Starmer Next Labour Leader

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

Of course they aren't all a threat to women. But determining who is and who isn't would be impossible. The argument that trans women (ie, men) should be allowed access to women's only spaces is borne of the most virulent misogyny. It's basically men telling women, "you can't have your own spaces where you feel safe because some of us want to come in". 

So yes, even though we know not all of them are a threat we must assume that all of them are a threat because some of them have been shown to be and act accordingly.

 

There's a word for that, I believe.

[leicsmac]

Just now, MattP said:

That's not what Lisa Nandy is saying though is it?

 

She wants the right to self determination for anyone, which is deeply misogynistic and will be highly dangerous in so many circumstances.

And she's wrong.

 

The response that the right to self determination should mean nothing for anyone is equally wrong.

[Guest MattP]

Dawn Butler goes all in by now declaring we are born without a biological sex, which will surprise midwives and parents all over the nation.

 

No better than flat earthers some of this lot.

[WigstonWanderer]

16 minutes ago, MattP said:

Dawn Butler goes all in by now declaring we are born without a biological sex, which will surprise midwives and parents all over the nation.

 

No better than flat earthers some of this lot.

Sometimes feels like I’m in some sort of kafkaesque nightmare. Just hoping I don’t wake up as a beetle.

[leicsmac]

22 minutes ago, MattP said:

Dawn Butler goes all in by now declaring we are born without a biological sex, which will surprise midwives and parents all over the nation.

 

No better than flat earthers some of this lot.

This is bloody frustrating for two reasons.

 

Firstly, it's poking into an issue she clearly knows little about and it's needlessly stupid.

 

Second, it gives those who would advocate for no right to self determination at all as much ammunition as they need. Not the first time a leftie has given out that kind of ammunition either and I'm sure it won't be the last.

[Guest MattP]

16 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Sometimes feels like I’m in some sort of kafkaesque nightmare. Just hoping I don’t wake up as a beetle.

It's almost like some people in the Labour party have given up on the red wall and instead decided to try and unseat Caroline Lucas.

[Guest MattP]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

This is bloody frustrating for two reasons.

 

Firstly, it's poking into an issue she clearly knows little about and it's needlessly stupid.

 

Second, it gives those who would advocate for no right to self determination at all as much ammunition as they need. Not the first time a leftie has given out that kind of ammunition either and I'm sure it won't be the last.

I'm glad they are saying it though.

 

We are being led to believe by some these are fringe opinions, they aren't - if members from the shadow cabinet of the official opposition hold these views they should declare them publicly. 

 

She's the "equalities minister" as well

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

I'm glad they are saying it though.

 

We are being led to believe by some these are fringe opinions, they aren't - if members from the shadow cabinet of the official opposition hold these views they should declare them publicly. 

 

She's the "equalities minister" as well

Fair enough - I'm not, seeing as it will only likely harm the already marginalised community she's trying to help, and that should be what is focused on here.

[Guest MattP]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Fair enough - I'm not, seeing as it will only likely harm the already marginalised community she's trying to help, and that should be what is focused on here.

I appreciate the wider concerns but surely you agree the electorate needs to be fully informed before voting? Politicians should tell us their honest opinions whatever they are, if Dawn Butler doesn't believe you are assigned a sex at birth we should know that.

 

As I said - she is actually the shadow equalities minister, had (god forbid) Labour won last year she would be in charge of this.

[ClaphamFox]

If Labour goes into the next election saying the kind of stuff that some of its leading MPs are currently saying about trans rights, it will be looking back on the days when it scraped 202 seats with deep nostalgia.

[leicsmac]

19 minutes ago, MattP said:

I appreciate the wider concerns but surely you agree the electorate needs to be fully informed before voting? Politicians should tell us their honest opinions whatever they are, if Dawn Butler doesn't believe you are assigned a sex at birth we should know that.

 

As I said - she is actually the shadow equalities minister, had (god forbid) Labour won last year she would be in charge of this.

Oh yeah, no doubt we need to know what viewpoints are.

 

I'm just annoyed that what she said was bloody stupid and counterproductive.

[Mike Oxlong]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

I appreciate the wider concerns but surely you agree the electorate needs to be fully informed before voting? Politicians should tell us their honest opinions whatever they are, if Dawn Butler doesn't believe you are assigned a sex at birth we should know that.

 

As I said - she is actually the shadow equalities minister, had (god forbid) Labour won last year she would be in charge of this.

Unless it’s Boris and co dodging media scrutiny .... 

