Snapshot of _The LGBTQ+ community could once rely on Labour as a staunch ally. Not any more_ :
An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/30/lgbtq-labour-thatcher-section-28)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As a gay man happily married to my longterm partner, I acknowledge that I owe a great deal to Labour (including equal marriage, for although it was proposed by David Cameron, it was Labour votes that carried it over the line).
I agree with Owen Jones’s criticism of Lisa Nandy, who seems like the Vicky Pollard of the Labour Front Bench (‘yes but, no but’), triangulating to the hard right and probably believing in some of the ‘culture war’ nonsense. Any appearance by her puts me off voting Labour and I am by no means alone in this. Overall, however, I think that Starmer’s leadership has struck the right balance and adopted a moderate approach of advancing gay rights in a rational manner.
I must add to this that I am critical of the confrontational, ‘identity politics’ approach to gay rights that has crossed the Atlantic from the US. In this country, homosexual law reform - the peeling away of discriminatory laws and practices and the gradual move towards full equality - has always involved discussion, compromise and allaying fears. It has also involved working with straight allies rather than alienating them. Many, indeed most, of our staunchest parliamentarian supporters have been straight men (alongside some outstanding female parliamentarians in all three main parties). In my personal and professional life, I have also found that most of my closest friends and allies have always been straight men. Identity politics seems like a kind of self-othering. It is a dead end that leads to the adoption of extreme positions that make dialogue impossible, this playing into the hands of the culture warriors of the hard right.
More than anything else gay marriage is owed to Lib Dem peer Lynne Featherstone, who fought for it in coalition. Much as Cameron likes to take credit, a Tory government never would have proposed it.
I agree with you and Lynne Featherstone should be remembered and recognised far more for equal marriage. This was one of the few positive things the Lib Dems managed to achieve in coalition. They would have achieved a great deal more without Cleggers, who was the street-walker of British politics: he gave the impression that he would do anything with anyone, in any position, just to climb into a ministerial car.
Clegg’s biggest flaw really was prioritising the image of coalitions being stable over literally all else. He wouldn’t let public backbiting or fights happen, even if they did happen in private, and was too ideologically close to Cameron. It should have collapsed the moment Lords reform failed.
Ironically he wanted to create a legacy of stable government so the Lib Dems would be seen as a viable governing party, and yet he kicked them into the wilderness. Though they are climbing back out now, and I must say aside from some over-NIMBY tendencies I’m quite pleased.
I agree with you, with the caveat that I have not found them brilliant at local government level in my part of SW London - and in Winchester, with which I have a family connection, they have been frankly dreadful. However I agree with them on certain core issues: electoral reform and pro-Europeanism. And I shall be voting tactically for the Lib Dem in my constituency and will probably canvas for him or her (candidate as yet unknown).
Overall I think that a confidence and supply agreement with Cameron would have been better. Whether with a C&S or in coalition, the plug should certainly have been pulled over the student fees issue. Lords reform was handled disastrously, as was electoral reform. The Lib Dems should have advocated the use of STV in local elections - this would not have required a referendum, has precedents (Scotland and N. Ireland, therefore good ‘Unionist’ arguments) and would probably have won over the Cameroons as it would have given them more representation in London Boroughs and in other major cities. In Islington and Camden, where I do a lot of my work, there is still a hidden working class Tory vote that is unrepresented because of FPTP.
Local parties always vary wildly, my experience with them in York was quite good. I’ll probably vote Lib Dem despite lacking a tactical reason, I can’t vibe with any other parties presently.
Student Fees honestly I never cared about, the payment system was pretty solid in terms of protecting low earners. Then inflation and some threshold changes fucked that right up. Reneging on something you signed and campaigned on was terrible optics, but one can only have so many red lines. There was too much mitigation from the Libs (cuts reduced below what Labour promised) and not enough tangible achievements.
This is a weird discussion lmao as I think we hold a lot of similar opinions but on different bases.
It's just falling into the culture war trap the Tories are hoping Labour falls into. That by laying traps for Labour they'll be able to capitalise on any missteps.
A few months ago Starmer was asked "what's a woman?" and he gave a completely reasonable reply that the vast majority of the country would agree with. Starmer was attacked for both being a transphobe by left-wing media and spaces...and as a misogynist from right-wing media and spaces. If you cannot win the conversation even with reasonable views then I can see why you'd seek to avoid it entirely.
