like a woman, therefore I am one” — should not be the basis of group rights.
So very well put as always, Leslie. You often help me to sort out my own thoughts. You help me sharpen my own ‘knife’.
Yes Leslie, that’s a good analysis of rights. As a UK citizen I’m genuinely thankful that I have the right to live in a, largely, gun free country, where I can walk down the street with almost complete certainty that nobody around me is carrying a firearm, concealed or otherwise. I guess this is a negative right.
Actually it’s not. I didn’t mention gun rights at all but since you brought it up: It just means you don’t happen to need the right to carry a gun so you were willing to surrender that right, which you once had, when the state took over the job of shooting criminals where necessary. Neither do we, in Canada. Good for us. Some negative rights are more important than others in different times and places. A right to freedom of speech might not be necessary, either, if the government would never dream of trying to abridge it.
What you are actually citing is a positive right. You demand that the state invest the resources to absolve you of the need to use lethal force to protect yourselves, doing what it must to keep you from being a victim of violent crime. This seems to work out well for you given the sort of people, even the bad ones, who live in your country, and mine. But what happens if the state decides it can no longer afford the welfare, policing, and incarceration costs that vouchsafe that happy state, or if people change to being quicker to use violence and less fearful of the consequences?
Positive rights depend on funding. That’s why they are freighted. Freight costs money. You really enjoy only a positive right to protection by the state. The degree of protection depends on how much it is willing to tax and spend, competing with other opposing priorities, like encouraging immigration from violent places and de-carcerating racial minorities as Canada wants to do.
I don’t agree with the majority of what you say here, but dealing only with your point about the state investing in protection as a result of our ‘loss’ of the right to gun ownership. It actually is not only not a cost to society, it’s a, probably quantifiable, benefit. I think it’s important to appreciate that the absence of guns in the UK is part of our psyche, and that we’re not all chomping at the bit, desperate to have the right restored. Think of the massive resources involved each time there’s a mass shooting which, in the US, is more than daily. The pressure on health services, the suicides as a result of the availability of guns, the massive policing required to keep some sort of order, greater by a massive factor than the very limited resources provided to arming UK police when necessary.
If there’s ‘freight’ to our right to be free of guns, whether it’s negative or positive, I for one am happy to pay it. Though I think it’s actually negative freight.
One of the demanded rights that really annoyed me was one case where the trans person demanded the right to shower with young girls. Don’t get me wrong, the trans person was also young, but that really seems to be asking a lot of girls going through puberty.
A recurring theme of the “rights” demanded seems to often include access to other people’s children. This demonstrates a lack of understanding of what rights actually are.
In every election I have ever voted in, I have never found a party that agrees with me on every political subject. I’ve always had to “hold my nose” in some respect and this election is no different to any other.
On this occasion, I think the incumbent government has done more damage to the country than any other I can remember and, if it were to win, that damage will be worsened. Furthermore, its members seem to be equal parts incompetent, venal and corrupt.
I’m afraid getting rid of them takes precedence (for me) over trans rights issues.
I agree. I find that I agree with some Labour policies but not others, and I also agree with some Liberal Democrat policies but not others. In the constituency where I will be voting tomorrow, the Liberal Democrat candidate has the best chance of defeating the Tory incumbent, so I shall give my vote to the Liberal Democrat.
I think there will be higher numbers of spoiled ballot papers tomorrow as many have no party to vote for. Some feminists say we should vote Labour, as the ‘least worst’ option, but I don’t trust Starmer, especially, as you said, many of his MPs are determined to remove women’s human rights to safety and dignity. Their manifesto has weasel words. They say they will protect ‘biological women’ but many men now claim to BE ‘biological women’ and Starmer refuses to give specifics.
Starmer is talking about clarifying that protecting ‘women’ in the Equality Act means biological women. I think that’s a dangerous step, because ‘woman’ literally means ‘adult human female’ [AHF] already. NO other type of woman exists. Adding the term ‘biological’ implies there are biological women and also ‘other’ women. It’s a bad precedent. Women are NOT a subset of our sex class.