 

 

[Jon the Hat]

In good news the vast majority of people in the UK are confident in their view that if you are born a man who decides you want to be or indeed are a woman means you are a man, and no amount of surgery or feelings or hormones will change that fact.  In good news most of them don't care if you self identify as a woman, or dress and one, or call yourself Shirley.  As long as you don't expect women and girls to accept you in the Ladies facilities.  Simple.

[leicsmac]

7 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

In good news the vast majority of people in the UK are confident in their view that if you are born a man who decides you want to be or indeed are a woman means you are a man, and no amount of surgery or feelings or hormones will change that fact.  In good news most of them don't care if you self identify as a woman, or dress and one, or call yourself Shirley.  As long as you don't expect women and girls to accept you in the Ladies facilities.  Simple.

...I think these two parts contradict themselves, unless the implication is "don't bother changing, we'll always know exactly what you are" rather than "if you change and self-identify, that's ok"?

 

Oh, and I'm sure at one time the vast majority of people in the UK looked down on all those "raging queers" as sex offenders in disguise who would prey on your kids and didn't want a black or Asian person for a neighbour, either. Point is, things change. And it's funny in a rather sad way to see the exact same arguments regarding trans folks being rolled out as the ones against gay folks all that time ago.

[ClaphamFox]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

...I think these two parts contradict themselves, unless the implication is "don't bother changing, we'll always know exactly what you are" rather than "if you change and self-identify, that's ok"?

 

Oh, and I'm sure at one time the vast majority of people in the UK looked down on all those "raging queers" as sex offenders in disguise who would prey on your kids and didn't want a black or Asian person for a neighbour, either. Point is, things change. And it's funny in a rather sad way to see the exact same arguments regarding trans folks being rolled out as the ones against gay folks all that time ago.

The analogy is a very poor one, though. Accepting gay people or people of other ethnicities did not impinge on anybody else’s rights - it was just a matter of people becoming comfortable with difference. Men being allowed to enter female-only spaces is a direct and serious assault on the rights of women and girls, and the substantial majority of people in this country will never accept that. 
 

Using gay rights or the fight for racial equality as some kind of predictive model for trans rights is an absurd logical fallacy - there’s literally zero equivalence between them. Aside from a tiny minoriity of intersex people people, sex is binary, observable and immutable. You can bang your head against this particular wall as much as you want, but you can’t change it. That’s why the majority of people will always be opposed to men being allowed into female-only spaces. No amount of campaigning is going to alter that fact.

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, ClaphamFox said:

The analogy is a very poor one, though. Accepting gay people or people of other ethnicities did not impinge on anybody else’s rights - it was just a matter of people becoming comfortable with difference. Men being allowed to enter female-only spaces is a direct and serious assault on the rights of women and girls, and the substantial majority of people in this country will never accept that. 
 

Using gay rights or the fight for racial equality as some kind of predictive model for trans rights is an absurd logical fallacy - there’s literally zero equivalence between them. Aside from a tiny minoriity of intersex people people, sex is binary, observable and immutable. You can bang your head against this particular wall as much as you want, but you can’t change it. That’s why the majority of people will always be opposed to men being allowed into female-only spaces. No amount of campaigning is going to alter that fact.

Ah, that's interesting, because in the old days of racial segregation I distinctly remember one of the justifications being "they're a danger to white women, we've got to keep them away from them!". And in the times of gay panic, a rather key argument used was "they're a danger to children, we've got to keep them away from them!"

 

I'm not entirely sure, but that all sounds a bit familiar.

 

Regarding the appeal to science, the matter is one of complexity and by no means as cut and dried as stated here, which can be seen by opening almost any recent biology journal. You seem rather keen to point out logical fallacies - when you do so it might be a good idea to not commit any of your own (like appeal to popularity, for instance).

 

NB. I'm trying not to get personal here and personal is by no means the same as important, but when someone prejudges an entire community (including some personal friends whose welfare I value highly) based on the actions of a few, one is inclined to react personally.

[Leicester_Loyal]

Labour are doomed either way. Not one of these candidates is good enough to win an election.

[leicsmac]

21 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

Labour are doomed either way. Not one of these candidates is good enough to win an election.

I think four or five years is a long time in politics, especially with all the possible upheaval incoming, but I can see why someone would think that.

[Guest MattP]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Regarding the appeal to science, the matter is one of complexity and by no means as cut and dried as stated here, which can be seen by opening almost any recent biology journal. 

Can you provide a link to a couple of these?

 

I can't seriously believe we have credible science denying the existence of @ClaphamFoxsays regarding being assigned sex at birth. You cant effectively deny the existence of chromosomes and a biological penis or reproductive organ.