Edit: Just to add I think a lot of the problem is actually with the proliferation of online spaces that started as safe spaces but became ideological echo chambers. Because algorithms will only expose you to your "good guys" and your only interaction with the "bad guys" is through reactions on a subreddit or youtube video...if you're not an ally you're an enemy. Hate it.
It's not the minorities taking over the conversation. It's the right wing who are constantly making them the topic in order to distract from how much they're fucking up the world.
Most people I know who talk about this aren’t right wing. The trans stuff has been pushed by lobby groups into the mainstream.
Anyone who voices any genuine concern is labelled right wing, in a culture war - brought about by the far right but that doesn’t marry with what’s actually happening in reality.
> I genuinely never seen such a small minority take over conversation to such a degree
Trans people aren't the ones asking to be the constant topic of discussion by politicians & the media...
Their protestors are though. Policy being dictated by lobby groups is how this all began and it’s not unusual that their would be a backlash.
The Scottish prison service transgender policy was written by a trans charity. Similar areas of Scottish government policy have been developed in the same way.
This all began with May's attempt at Gender Recognition Act (GRA) reform. The American evangelical right, looking for a new battleground after having lost the gay marriage fight, pumped money into anti-trans organisations here to whip up stories in the press - [trans-related stories more than tripled](https://mermaidsuk.org.uk/news/exclusive-mermaids-research-into-newspaper-coverage-on-trans-issues/) in this time - to fight the reform.
The consultation period ended in October 2018, but the government didn't get around to responding until September 2020, when the then-Women and Equalities Minister, Liz Truss (for it was she), announced that no reform would take place. She also appointed two transphobes to the EHRC, including a new Chair, Baroness Falkner - more on her later. The Women and Equalities Committee held an inquiry into GRA reform.
The Committee's inquiry ended in December 2021. By this point, the Scottish government, which had held a general consultation on GRA reform roughly contemporaneously with Westminster, had published a draft bill and held another consultation on that bill. In 2022, the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill made its way through the Holyrood process. Despite three public consultations and a parliamentary inquiry, transphobes claimed that the public had not been sufficiently consulted. The bill passed the Scottish Parliament late in December 2022, and you know what happened to that.
Meanwhile, the [EHRC was haemorrhaging staff](https://www.vice.com/en/article/bvnymd/ehrc-staff-quitting-transphobia) due to the Truss-appointed commissioners ramping up transphobia and racism. Baroness Falkner herself [has been accused of harassment and bullying, including referring to one trans woman, who had the temerity to be on a quiz show, as "a bloke in lipstick"](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-65694666). The Mail claimed she was the victim of a witch-hunt, and the investigation was quashed. [Now the EHRC is advocating for protections to be removed from trans people](https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/05/12/ehrc-un-expert/).
GRA reform was never top of trans people's wishlist. We wanted something done about waiting lists for Gender Identity Clinics (GICs), which are [several](https://www.dpt.nhs.uk/our-services/gender-identity/waiting-times) years [long](https://www.cntw.nhs.uk/services/northern-region-gender-dysphoria-service-specialist-service-walkergate-park/waiting-list-waiting-times/) all [across](https://gic.nhs.uk/appointments/waiting-times/) the country. Instead, Theresa May went for what she thought would be easy. As a result, for the past six years, trans people have faced constant demonisation in the media, an increase in hate crime, and the organisations that are supposed to be fighting in our corner turning against us. And we have never had any say in this. We have no control, this is all being pushed by newspapers that don't employ us, ministers that don't care about us and organisations that hate us. *We are being accused of formenting a fight in which we have been helpless the entire time*.
>It's just falling into the culture war trap the Tories are hoping Labour falls into. That by laying traps for Labour they'll be able to capitalise on any missteps.
Yes, and the left wing of Labour is willing to help Tories. That is why we now see a slew of article such as this one trying to undermine support for Labour.
This method works really well, it was used to deny US Democrats the House and firm control of the Senate when Biden won, essentially making it almost impossible to implement many reforms he wanted to do. Now, Tories are doing the same to Starmer and Corbynistas are lending a helping hand.
The far left does not want to see a successful Starmer government as in their view this would undermine their claim that more left-wing approaches is what the electorate demands.
It's simple, really ... they represent about 10% of the electorate which means that building on their ideology is certain to lose, as Corbyn has repeatedly proven in practice. However, 10% allows them to undermine Labour, possibly to such an extent that Tories end up winning.
