Trans rights: a perspective

[Robbie]

Bramble  .

Keir Starmer seems to be out of his depth, oh woe.

[Aruntraveller]

Bramble  .

Keir Starmer seems to be out of his depth, oh woe.

Not out of his depth. Something more cynical than that. He's trying to have his cake and eat it. Or falling between two stools. Choose your idiom.

[Nearly Sane]

Pronouns in sex offender's prison


https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/gender-identity-badges-handed-out-at-sex-offender-prison-hmp-isle-of-wight-c95gz93jr

[Nearly Sane]

Meanwhile David Lammy thinks that women who want not to have male rapists in women's prisons are 'dinosaurs hoarding rights'

He can fuck off

https://labourlist.org/2021/09/anti-trans-members-are-dinosaurs-who-want-to-hoard-rights-says-lammy/?amp&__twitter_impression=true

[Nearly Sane]

Excellent reply to David Lammy


https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1442742465522438145.html

[Nearly Sane]

The state of the Labour Party!


https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1442783035389325313.html

[Udayana]

Not out of his depth. Something more cynical than that. He's trying to have his cake and eat it. Or falling between two stools. Choose your idiom.

Nah, I think he just bungled the question. If he had more time or was more relaxed he could probably have explained his stance.

[Aruntraveller]

Nah, I think he just bungled the question. If he had more time or was more relaxed he could probably have explained his stance.

Maybe. I just feel like I'm giving the current Labour leadership a lot of "benefit of the doubt" at present.

[Nearly Sane]

Nah, I think he just bungled the question. If he had more time or was more relaxed he could probably have explained his stance.

Given Ed Davey on Marr, the previous week, and that Rosie Duffield didn't feel safe to attend the conference, then it was an obvious question. He threw Duffield and women's sex based spaces under the bus just like so many Labour MPs


https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1442783035389325313.html

[Nearly Sane]

Classic non apology apology from the ACLU for butchering Ruth Bader Ginsberg's words with added drivel


https://timcast.com/news/executive-director-of-aclu-apologizes-for-removing-references-to-women-from-ruth-bader-ginsburg-quote/

[Udayana]

Given Ed Davey on Marr, the previous week, and that Rosie Duffield didn't feel safe to attend the conference, then it was an obvious question. He threw Duffield and women's sex based spaces under the bus just like so many Labour MPs


https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1442783035389325313.html

Yes, I've seen that. But the problem with a lot of this is that it is a battle of quip vs quip (or tweets or short quotes). The issues are mostly straightforward but as the language is complex and nuanced, so any discussion must explore them in carefully in depth.
     

[Nearly Sane]

Yes, I've seen that. But the problem with a lot of this is that it is a battle of quip vs quip (or tweets or short quotes). The issues are mostly straightforward but as the language is complex and nuanced, so any discussion must explore them in carefully in depth.
   

No, sorry that's vacuous. Dismissing the statements  that a rapist should be in a women's prison because he identifies as a woman, or that there should be no women's spaces as 'quips' is actually a quip, and an unfunny simplistic one at that.

[Udayana]

No, sorry that's vacuous. Dismissing the statements  that a rapist should be in a women's prison because gd identifies as a woman, or that there should be no women's soaces as 'quips' is actually a quip, and an unfunny simplistic one at that.

Not sure what "gd" is but that is what I mean - those "statements" are worthless as they don't have appropriate discussion/agreement behind them - they are put out to provoke. Countering them without a discussion with those making them, just results in more of the same or further abuse.

[Nearly Sane]

Not sure what "gd" is but that is what I mean - those "statements" are worthless as they don't have appropriate discussion/agreement behind them - they are put out to provoke. Countering them without a discussion with those making them, just results in more of the same or further abuse.

It was 'he' rather than gd. I'm sorry that you think that quoting someone is bad. It seems bizarre tome that you are suggesting that no one should be quoted if the person quoting them hasn't had a 'discussion' with the person. Starmer is a professional politician and QC answering a question that he knew was going to be asked. If he says that saying that 'only woman have a cervix 'is something that that shouldn't be said. It is not right, what are people supposed to do? Ignore it? It's his choice of statement. He's perfectly capable of making clear what he means in an interview.

[Udayana]

oh no .. I didn't mean that quoting anyone is "bad" with or without a preceding discussion. I was complaining that there is no discussion - just a battle of quotes and slogans boiling down to abuse.