Edited 19 February 2020 by MattP

[Jon the Hat]

7 hours ago, leicsmac said:

...I think these two parts contradict themselves, unless the implication is "don't bother changing, we'll always know exactly what you are" rather than "if you change and self-identify, that's ok"?

 

Oh, and I'm sure at one time the vast majority of people in the UK looked down on all those "raging queers" as sex offenders in disguise who would prey on your kids and didn't want a black or Asian person for a neighbour, either. Point is, things change. And it's funny in a rather sad way to see the exact same arguments regarding trans folks being rolled out as the ones against gay folks all that time ago.

They don’t.  Call yourself a woman, horse, cheetah - I don’t care.  Doesn’t mean it’s true.  I don’t believe many people are disgusted in the way they were regarding homosexuality for example.  Different times and a different issue.

Edited 19 February 2020 by Jon the Hat

[Lionator]

20 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

They don’t.  Call yourself a woman, horse, cheetah - I don’t care.  Doesn’t mean it’s true.  I don’t believe many people are disgusted in the way they were regarding homosexuality for example.  Different times and a different issue.

We're all entitled to our beliefs. If you think that privately then fair enough, if you're going up to trans individuals and telling them this on social media or in person, the you're out of order. It's not for you to decide how they identify. 

 

By the way that Dawn Butler clip stinks of stupidity rather than a 'woke' view. Pretty much all physicians and scientists agree that biological sex at birth is not up for debate, it's one or the other. Gender is a different matter. My personal belief is that there's a gender spectrum. 

[ClaphamFox]

3 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Ah, that's interesting, because in the old days of racial segregation I distinctly remember one of the justifications being "they're a danger to white women, we've got to keep them away from them!". And in the times of gay panic, a rather key argument used was "they're a danger to children, we've got to keep them away from them!"

 

I'm not entirely sure, but that all sounds a bit familiar.

 

Regarding the appeal to science, the matter is one of complexity and by no means as cut and dried as stated here, which can be seen by opening almost any recent biology journal. You seem rather keen to point out logical fallacies - when you do so it might be a good idea to not commit any of your own (like appeal to popularity, for instance).

 

NB. I'm trying not to get personal here and personal is by no means the same as important, but when someone prejudges an entire community (including some personal friends whose welfare I value highly) based on the actions of a few, one is inclined to react personally.

Is it fair to assume from what you've written that you believe that men who identify was women should be allowed into female changing rooms and prisons, and be allowed to compete in women's sports? If so, have you thought about how this would work in practice? My understanding is that a significant proportion of trans women are attracted to women (ie, they were hetereosexual men who subsequently self-identify as lesbian women). Are you suggesting that not a single one of these men will behave inappropriately when allowed into a space where women and girls get changed? It seems highly unlikely. In addition, any law allowing men who identify as women to access female spaces will inevitably be exploited by opportunistic men who pose as trans precisely to get into those spaces - among them sexual predators.

 

Allowing men who identify as women into female-only spaces will inevitably lead to some instances sexual assault and rape. How many sexual assaults would you be prepared to accept as a price worth paying for allowing men access to women's spaces? And how do you think the public would react to even a single incident of this kind? The backlash would be immediate and overwhelming, and any government that allowed it to happen would find itself in very serious trouble, very quickly.

The logic of your position is that the rights of men who identify as women should supersede those of women and girls. I can't see there ever being a time when that stance gains majority public support. If the next Labour leader allows such thinking to find its way into policy, the party will be in severe danger of disappearing down an ideological rabbit hole from which it never emerges again. 

[Jon the Hat]

17 minutes ago, Lionator said:

We're all entitled to our beliefs. If you think that privately then fair enough, if you're going up to trans individuals and telling them this on social media or in person, the you're out of order. It's not for you to decide how they identify. 

 

By the way that Dawn Butler clip stinks of stupidity rather than a 'woke' view. Pretty much all physicians and scientists agree that biological sex at birth is not up for debate, it's one or the other. Gender is a different matter. My personal belief is that there's a gender spectrum. 

I’d have no cause to would I? Unless of course my wife or daughter tells me there is a man in the ladies changing room, in which case I might.

[Innovindil]

23 hours ago, MattP said:

Dawn Butler goes all in by now declaring we are born without a biological sex, which will surprise midwives and parents all over the nation.

 

No better than flat earthers some of this lot.

Just at a time when these weird "gender reveal" parties are becoming popular. Lucky I didn't invest in that pink and blue banger thing company. 

[leicsmac]

5 hours ago, MattP said:

Can you provide a link to a couple of these?

