Trans rights: a perspective

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

What turns an individual on sexually varies enormously, to the extent that a person ( recorded case) may be excited by radiators. The same person might well fully accept the arguments for certain people fervently wishing for gender re-alignment. Being persuaded by the arguments one way or the other has nothing to do with one's own sexual response, so your question is totally irrelevant.

Nope DU - you're wrong as usual - it's entirely relevant to BHS's question to me. BHS asked me whether I want to share a prison cell with a woman or with a man pretending to be a woman - with all the lack of privacy that sharing a prison cell and being locked up in prison entails.

I have answered his question, but BHS has run away as usual rather than answer mine.

My question to BHS, which he is avoiding answering, demonstrates that people like BHS are perfectly happy to misogynistically try to force women to share their personal space with men pretending to be women, but when it comes to his own personal space he will of course not want to kiss or have sex with a transwoman because of course he sees them as men pretending to be women, and not real women.

As SteveH's Guardian article points out BHS is just another example of men " who feel little empathy for women who don’t want to be forced to undress or talk about their trauma in front of, or receive intimate care from, anyone male, regardless of how they identify."

[Nearly Sane]

More on The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht

https://archive.vn/1dy8T

Kevin McKenna on The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht

https://archive.is/RLTjy

[Nearly Sane]

LGB Alliance letter to leaders of Tories, Labour and Lib Dems


https://lgballiance.org.uk/our-asks-for-the-party-leaders/

[Nearly Sane]

'Labour candidate Rosie Duffield cancels hustings' over her fears of threats because she stands up for women's sex based spaces.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cyxx243yr16o

[ProfessorDavey]

'Labour candidate Rosie Duffield cancels hustings' over her fears of threats because she stands up for women's sex based spaces.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cyxx243yr16o

Apologies for being a pedant, but Duffield had not, and indeed cannot, cancel the hustings. Hustings are meetings organised by organisations separate to politic parties, with candidates invited to attend and answer questions from local people. The one in question has the department of Politics and International Relations at Canterbury Christ Church University as the lead organisation in partnership with their Students Union, Canterbury Society, ACRA, Canterbury Inter-Faith group, the Kent Wildlife Trust, and Ethnic Minorities in Canterbury.

The hustings will take place on Wednesday - Duffield hasn't cancelled it, it will happen - she has just decided not to attend. And actually it isn't uncommon for candidates to decline to attend Hustings for various reasons - if you check out the local Kent press you will see that most of the hustings across the various constituencies have one or more candidate declining to attend.

But on the broader points - first no candidate should fear the threat of violence, but sadly this is all too common. Indeed I suspect just about every MP has received death threats on the basis of one view or another, and of course two MPs have been murdered in recent years.

But this must be balanced against the need, in a democracy, for candidates to be challenged on their views and in some cases where views may be considered controversial those views will be challenged robustly by members of the public who hold different views. That is right and proper in a democracy.

But back to the hustings - there are typically highly organised affairs, with security arrangements essential and also the standard approach is that questions must be submitted in advance with the organisers choosing which questions get asked. Likely the questions will focus on the key issues in this election - cost of living, tax, immigration, NHS, energy, trust in politics, environment etc so it is quite likely that gender issues won't even feature in the hustings given the limited amount of time available and the need for all candidates to be given sufficient time to respond. So various campaigning elements I would have thought that the hustings will be one of the least likely to pose a security risk.

[Nearly Sane]

Apologies for being a pedant, but Duffield had not, and indeed cannot, cancel the hustings. Hustings are meetings organised by organisations separate to politic parties, with candidates invited to attend and answer questions from local people. The one in question has the department of Politics and International Relations at Canterbury Christ Church University as the lead organisation in partnership with their Students Union, Canterbury Society, ACRA, Canterbury Inter-Faith group, the Kent Wildlife Trust, and Ethnic Minorities in Canterbury.

The hustings will take place on Wednesday - Duffield hasn't cancelled it, it will happen - she has just decided not to attend. And actually it isn't uncommon for candidates to decline to attend Hustings for various reasons - if you check out the local Kent press you will see that most of the hustings across the various constituencies have one or more candidate declining to attend.

But on the broader points - first no candidate should fear the threat of violence, but sadly this is all too common. Indeed I suspect just about every MP has received death threats on the basis of one view or another, and of course two MPs have been murdered in recent years.