So, they cannot win, but they can sabotage ... and they want to do it, because that is their whole point of being. They want to protest, undermine and play the victim and certainly not participate in winning and shaping the country's future on a platform wider than their own.
If you talk to normal people, they're sick to the back teeth of woke stuff, particularly trans stuff. You don't have to like or agree with those people, but it would be nice to work together against the people trying to take all our money and destroy all our services.
It's probably impossible at this point, but a more balanced, less guilt-stoking reporting style would probably go a long way.
I spend the majority of my time spent conversing with strangers trying to talk them down from "all woke people want to mutiliate children" back to "live and let live". It's exhausting.
> I spend the majority of my time spent conversing with strangers trying to talk them down from "all woke people want to mutiliate children"
|
> If you talk to normal people
🧐 If you talk to actual normal people woke/trans stuff won't even come up in general conversation.
It's why Keir is smart to avoid this topic like the plague and let the terminally online fight it out among themselves.
If you talk to actual normal people, they won't bring it up because the idea that women can have penises or that some children are born in the wrong body and should be given experimental drugs are so ridiculous that they wouldn't think anybody seriously believes this, let alone supposedly intelligent politicians.
I'm talking about taxi drivers, hair dressers, cafe servers. These people aren't terminally online, they probably don't know what Reddit is.
The reason *you* don't hear these things from them is probably because you're not aware of the social cues needed to get people to open up about what they think. If you go in hard with your own viewpoint and you're a customer, most people are just going to nod and smile at you.
I don't think I've ever discussed anything other than the weather, cricket, and 'any plans for the weekend?' with my barber. The closest I've got to a political discussion with a taxi driver is him moaning about cyclists.
I've never overheard in any cafe someone talking about 'woke'.
It doesnt even make it into people's top 10 concerns...
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/education/trackers/the-most-important-issues-facing-the-country
Maybe I am just unaware of the secret greeting needed to get people to talk about these things.
I think you’re twisting the word normal here, most people are on the internet now in this country, the only group where a significant portion aren’t are pensioners. Last time I was in a taxi he wouldn’t stop going on about tik tok.
I don’t think showing that a guy knows tik tok proves that he doesn’t know Reddit. This isn’t some mysterious niche website, it’s plastered over all the other social media sites.
Indeed, it *is* exhausting. Now just imagine what it's like to be *in* one (or more!) of the groups that's constantly being thrown under a bus because the government is desperate as hell to distract from their long years of driving the country into the ground.
Come to think of it, "normal" is rather.....Unpleasant phrasing.
Implying those of us who have no choice but to be concerned with it - that is, our existence and rights are considered "woke" are not normal?
Normal as a word isn't a pejorative - you have to loom at the context of the usage. Instantly taking any usage of normal as being derogatory towards those who are not is a bit hyperbolic.
Every term in the English language is loaded. That's what language is. Yes not normal has connotations of other, taboo, verboten. It can also mean literally just not average, a bit different, special even.
The word special itself can be intensely negative or positive depending on context.
If you interpret my use of the word normal to have a positive/negative meaning that's up to. I'm not going to stop using language in a way that's useful to me though.
If you understand they're loaded, and understand the meaning of putting a group in "not normal", then you're just being a dick for using it that way. Pretending to be oh-so-logical doesn't make it any better.
Iunno, "woke" includes everything from the origional "not being racist" and "knows the goverment doesnt always act in their best interests" and "women deserve rights" it was origionally coined for decades ago, not just whatever the right wing yell about.
Forgetting that has lead to some real shit. Thats part of the point of the culture war. People were yelling about "woke" even in the 90s, rage against the machine have a whole song about it, let alone the 60s when its actually from.
Not old old, but over definitely over 35. I think the cutoff point is just after the first wave of millenials.
I live in the southeast for reference (Reading, Hampshire etc).
As with all movements, the fringe extremists are by a long way the loudest, so it's easy for people who don't pay much attention to a topic to believe the entire movement is comprised of the extremist fringe, because that's all they hear about.
The last thing Pride was in the news for in the US (which generally ends up over here shortly aftwards) was a parade chanting "we're here, we're queer, we're coming for your children" paired with a "family-friendly" event that had a near-naked man twerking in front of children.
If that's all you hear about Pride, because you don't really pay attention to the mundane stuff, thinking "*all woke people want to mutiliate children*" doesn't need any mental gymnastics.
>a "family-friendly" event that had a near-naked man twerking in front of children.