Many men (not all) and some women, think ‘women’s rights’ is not the hill to die on. I disagree. If the word ‘woman’ no longer means AHF, then we can’t monitor sex pay differences. We can’t monitor male violence against women. We can’t do research or analysis on women’s needs. We can’t have women’s sports. Tasmania has already legislated to ban lesbians meeting without men. Removing the term for AHF even removes feminism itself. That’s why I’m spoiling my paper.
Sex based statistics have already become meaningless. 436 trans identified men were prosecuted for rape in Eng/Wal over 7 years. They were recorded as ‘women’. Here rape requires a penis, or in *very* rare cases a woman can be prosecuted if she helps a man subdue his victim. I can only find 2 women prosecuted for rape since the Sexual Offences Act 2003. But suddenly the official women’s stats show a HUGE increase in violence because of those men. [Source https://www.parliament.scot/chamber-and-committees/committees/current-and-previous-committees/session-6-citizen-participation-and-public-petitions-committee/correspondence/2021/pe1876_h-professor-alice-sullivan-submission-of-27-august-2021%5D.
The gov uses data from the Office of National Statistics to budget resources. Will they redirect money from preventing male violence to preventing this increase in female violence?
In Scotland the 2 parties that support women aren’t standing in all constituencies. The Scottish National Party will lose a LOT of seats to Labour for reasons too numerous to list. They aren’t getting donations in, and they’ve lost 60,000 members. They are almost bankrupt, and, hopefully with losing MPs they will become bankrupt with the loss of their short money 🤞. [https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/short-money/].
Sorry this is so long, but genderwoo drives me bananas.
+1
+1
“many have no party to vote for”
The lacking of choices is appalling.
In France the situation is still worse.
They have to choose between far right and far pro Palestinian left.And you can extend this situation in most democratic european countries.
The 2024 General Election in the UK is perhaps a political inflexion point. People claim that (in our mainly two party system) it is a contest between a Party that deserves to lose (the Conservatives) and a Party that doesn’t deserve to win (Labour).
Perhaps the Conservatives will never recover and a new Party has to arise from the ashes… yet it is also possible that the same political inflexion will strike the Labour Party at the next General Election.
The days of the old tribal Left/Right distinction may be on the way out. But what is to replace them?
This isn’t about trans rights. Trans people already have the same rights as everyone else in Eng, NI and Wales. Trans identified men have MORE rights than women in Scotland.
This debate is about human rights that trans activists [TRAs] want to take from women. Primarily women’s rights to safety and dignity under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The ‘rights’ the TRAs want are the ‘right’ to watch women and little girls undress.
The ‘right’ to have their healthcare prioritised over everyone else in the queue. The ‘right’ to give children medication proven to cause brain damage and surgery without informed consent. The ‘right’ to compel others to lie by using the wrong pronouns for them. Loads more. None are actually human rights.
I feel strongly for your situation.
The whole business is always men, hear very little from women claiming to be men and still the activists fail miserably to recognize this salient point. MEN are the problem! It makes me very angry.
Thank you. Many men are standing with women. They care about the women in their lives. Gay men are angry too. Genderwoo erases same sex attraction and demands you date by ‘gender’. That’s homophobic. Gay men are now called ‘transphobic’ for refusing to date women who pretend to be men 🤦♀️.
It’s insane.
Right, right and right you are!
Yes, I understand that, but if we have a Conservative government on Friday, everybody’s rights end up being severely curtailed.
We won’t have a Tory gov, so don’t worry, your rights are secure. https://wingsoverscotland.com/avoiding-the-worst/
The concern for the 80+%, who want single sex spaces, is that the Labour majority will be so big that the opposition parties combined will not be able to stop them from removing women’s human rights.
Women in Scotland have already lost rights. The rest of the UK will follow.
Just a comment about the headline “the UK women who feel politically homeless”…shouldn’t they be saying “unhoused”? Don’t want to offend anyone!
Good one!
A small point the so called ‘conservative’ Times of London has come out in its editorial for Labour just as it did for that same Party in 1997. It ( or Murdoch ) quite quickly tired of Blair. I wonder how long will be the honeymoon with Starmer?
A pedant writes: The Times has not come out for anyone (which is pretty odd in itself). The Sunday Times and the Sun did come out for Labour, though. Full list here: https://tinyurl.com/4mpkt7aw
I’m with the TERFs, but am thankful this Starmer guy isn’t the Hamas-sympathizing Jeremy Corbyn.