But this must be balanced against the need, in a democracy, for candidates to be challenged on their views and in some cases where views may be considered controversial those views will be challenged robustly by members of the public who hold different views. That is right and proper in a democracy.

But back to the hustings - there are typically highly organised affairs, with security arrangements essential and also the standard approach is that questions must be submitted in advance with the organisers choosing which questions get asked. Likely the questions will focus on the key issues in this election - cost of living, tax, immigration, NHS, energy, trust in politics, environment etc so it is quite likely that gender issues won't even feature in the hustings given the limited amount of time available and the need for all candidates to be given sufficient time to respond. So various campaigning elements I would have thought that the hustings will be one of the least likely to pose a security risk.

That reads like you are just dismissing Duffield's fears.

Of course, you are more moderate in terns than Michael Xashman was. Good that Wes Streeting was so unequivocal in his support of Duffield.


https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/news/content/ar-BB1ojMHn

[ProfessorDavey]

That reads like you are just dismissing Duffield's fears.

Then you read this post and you read my points completely wrong. That I don't dismiss her fear should have been obvious from - "first no candidate should fear the threat of violence, but sadly this is all too common."

So I don't dismiss her fears - quite the reverse. My point is that rather than this being an isolated matter for a single candidate there is a worry trend for MPs and candidates to be subjected to threats by members of the public. This is sometimes linked to specific views (and not just views on gender, but all sorts of views) but also there are people who consider that being an MP (or an MP of a particular party) is sufficient justification alone for threats of violence.

This is a deeply worrying trend and a major concern for our democracy. Perhaps you see this as about just one MP/candidate and one type of view. But I don't - and that isn't dismissing her fears, but recognising that her experience is, worryingly, far too common for our MPs.

[Nearly Sane]

Then you read this post and you read my points completely wrong. That I don't dismiss her fear should have been obvious from - "first no candidate should fear the threat of violence, but sadly this is all too common."

So I don't dismiss her fears - quite the reverse. My point is that rather than this being an isolated matter for a single candidate there is a worry trend for MPs and candidates to be subjected to threats by members of the public. This is sometimes linked to specific views (and not just views on gender, but all sorts of views) but also there are people who consider that being an MP (or an MP of a particular party) is sufficient justification alone for threats of violence.

This is a deeply worrying trend and a major concern for our democracy. Perhaps you see this as about just one MP/candidate and one type of view. But I don't - and that isn't dismissing her fears, but recognising that her experience is, worryingly, far too common for our MPs.

It was that you finished with "So various campaigning elements I would have thought that the hustings will be one of the least likely to pose a security risk"  which read to me as if you were saying that Duffield was likely wrong in her fears. Perhaps you meant that it's very sad that even at a hustings she was worried?

[ProfessorDavey]

It was thar you finished with "So various campaigning elements I would have thought that the hustings will be one of the least likely to pose a security risk"  which read to Mr as if you were saying that Duffield was likely wrong in her fears. Perhaps you meant that it's very sad that even at a hustings she was worried?

There you go again - missing my point.

While I am trying to broaden the issue as indicating a worrying trend that is sadly becoming the norm for many, many MPs and candidates you want to narrow this to being about just one person and her specific views.

Sadly Duffield's fears aren't unique, indeed they aren't even rare - they are pretty well the norm for our elected politicians - having to deal with abuse and threat on the basis of their views, or even just on the basis of them being elected politicians. That is the big issue here NS.

Do you accept that Duffield's experience as an MP (receiving threats on the basis of the views that person holds) is far from unique, indeed rather common place?

For a healthy democracy we need MPs and candidates to be able to express their views without fear of abuse, threat of violence or actual violence. And that must apply to all MPs and candidates, not just those whose views we agree with.

But that has to be balanced by the equal need for the public to be able to challenge those MPs and candidates on their views and for that challenge to be robust and for PMs and candidates to be accountable for their views. And that must apply to all MPs and candidates, not just those whose views we don't agree with.

[Nearly Sane]

There you go again - missing my point.

While I am trying to broaden the issue as indicating a worrying trend that is sadly becoming the norm for many, many MPs and candidates you want to narrow this to being about just one person and her specific views.