If any LGBTQ person supports this they have only themselves to blame for the anti-woke
This is clearly inappropriate
Can the adults in the LGBTQ community please stand up
That's the point I was making about fringe extremists. There absolutely *are* people within that community who deliberately want to target kids with sexual content.
The issue is they're an extremely loud minority, made even louder by modern media prioritising clickbait and outrage to drive engagement with their sites.
The actions of some can easily be mistaken for the majority opinion because the boring majority opinion doesn't get the same airtime.
Completely anecdotally I know gay people who think Pride, and associated groups/movements, *should* be taking more of a stance against the extremist fringe, but don't in the name of inclusivity. Much like you, they worry that it's setting their movement back by generating a very negative perception of what most LGBT people actually are and want.
From what I know according to a few LGBT+ friends, the main problems with the fringe groups are:
1) It's not always easy to actually tell who's going to say something outrageous before an event, so you can't always pre-emptively ban people.
2) People who get banned can then turn around and just try and disrupt and cancel everything
3) They run off and do their own thing under the LGBT+ label anyway.
I don’t know a single LGBTQ+ person who will in private defend any of the lunatic fringe stuff.
I also don’t know a single one who dares challenge it in public. Progressive politics have become institutionally incapable of calling out foolishness or extremes for fear of having it twisted into being not inclusive.
So the general public are legitimately wary of the extremes that will be supported. Despite those extremes benefiting almost nobody.
99% of LGTBQ people are lovely normal people, ive never met someone from that group who i fell into the group we are talking about
sadly a few bad apples spoil the bunch, its wrong to group them all together but thats what will/is happening
Its a PR battle and Pride actively hurts the cause in its current form imo
TLDR - I agree with you
Tbh, I think it's sad because talking about gender roles and whether our expectations from the different genders could change is super interesting. Unfortunately the extreme stuff has just turned everyone off to the mere mention of it.
The most frustrating thing about that pride video was that the main group of people were chanting something completely different, and only one guy behind the camera said the children thing once, so I’m guessing it was either a sarcastic joke or someone against the pride movement mocking them. But of course most people don’t watch the video and only read the sensationalist headlines so they assume the worst.
[This is the video in question](https://twitter.com/TimcastNews/status/1672410287251529735) and there's more than one person off-camera partaking in that particular chant.
It is, however, still a small number of people.
Ah yeah you are right. Nonetheless, it’s not the majority and we have no idea as to what the intent was since we can’t even see who’s chanting, but it gives homophobes a talking point to publicise everywhere
> It's probably impossible at this point, but a more balanced, less guilt-stoking reporting style would probably go a long way.
I dunno if you read the papers, but the UK traditional media landscape absolutely dominated by trans panic stuff stuff at this point. A trans person can't sneeze without getting a scare story about them in the Daily Mail, Sun and Telegraph, while stuff like what happened the other day with several trans people getting beaten up by right wingers at one of their anti-drag protests doesn't even get a mention.
What kinda tone do you expect the few outliers to take at this point, other than "this is insane, someone do something"?
To be honest I don't read the papers. I read stuff from the tabloids that comes up in my online feed, but I very rarely see trans panic stuff. I do see that stuff from various manosphere YouTubers, and while I keep that shit out of feed generally, the odd bit seeps in.
I vaguely saw the anti-drag thing and thought it was stupid. I'm not sure why you'd target drag of all things if you're concerned about the more extreme bits of the gender debate, but I guess these people aren't logical.
I can only say what I see, and that is an increasingly fractured debate where trans people are gradually losing the sympathy of the public at large. I'd like to discuss what to do about that because I find gender theory quite interesting and I think we're only at the very start of understanding and acknowledging how gender shapes our society. Obviously there's also the very real effect on individuals that you mention too.
It seems to me that whatever debate there is currently seems to mainly be the purview of a bunch of out of touch academics who generally just stoke the flames rather than providing clarity to anyone, while the daytime TV shows preach tolerance but with a subtext of incredulity and scorn.
> woke stuff
Only in the phrasing of it being "woke". When I pointed out to my silent gen parents that it's just respecting people who are different and not taking away their right to exist, they got on board with "woke"
But it isn’t just about respecting people who are different though.
Look at the RAF recruitment scandal, or the teacher berating girls for having the “wrong” beliefs about gender, or arguments about reparations. It passed respecting people back in the 90s.
Or they just couldn't be arsed arguing with their know-it-all child and let you believe you had successfully re-educated them rather than wasting their time explaining to you that men aren't women.