 

I can't seriously believe we have credible science denying the existence of @ClaphamFoxsays regarding being assigned sex at birth. You cant effectively deny the existence of chromosomes and a biological penis or reproductive organ.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07238-8

 

That goes into a lot of detail about how this is a complex matter and far removed from the reductive terms that people often use. Of course, other journals might be found that say things are simpler than that, but my argument was simply to prove that there is no scientific consensus on gender essentialism as was implied above.

 

And purely for the sake of clarity at this point, this conversation isn't just about being assigned sex at birth - if it were then the discussion about the Dawn Butler clip would just be that she's daft and that's it. What the poster above said (and has been echoed in implication by others) is that as well as sex being assigned at birth, there is no possibility of changing it and you fit into a box called "male" or "female" for the rest of your life (with a few exceptions). Essentialism, in a nutshell.

 

That article alone proves that biologists believe the issue is much more complicated than that and to use chromosomes alone (everything else can be changed and even chromosomes themselves are not infallible) in order to judge a persons sex and use that as something immutable is incorrect and those who use it are either ignorant or looking for an excuse to ostracise and further marginalise an already marginalised community who by and large simply want to life their lives safely and with a modicum of peace. 

 

NB. It's also a bit frustrating when there is overlap between the people who imply scientific consensus on this matter where there is none and then turn around and deny scientific consensus on other matters where there is one (like climate change). Science doesn't just work when it suits one.

 

 

4 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

They don’t.  Call yourself a woman, horse, cheetah - I don’t care.  Doesn’t mean it’s true.  I don’t believe many people are disgusted in the way they were regarding homosexuality for example.  Different times and a different issue.

I disagree, hence my quotes about "danger" above. I think that the issues are very similar considering the language being used to describe them.

 

 

4 hours ago, ClaphamFox said:

Is it fair to assume from what you've written that you believe that men who identify was women should be allowed into female changing rooms and prisons, and be allowed to compete in women's sports? If so, have you thought about how this would work in practice? My understanding is that a significant proportion of trans women are attracted to women (ie, they were hetereosexual men who subsequently self-identify as lesbian women). Are you suggesting that not a single one of these men will behave inappropriately when allowed into a space where women and girls get changed? It seems highly unlikely. In addition, any law allowing men who identify as women to access female spaces will inevitably be exploited by opportunistic men who pose as trans precisely to get into those spaces - among them sexual predators.

 

Allowing men who identify as women into female-only spaces will inevitably lead to some instances sexual assault and rape. How many sexual assaults would you be prepared to accept as a price worth paying for allowing men access to women's spaces? And how do you think the public would react to even a single incident of this kind? The backlash would be immediate and overwhelming, and any government that allowed it to happen would find itself in very serious trouble, very quickly.

The logic of your position is that the rights of men who identify as women should supersede those of women and girls. I can't see there ever being a time when that stance gains majority public support. If the next Labour leader allows such thinking to find its way into policy, the party will be in severe danger of disappearing down an ideological rabbit hole from which it never emerges again. 

No, because that would imply that I think there is some kind of oppressor-oppressed duality between trans folks and women/girls and as such rights are a zero-sum game and to give one more is to take away from the other. I absolutely reject that as a prejudiced generalisation and declaring someone potentially guilty without the possibility of proving themselves innocent, and as such my position is reasonably simple: it is possible to protect the rights of women and girls and protect the rights of trans folks to be able to use a space where they may feel safer at the same time. You know, treat them as not criminals or even potential criminals as a demographic until they actually commit a crime.

 

I also reject this essentialist idea that a trans woman is in fact a man in every case, as you imply here.

 

Do you really think that some kind of "bathroom police" law banning trans folks from using the bathroom that they identify as will really reduce the number of assaults and rapes on women and girls? If a man wants to do such a terrible thing, he's likely going to do it anyway - perhaps your problem should be with those men, rather than the vast majority of trans women who have never committed a crime in their lives. Of course, you seem very eager to conflate the two.

 

WRT the political consequences, neither of use are really going to know how such a thing would eventuate so I don't see the certainty about it. But, as I said above, things change over time, just like they did with gay people and ethnic monorities - no word on the similarities I pointed out there, it seems.

 

To be honest thought, at this point I do think this is veering off topic in this particular thread and I also get the idea that further discussion is pointless as we may well end up just talking past each other so I'll let this be my last comment on the topic for the time being. I'll leave it with the hope that one day science will advance to the point that changing ones identity will be much much easier than it is even now, and then humanity might just learn how little meaning such identities truly have when each of us is a different person and all of us are human.