On Starmer's response specifically - he bungled the question completely: As you say he should have known it would be put, particularly wrt. Duffield. He should have made the effort to answer it properly - that the statement is not transphobic but that the feelings of people who identify as men but have a cervix ought to be considered when using it - depending on the context. Then he could have gone on to discuss further if pressed by Marr - who usually gives up if he actually gets a relevant answer.   

Of-course the "not transphobic" bit would have been quoted out of context and led to a torrent of abusive tweets - but so what?   

[Nearly Sane]

oh no .. I didn't mean that quoting anyone is "bad" with or without a preceding discussion. I was complaining that there is no discussion - just a battle of quotes and slogans boiling down to abuse.

On Starmer's response specifically - he bungled the question completely: As you say he should have known it would be put, particularly wrt. Duffield. He should have made the effort to answer it properly - that the statement is not transphobic but that the feelings of people who identify as men but have a cervix ought to be considered when using it - depending on the context. Then he could have gone on to discuss further if pressed by Marr - who usually gives up if he actually gets a relevant answer.   

Of-course the "not transphobic" bit would have been quoted out of context and led to a torrent of abusive tweets - but so what?   

The greatest upset at the 'only women have a cervix' is from men who identify as women because it doesn't follow the mantra of 'Transwomen are women'.

Though Stonewall have only just realised that their campaign to allow people to change their sex marker record on the NHS causes real problems

[Udayana]

The greatest upset at the 'only women have a cervix' is from men who identify as women because it doesn't follow the mantra of 'Transwomen are women'.

Though Stonewall have only just realised that their campaign to allow people to change their sex marker record on the NHS causes real problems

"only women have a cervix" says nothing about women or transwomen who do not have a cervix. If transwomen take offence at it they are taking offence at imagined slights. If they believe "transwomen are women" in a biological sense that is clearly incorrect - as you say it is a mantra and can't be generally accepted without full explanation, discussion and agreement on what that means - something that can't happen on twitter.

Also, worth distinguishing between transwomen and trans-activists - as they are not the same groups. I suspect that trans-activists, for various reasons, manufacture outrage at statements that most transwomen/men would not object to. 

   

[Nearly Sane]

"only women have a cervix" says nothing about women or transwomen who do not have a cervix. If transwomen take offence at it they are taking offence at imagined slights. If they believe "transwomen are women" in a biological sense that is clearly incorrect - as you say it is a mantra and can't be generally accepted without full explanation, discussion and agreement on what that means - something that can't happen on twitter.

Also, worth distinguishing between transwomen and trans-activists - as they are not the same groups. I suspect that trans-activists, for various reasons, manufacture outrage at statements that most transwomen/men would not object to. 

 

Agree, though I don't use the term transwomen as it both seems a hostage to fortune, and meaningless. As to the biological fact,  the  idea that there is anything other tthan the biology seems nonsensical to me. Note, that doesn't mean I believe in 'biological  essentialism', a misused phrase by TRAs.
 

[Nearly Sane]

Excellent from Susan Dalgety


https://susandalgety.substack.com/p/my-open-letter-to-keir-starmer-on?justPublished=true

[jeremyp]

The greatest upset at the 'only women have a cervix' is from men who identify as women because it doesn't follow the mantra of 'Transwomen are women'.

Though Stonewall have only just realised that their campaign to allow people to change their sex marker record on the NHS causes real problems

Any chance of providing a link to the Tweet? I often enjoy perusing the replies to such tweets and it also provides provenance.

[Nearly Sane]

Any chance of providing a link to the Tweet? I often enjoy perusing the replies to such tweets and it also provides provenance.

Will do, when I get the chance

[Nearly Sane]

Any chance of providing a link to the Tweet? I often enjoy perusing the replies to such tweets and it also provides provenance.

https://twitter.com/stonewalluk/status/1442536623749545999?s=19

[jeremyp]

https://twitter.com/stonewalluk/status/1442536623749545999?s=19

Thanks for that. It didn't disappoint. The highlight was this autocorrect failure

It's not an IT fault, it's set up correctly. MEN don't have crevices and if you ever try to carry out a cervical smear test on a man, please invite me along just for a giggle.

[Nearly Sane]

Just wow!


And link

https://twitter.com/JustDavidDavid/status/1443199025004568581?s=19

[jeremyp]

Just wow!


And link

https://twitter.com/JustDavidDavid/status/1443199025004568581?s=19

Presumably the recommended treatment in such cases does not involve amputations?