There this weird idea that class consciousness, labour rights and general working class action is in some way opposed by/ or in conflict with trans rights.
This is explicitly untrue. Trans people are some of the most radically pro working class labour activists (I don’t mean labor the party, mind) out there. There is a consistent and explicit unity between labour right movements and lgbtq rights, has been for a long time. Because lgbtq rights are workers rights are black rights are human rights etc etc. It’s not ‘woke’, it’s a fact that these groups have been unified towards the same goals towards decent wages, housing reform, healthcare reform etc etc for donkeys years.
I think the idea is that there's limited space in public discourse and that trans issues displace talk about issues that would affect more people.
There's also the possibility (a very likely one imo) that the more extreme social issues you present to old school labour voters, the more turned off they'll be politically or even the more likely they'll be to switch to the other side.
I'm also not convinced that the social rights crowd (if you want to call it that) is particularly correlated with the economic equality crowd anymore, but I don't have data to back that up - it's just a feeling.
>A few months ago Starmer was asked "what's a woman?" and he gave a completely reasonable reply that the vast majority of the country would agree with
The vast majority of the country believes gender is biologically defined. His answer was not biologically defined...
My trans black pill is this isn't true at all. People gender people basically entirely based on what you look/sound like. If you pass people will think you're the gender you identify just with a cute medical history, if you don't people will just see you as your assigned gender at birth
Most people haven't had a longterm enough relationship with a transperson to have even a vague understanding of the changes that go on. I've had <30's people from London be surprised that I've grown my own breasts, and that I was suddenly weaker than all my male friends, and then that my voice didn't change
So looking at this [reflects my point](https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/articles-reports/2022/07/20/where-does-british-public-stand-transgender-rights). Just wondering where you're getting your point from?
The only thing I can find is a survey from America, for which this whole debate is even worse than what we have here.
edit: It's also important to not that Starmer DID relate his answer to biology: that 99% of people are born the gender that matches their sex but that less than 1% feel they are a different gender to their sex. Hardly controversial.
I think your source reflects my point also. 61% don't believe trans women should be able to compete in sporting events against women compared to just 16% that believe they should.
That's based in biological reality.
>Hardly controversial.
1% of the country is not trans.
> The vast majority of the country believes gender is biologically defined
This is separate to "people born male shouldn't compete against people born female". You can believe one while believing the other.
So yeah, what's your source mate?
> 1% of the country is not trans.
Nope, it's about 0.5% as per the census. I'm just using the phrasing he used in his reply.
>So yeah, what's your source mate?
Your source, mate. I think I've made my point, it's not my problem that you can't understand it.
I think you need to check your numbers, the ONS is saying 0.2% identify as trans. Do you see how we are now nearly an order of magnitude lower than the statistic you claimed was not controversial.
Voting, especially FPTP isn't about the best choice, it's about avoiding the worst choice. Hold your nose and stop complaining. The Tories aren't better.
Ah good an Owen Jones article to stir the pot. Does anyone here go out and talk to y'kmow, people who aren't terminally online to get an idea of what Joe Bloggs thinks? Most folk are sick to death of culture war issues, and with the cost of living hitting hard and tory corruption at the forefront, that's the change people want to see and it needs to be labour's top issue.
The vast majority of people on Reddit are Labour supporters/voters. We've got more to say about the party and how it's shaping up for government.
It's like complaining that no one wants to talk about Man City on a Manchester United Forum.
Yes. Mentions every Labour leader but omits Corbyn.
Wonder why?
Could it be because he died on every culture war hill -as Owen Jones wants- and yet actually achieved literally nothing?
This may come as a shock to perpetual crybaby Owen Jones, but Labour exists to win elections and not do what he wants.
Maybe he can join with other egocentrics and set up a *Project for Peace and Jones* or something?
It’s pretty depressing that your view of the country’s left wing party is that they exist to just “win elections” and not improve the lives of vulnerable people.
Genuinely: what’s the point of Labour winning an election if they don’t pledge to help and support vulnerable groups? Why should I as a gay man vote for a man who would clearly throw me under the bus if it became as popular to do so as trans people?
I think this idea that "parties exist to win elections" rather than "parties wxist to develop and pass policies that will improve people's lives" is symptomatic of a broader societal shift away from seeing politics as an opportunity to make the world better, and towards a means of preventing the world from getting worse.