Mainly because of the brain damage thing.
I used to feel embarrassed for our British friends when he was about. Where’d he go, anyway? Damascus? Gaza? Hope so.
D.A.
NYC
The obnoxious vile antisemitic worm (sorry worms) is still around pushing his opinions supposedly not part of the UK “Labour” party but who knows who listens to him?
And a “wurm” used to be dragon-like monster, did it not? “A battle joined ‘twixt man and wurm.” (I tried to find the citation but Wurm seems to be an on-line game of some sort and references to it swamp the Google hits.)
I think you meant wyrm?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyrm
I did! Thanks and h/t.
Mark Forsyth in Etymologicon spells it worm presumably for brevity. My “wurm” is just a random error.
“Therewith began a fearful battle twixt worm and man.” — William Morris, 1867.
I strongly suspect that most voters in Britain care much more about the National Health Service, the cost-of-living crisis, and the state of the economy than about Keir Starmer’s position on the “what is a woman?” question.
None of which any government can do much about. But defining what a woman is would be both within the scope of government, and helpful…if they made the right decision.
Interesting that a lot of men feel other factors are more important than the loss of women’s rights in deciding on how to vote in an election. I guess they have no skin in the game.
It is possible that this will be a slippery slope of the loss of other rights for men too in the future. The law of unintended consequences could come into play. I don’t know what or how but be mindful that one day it may matter to you.
🎯
What about the loss of everybody’s right to healthcare that won’t bankrupt them id they get ill?
There is no “right” to health care, Jeremy. Health care is a good produced by the labour and capital of free people organized for the purpose. The state can’t compel anyone to produce health care for you, nor can it produce it itself. All it can do is advertise what it will pay for health care labour, tax the economy to raise the needed capital and wages, and hope that attracts enough young people to train for it as a career, in the numbers necessary to meet demand. If any of those market forces acts the “wrong” way, the right to health care evaporates once “doing more with less” transmogrifies into, “I’m going to do something more rewarding with my life.”
Every rich country is facing a tsunami of old people all demanding their right to free health care, with fewer workers not only to pay for it but even to do the actual labour. What gives?
It was ever thus. 51% of people sidelined for the benefit of the 49%. It’s why we needed the suffragettes, and why women won’t wheesht now.
Many don’t see how this ideology infects the whole of society, or understand the dangerous ‘Queer Theory’ goals being used to indoctrinate children.
It is impacting both the NHS [https://news.sky.com/story/nurses-suing-their-employer-for-allowing-trans-women-to-use-their-changing-rooms-13160104] and the economy [gender pay gap]. It’s also damaging the education of the next generation by denying science, and that’s something everyone should fear.
Keir Starmer’s personal beliefs are irrelevant, but if a government denies reality there’s no telling how bad it will get. As Sall Grover says….
“If you think that women have penises, I won’t believe a single word you say about anything else. Because if you will lie about something so obvious, I will assume you lie about everything.”
Not untrue, but you have to remember that this only applies to two of the countries in the four nation Kingdom. (Possibly three – I don’t know the rules in Northern Ireland. I doubt anyone outside Ulster wants to juggle that plutonium turd.) In Scotland the duty (and power, and responsibility) of prosecution falls to the Procurator Fiscal – at county, city or national level. Westminster is not consulted, and has no input.
A worked example : in the near-30 years of the “Post Office `Horizons`” scandal, in England and Wales the prosecutions were generally carried out by the Post Office themselves, not the Crown Prosecution Service (under the DPP – Starmer for part of this time). But in Scotland the Post Office (GPO, RMG – and now a Czech private company, name TBA) had to present their reports on their cases to the Procurator Fiscal’s Office for consideration (exactly the same way the police work), and the “Fiscal” decided whether or not to prosecute each case. The overall rates were comparable to the rest of the country, but if continuing investigation reveals that the PO’s (etc) expert witnesses lied to the Fiscal in the way that has been documented in the investigation in England (under immunity from the DPP), then they’re individually liable for prosecution for perjury – including jail time. This story is very far from dead.
Starmer is probably very glad the PO took these actions themselves. The PO managers at the time can safely be thrown to the lions. The Fiscal will probably stake the offenders out for the midges – since we don’t have prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishments.