Sadly Duffield's fears aren't unique, indeed they aren't even rare - they are pretty well the norm for our elected politicians - having to deal with abuse and threat on the basis of their views, or even just on the basis of their being elected politicians. That is the big issue here NS.

Do you accept that Duffield's experience as an MP (receiving threats on the basis of the views that person holds) is far from unique, indeed rather common place?

For a healthy democracy we need MPs and candidates to be able to express their views without fear of abuse or threat of violence or actual violence. And that must apply to all MPs and candidates, not just those whose views we agree with.

But that has to be balanced by the equal need for the public to be able to challenge those MPs and candidates on their views and for that challenge to be robust and for PMs and candidates to be accountable for their views. And that must apply to all MPs and candidates, not just those whose views we don't agree with.

Of course I accept your general point. Pity a then Labour peer didn't.  Was I correct in what you seem to have meant in terms of the 'safety' of the hustings not being relevant but rather an illustration of the problem?

[ProfessorDavey]

Of course I accept your general point.

Good - so I'm assuming you will speak out just as much for an MP or candidate (or even ordinary member of the public) receiving similar threats whose views you don't agree with.

Pity a then Labour peer didn't.

Err, an ex Labour peer.

[Nearly Sane]

Good - so I'm assuming you will speak out just as much for an MP or candidate (or even ordinary member of the public) receiving similar threats whose views you don't agree with.
Err, an ex Labour peer.

Yes, on here I've already covered the dangers of the attacks on Farage.

Err, that's why I put 'then' as in not now.

Good to know that you agree security of hustings just illustrates why Duffield was correct in her fears, and that it illustrates the problem.

[ProfessorDavey]

Good to know that you agree security of hustings just illustrates why Duffield was correct in her fears, and that it illustrates the problem.

Not sure that you've ever had any meaningful involvement in political electoral campaigns NS. Well I have - I've been a candidate, I've been an electoral 'agent' at local election level and I've also been very heavily involved in campaigns for general elections.

And with that experience I stand by my view that in the range of activities an MP or a candidate may take part in Hustings are a pretty controlled and safe environment. They will be properly organised events, have security and in most cases (certainly in the case of the Canterbury Hustings) they are ticket only events. Anyone in the constituency can apply, but you only gain entry with a ticket, so they can't be hijacked easily. Add to that that questions must be submitted in advance (again definitely the case for tonight's Canterbury Hustings) and the organisers select the questions most relevant to get the views of all candidates. So from that perspective I doubt gender politics would have even got on the agenda as it isn't high on the list of issues that matter to people at the moment (see IPSOS issues polling) and they won't select a question that really only has relevance to one candidate (who has specific known views on the matter) as there are 6 candidates and they should all be treated equally in the hustings - it isn't all about one candidate.

Out knocking on doors with a couple of activists and no security nor closed and controlled environment - well that is a completely different matter in terms of potential risk.

[Nearly Sane]

Not sure that you've ever had any meaningful involvement in political electoral campaigns NS. Well I have - I've been a candidate, I've been an electoral 'agent' at local election level and I've also been very heavily involved in campaigns for general elections.

And with that experience I stand by my view that in the range of activities an MP or a candidate may take part in Hustings are a pretty controlled and safe environment. They will be properly organised events, have security and in most cases (certainly in the case of the Canterbury Hustings) they are ticket only events. Anyone in the constituency can apply, but you only gain entry with a ticket, so they can't be hijacked easily. Add to that that questions must be submitted in advance (again definitely the case for tonight's Canterbury Hustings) and the organisers select the questions most relevant to get the views of all candidates. So from that perspective I doubt gender politics would have even got on the agenda as it isn't high on the list of issues that matter to people at the moment (see IPSOS issues polling) and they won't select a question that really only has relevance to one candidate (who has specific known views on the matter) as there are 6 candidates and they should all be treated equally in the hustings - it isn't all about one candidate.

Out knocking on doors with a couple of activists and no security nor closed and controlled environment - well that is a completely different matter in terms of potential risk.

Not seeing what point you are trying to make, but it again reads as if you are dismissing Duffield's fears.

[ProfessorDavey]

Not seeing what point you are trying to make, but it again reads as if you are dismissing Duffield's fears.

Yawn - we've been through that - broken record and all that.

[Nearly Sane]

Yawn - we've been through that - broken record and all that.