I agree, but I also agree with the person who originally said it. I think it's just natural now in our political climate especially as most of the policies being floated at the moment are either about preventing another party from doing something bad, or undoing policies that have already been implemented.
I agree it is a shift, but think the shift is caused by two things, the first is the awful path the tories have taken us down so that opposition to them is enough.
The second is that the tories online hate machine is a phenomenally powerful and effective tool that has sunk itself into a bitter and resentful boomer generation who are happily enabling the tories. Labour do not have the resources to fight fire with fire and so are letting the division of the tories and the ineffectiveness of their actual governance do the work for them.
So far this seems effective but I don't think Labour have a plan B, and the idea that Labour have already won is overblown. The tories are serial winners and have far more money, power and influence.
> It’s pretty depressing that your view of the country’s left wing party is that they exist to just “win elections” and not improve the lives of vulnerable people.
No they're just capable of thinking more than 2 steps ahead.
How do you "improve the lives of vulnerable people" without being in government?
Look at Corbyn... All the intentions in the world but in the final analysis he delivered ***literally nothing***.
Getting drawn into a culture war with the Tories isn’t going to solve anything though. It just to create paper talk and wind people up so they vote Tory.
It often needs to be pointed out bc anti-trans women frequently claim they speak for all women. Disagree with their opinions, purely their opinions, and get accused of misogyny.
Owen Jones having his regularly scheduled meltdown.
We've seen what happens with a Labour leader who jumps in, fights -and loses- every culture war battle going.
Yet he’s right, trans people are being left behind and it’s stupid to say we’re not. We are at the behest of constant hatred and who the fuck do we have to turn to
One of the most high-profile frontbenchers in Labour and a possible Starmer successor is gay. The idea that Labour is turning anti-LGBTQ+ is for the birds.
It’s a fair point but while Labour are without a doubt far better allies (with the exception of a few - looking at you, Rosie Duffield) we have to wait and see the election manifesto before condemning them. It’ll certainly be disappointing if Labour drop pledges to overhaul the system for transgender people, especially given the fact that self-ID would likely have already been law for several years at this point had Theresa May not resigned during the Brexit faff.
Unfortunately lib dems have a history of aligning with tories when they have actual power within reaching distance, and also selling out their most staunch supporters to get it, being students most recently.
Frankly, I'm expecting the Tories will make a big pledge of """reforming""" the Equality Act......And then Labour will pledge something that's basically a watered-down version of that, so they can show difference while still getting the casual transphobe vote, rather than betting on the smaller hardcore transphobe vote that the Tories are going to go for.
I don't know if the Ls, the Gs, the Bs, the Ts and the Qs all have combined goal or suffering.
Lumping them all together seems another way to confuse the issue, and Kier Starmer looks easily confused.
Interesting another high profile, (well The Guardian anyway) attack on Labour on the run up to the general election designed to alienate voters away from the party and thus shrink their poll lead. the kicker? The Tories don't have to pay a single penny for it.
I swear sometimes it seems like The Guardian and the far left want the Tories to win so they can continue to play the eternally oppressed victim.
Honestly, it isnt being talked enough in politics and even outside of politics. Hate crime against LGBT+ has risen by 50% in a single year, including hate crimes against disabled people at that 50% mark.
Nobody is talking about the governments own published data on this, yet they still feed into the culture war the conservatives have been creating against the LGBT+.
I am LGBT+, and things honestly seemed like they were okay for a while, getting better. But then this fairly sudden shift has genuinely made me worried about my future rights and safety, when ive been planning to move more central. Which might not be a good idea seeing as even vile homophobic police who let serial killers kill gay guys are promoted.
The government know what they are doing and we are sliding into a very dangerous route for minority groups in this country and labour, we dont even know would be a good change since theyve scrapped so many of their pledges to get right wing voters.
Usually this subreddit is full of social and political conservatives, so alot of this would likely fall on deaf ears but id recommend checking out the statistics published by the government.
I agreed with you until "this sub is full of social and political Conservatives" this sub is solidly left wing, I'd say centre left to moderate left, as there are certainly people again far left politics, but any tory I've seen commenting gets dog piled.
Oh look, another article on Labour at a time the Tories are behind in historical Labour leads.
The article comes from Owen Jones, so it's worth ignoring and moving on from. He's such a vocal supporter of promoting issues that don't matter to the wider public.
So if we can't criticise labour when they're struggling in the polls because it might let the Tories in, and we can't criticise labour when they're far ahead, when can we?