No, being tried for perjury in England, jailed, then being tried again for perjury in Scotland and going to the midges, would not be “double jeopardy” – separate trials for different crimes in different countries with different legal systems. Probably sentences would be served concurrently – which would imply setting up a midge-chamber “down south” : a challenge for midge biologists.
A serious aside—I was reading a few days ago about the early fur traders who got on the wrong side of some indigenous people in Canada. They were put to death by being stripped and tied to a tree. It generally took two days for the mosquitoes and blackfly to exsanguinate them to the point of death. Living next to a three acre pond I feel that little has changed.
My joking comment referred to a (anecdotal) punishment enacted by one of the Lords of the Isles (whether Norwegian/ Orkney Jarl/ Viking, or “native”, I’m not sure) on a diplomatic miscreant.
But the 80-odd % of the population who the Highland midge bite would recognise the horror of the crawling death. The monsters barely bite me, and hardly raise a welt (nothing, compared to clegs/ horse flies), and the prospect terrifies me!
Perhaps we should (re-)introduce it to the statute book specifically for violation of “green belt” planning laws. That would keep the Tangerine Shitgibbon (POTUS 47 or no) from darkening our doorsteps again.
Yay – Corbyn got in! And the Mogg was put firmly out.
Just some random thoughts:
1.I detest the excesses of the woke left and fully agree that the trans issue is damaging and infuriating. On the other hand I agree with the sentiments of some that it is odd to place some of these culture war issues on the level of some other things. I guess we just all define what is important differently. For example I have seen posts where people acknowledge Trump’s issues but say they will vote for him anyway because at least he knows how to define men and women. I for one find this issue, despite agreeing that the democrats have it all wrong, far less important than literally trying (hard) to subvert an election illegally or chucking allies to the wayside.
2.To me the bigger picture with the woke definition of man and women is more symbolic. It points out a world view that is dangerous based on protections for the “oppressed” that filters to many other causes, many of which are damaged by the woke viewpoint. However the number of people actually effected isn’t all that large for this one. Yes it is criminal in (low level) sports. Yes the bathroom thing/prison thing can lead to physical assaults, etc. which are real and awful. It is just hard to imagine this is an epidemic. To me the reason why it “feels” right to elevate it to a crisis is because it touches on so many other things that are wrong with the left.
3. Finally somewhat unrelated point-trans “women” should not be housed in female prisons for the obvious reasons. But where should they be incarcerated? They would be at huge risk in male ones. Do we make special trans prisons? Sounds comical, but…
Just my 2 cents.
What is needed is prisons housing various categories of male prisoners who are vulnerable to attacks, including trans women, gay men, and men who are physically slight, or look effeminate.
Where should “transwomen” be incarcerated?
Principle 1): if you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime. You can make an application at sentencing for protective segregation as do the other convicts even more likely to be murdered. In practice this means solitary confinement. Be careful what you wish for. If you are an unjustly convicted transwoman, I really feel for you. Thoughts and prayers going your way.
Principle 2): Many trans criminals are tough, dangerous, violent, recidivist men who discovered the epiphany of their gender journey at the moment of being arrested for rape or other typical male violent crime. Depending on how young the child they raped was, they might have genuine fear of reprisal in the male joint, in which case see Principle 1). But for your ordinary grifter trying to get nicer digs and better-looking scenery in a P4W, Just Say No. He’ll snap out of it. Hopefully the other guys on the range don’t find out he claimed to be a girl. (“I was just yankin’ their chain. Honest!”)
In the enlightened move to avoid incarceration of non-violent criminals, (except the ones we’re really really mad at), the prisons will necessarily be enriched with men who readily resort to violence, often with poor impulse control from fetal-alcohol syndrome. A violent criminal who cannot fight off other violent people seeking to do him harm is in a pickle. Back to Principle 1).
Oh boy. Fetal alcohol syndrome. Now there’s a can of worms (wurms, wyrms). I had several boys with FAS as clients when I worked with juveniles in the mental health system. They were hands down the most challenging population I ever worked with. Every one of them a violent, sexual predator.
“Culture war issues” is an odd expression used to obfuscate the real issue. It’s a war on reality, the safety of women and girls, and the right of gay people to be same sex attracted. Protecting the vulnerable should be a given in every decent society, not a matter for debate.