Well, yes, you are, since you seem to be back at saying that Duffield was wrong in her fears and should have attended the hustings. If that's not the case, I don't see why you have repeated the point about how safe the hustings are which would only be relevant if you are questioning Duffield's position on them.

[ProfessorDavey]

... you seem to be back at saying that Duffield ... should have attended the hustings.

Where have I said that Duffield should have attended the hustings NS. Stop lying.

[Nearly Sane]

Where have I said that Duffield should have attended the hustings NS. Stop lying.

I said that is what you seem to be saying in your posts by your repeated assertions about how safe they are. If that's not the point, then I don't understand what you are trying to say, as I said it the post that you just misrepresented.

[ProfessorDavey]

I said that is what you seem to be saying in your posts by your repeated assertions about how safe they are. If that's not the point, then I don't understand what you are trying to say, as I said it the post that you just misrepresented.

Where have I said that Duffield should have attended the hustings NS. You claimed I had, which is a lie. Please retract.

Indeed I mentioned in my first post on the matter that candidates decline to accept invites to hustings for all sorts of reasons - that is their choice. All candidates should be invited to a hustings, but there is no obligation for any to attend. I would never suggest that a candidate should attend - that is entirely their choice.

[Nearly Sane]

Where have I said that Duffield should have attended the hustings NS. You claimed I had, which is a lie. Please retract.

Indeed I mentioned in my first post on the matter that candidates decline to accept invites to hustings for all sorts of reasons - that is their choice. All candidates should be invited to a hustings, but there is no obligation for any to attend. I would never suggest that a candidate should attend - that is entirely their choice.

I said it was that it seemed to be what you were saying. There is a difference.

I still have no idea why you repeatedly emphasised your impression of the safety of the hustings.

[ProfessorDavey]

I said it was that it seemed to be what you were saying. There is a difference.

Based on something that I never said - hmm. Perhaps you read what you want to hear rather than what I actually wrote.

As so often NS, you could just say 'my bad, you didn't say that, I retract and apologise' - but that's not what you do is it NS. Just keep digging.

[Nearly Sane]

Based on something that I never said - hmm. Perhaps you read what you want to hear rather than what I actually wrote.

As so often NS, you could just say 'my bad, you didn't say that, I retract and apologise' - but that's not what you do is it NS. Just keep digging.

No, exactly based on what you wrote, and I've explained why. And I still have no idea why you have spent so much time going over and over your assertions of the security of hustings.

[ProfessorDavey]

No, exactly based on what you wrote, and I've explained why.

Stop lying - I never said that Duffield should attend - that's her choice, not mine. And as I said the following:

'And actually it isn't uncommon for candidates to decline to attend Hustings for various reasons - if you check out the local Kent press you will see that most of the hustings across the various constituencies have one or more candidate declining to attend.'

It should be pretty clear that I recognise that candidates make their own decision as to whether or not to attend - so how you could interpret that as 'if it is safe they should attend' is completely beyond me.

By the way in 2005 I was closely involved in a campaign where the Labour candidate (and MP at the time) refused to attend the hustings because he would not share a platform with another candidate who he considered to be racist. His non attendance was a matter of principle for him, and a choice for him. Was the hustings safe - sure was but whether or not to attend was his choice and his choice alone.

[Nearly Sane]

Stop lying - I never said that Duffield shouldn't attend - that's her choice, not mine. And as I said the following:

'And actually it isn't uncommon for candidates to decline to attend Hustings for various reasons - if you check out the local Kent press you will see that most of the hustings across the various constituencies have one or more candidate declining to attend.'

It should be pretty clear that I recognise that candidates make their own decision as to whether or not to attend - so how you could interpret that as 'if it is safe they should attend' is completely beyond me.

By the way in 2005 I was closely involved in a campaign where the Labour candidate (and MP at the time) refused to attend the hustings because he would not share a platform with another candidate who he considered to be racist. His non attendance was a matter of principle for him, and a choice for him. Was the hustings safe - sure was but whether or not to attend was his choice and his choice alone.

So why did you repeatedly emphasise your impression of the safety of the hustings. What point, other than implying that Duffield was wrong which is how I read your post, were you seeking to make?

And yes, I could be reading you wrong but I'm struggling with your inability to say what point you were seeking to make by those repeated assertions?

[Nearly Sane]

J K Rowling on why she'll struggle to vote Labour.

https://archive.vn/43Xqe