“the number of people actually effected isn’t all that large for this one.”
Men keep saying that, but 51% is a majority. Say that to the victims of paedo ‘Katie’ Dolotowski, who were sexually assaulted in a women’s bathroom.
It is not women’s responsibility to fix men’s violence against men. Women are not your human shields. You need to fix this guys by welcoming ALL men in your spaces.
This is exactly what I mean.
How many people in the US who identify as trans put people at risk? Numbers please. How many verified bathroom assaults were there last year? 10? 100? Terrible for those affected for sure but I ride the nyc subway every day and the odds I get assaulted are vastly higher. Vastly. In fact the odds of a trans person being assaulted in their true sex bathroom is much higher than the odds they assault someone in the bathroom of their choice. It isn’t large on the scale of many other problems. That’s actually reality.
1 in 4 women are victims of rape or sexual assault. Many of us have PTSD as a result. A man simply standing in our space where he doesn’t belong can cause terror and distress to women.
The male rapists, predators and paedos below were all in women’s spaces. Come to X and I’ll give you 100 more. @joolzzt
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/03/17/hospital-told-police-patient-not-raped-alleged-attacker-transgender/
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/11/karen-white-how-manipulative-and-controlling-offender-attacked-again-transgender-prison
https://reduxx.info/exclusive-trans-woman-confronted-by-mother-in-swimming-pool-locker-room-is-a-convicted-pedophile/
https://metro.co.uk/2019/03/16/transgender-woman-18-sexually-assaulted-girl-10-morrisons-toilet-8914577/
https://nypost.com/2021/09/02/charges-filed-against-sex-offender-in-wi-spa-casecharges-filed-against-sex-offender-in-notorious-wi-spa-incident/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/10/05/loudoun-sexual-assault-stone-bridge/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-64796926
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/03/jk-rowling-happened-again-man-accused-filming-female-toilet/
https://www.holyrood.com/comment/view,how-a-service-set-up-for-traumatised-women-forgot-its-core-function
1+
Long-since covered. “Rule 43” – prisoners may request to be isolated from other prisoners due to (founded, or perceived) fear of attack by other prisoners. In some prisons, over 1/3 of prisoners are “on the rule”.
In a case like this, prisoners with a similar situation (e.g, more holes for penetration than the average prisoner) might be housed together (share a cell) with similar prisoners. But that’s not a guarantee against assault, and the governors have a duty of care in each case.
@Leslie MacMillan
Maybe you are thinking of wyrm?
“Wyrm” is a term used for a dragon in all sorts of fantasy literature.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyrm
But then again https://dragons.fandom.com/wiki/Wyrm
Otherwise the next few years for the UK will be…interesting, given the election of a left of centre party to government, probably a supermajority, and a wrecked opposition party, in contrast to the rightwards movement in the rest of Europe recently.
Yes, I was. Thanks to you, too.
Who? What?
You think Starmer’s Labour are left of centre? They’re barely left of fascist.
On the good news front – Jeremy Corbyn got elected in the teeth of Starmer’s party apparatchiks. So that’s going to make Question time interesting. And both the Mogg and Paisley fils have got the sack.
A striking feature of woke genderism is its intense focus on word use (e.g., “woman”, “transphobe”, “assigned at birth”, etc.), similar to its obsession with pronoun use. This resembles another contemporary woke practice: anointing Hamas and Hizballah (and recently Ansar Allah) with the honorific titles of “global Left” and “progressive”, despite these groups’ utterly regressive, explicit worship of superstitions of the 7th century as the pinnacle of human history.
Where does this woke wordolatry come from? I submit that it comes directly from academic post-modernism, which elevated texts in importance over reference to physical reality. So, we have Humanities departments of academe to thank for the injection of these surreal attitudes into political and even commonplace discourse. If 40 years ago these academic departments had taken a fancy to Astrology, today Labour politicians would have difficulty saying what a planet is.
+1
Comment by Greg Mayer
Starmer said “that shouldn’t be said” and “isn’t right” three years ago about Rosie Duffield; it’s not a walk back of his recent statement was that he agreed with Tony Blair. This seems a pretty thorough reversal, though I can’t be sure I’ve seen all that he’s said.
GCM