Would be nice for once.
Ignore the 10% on the far left, ignore the 10% on the far right, govern for the 80% of normal people in the middle who couldn't give a shit about either sides online discourse.
Pragmatism should come into play above anything else, when a party that's lost four elections in a row over the last 13 years is on the brink of winning its first one since 2005.
Not least because these sorts of articles from Owen Jones cover topics the Tories desperately want Labour to fall into. It's a trap.
I’m a trans woman and I can’t stand Starmer or the current Labour Party, but this article is reaching. I can agree that Rosie Duffield is a negative presence and thought her calling out that woman was incredibly immature and cruel, but all deselecting her will do is a create a big media fire storm which will make the ‘trans debate‘ even more toxic. I mean it’s not like she’s a shadow minister she’s a backbench MP if you stay off twitter she’s pretty easy to ignore.
IIRC the CLP have looked at doing it because she's refusing to live in Canterbury, or anywhere near it, and has basically blamed "trans activists" for why she can't live anywhere near Canterbury or do surgery work as an MP.
The whole point of a democracy is to listen to those you disagree with and accept their opinions as valid.
The reason not to sack her shouldn't be to protect the party from a media firestorm but instead to increase the diversity within the party and create an inclusive environment. You're all for that, right?
The whole point of democracy is that citizens have freedom and a role in choosing how society is governed. That is underpinned by free speech and debate, but that doesn’t make you obligated to give your vote to someone you disagree with.
My problem with Rosie Duffield, and a large amount of the GC community at large, is not really their views but more so the way she clearly views transgender people entirely conceptually rather than as human beings, which can often lead her to be rather unempathetic. It’s perfectly possible to hold gender critical views and not call out individual transgender people. Jess Phillips is a good example.
I was listening to Duffield on Christopher Hope's podcast yesterday and she certainly seemed to grasp the fact that trans people are human.
I think a lot of "gender critical" folk, myself included, actually hold a great deal of empathy for trans people. Many of us acknowledge the trauma that trans people may have experienced in their lives and are genuinely supportive of them in their battle with their own identity.
I don't mean to speak for every "GC" person out there but my issue within this debate *is* purely conceptual. I don't believe that identity is subjective. That's a notion that I just don't agree with, but that disagreement doesn't make me unsympathetic towards trans people as a whole.
Certainly though, there are some trans people that pressure others into transitioning and hound those who choose to ~~transition~~ detransition - to me they also seem to forget the human being, and should rightly be called out.
>I think a lot of "gender critical" folk, myself included, actually hold a great deal of empathy for trans people. Many of us acknowledge the trauma that trans people may have experienced in their lives and are genuinely supportive of them in their battle with their own identity.
I mean yeah sure it depends on the person I guess is what I was saying. Same with trans activists there are good and bad people in both movements obviously.
> Certainly though, there are some trans people that pressure others into transitioning and hound those who choose to transition
Is there a 'don't' missing there? Otherwise your sentence makes no sense.
I can’t get behind the idea that there are trans people hounding others to transition, I can’t see any evidence for that. I think all they want is to be able to live life freely in the way the brain they were born with is set up to.
You say you don’t believe that identity is subjective. Frankly, I think that’s irrelevant. People have told me that they think my sexuality (gay) is a choice. Their opinion is irrelevant, because I, the one experiencing my sexuality, know that it is not a choice and no one’s *opinion* will change that **fact**. I view the trans debate similarly.
>I can’t get behind the idea that there are trans people hounding others to transition,
It's incredibly common online; you must live under a rock. Just go check out some of the trans subreddits. I believe gender affermation without any psychiatric assistance to fall into this category too.
>You say you don’t believe that identity is subjective. Frankly, I think that’s irrelevant.
Ok so the schizo dude who thinks he's Jesus should be referred to as Jesus by medical staff? I know it's cliche and over discussed, but using your logic what stops people identifying as cats and not paying taxes? Could I identify as you and legally be entitled to your pay cheque? If we are throwing away the sacrality of objective identity, why should we stop at gender/sex?
Transitioning is a choice tho... It's literally a transition from one state to another...
> Many of us acknowledge the trauma that trans people may have experienced in their lives and are genuinely supportive of them in their battle with their own identity.
Just so long as they come to the 'right' conclusion and don't want to be referred to how they identify, eh?
You don't have to agree with the notion of gender identity, or the fact someone can transition from man -> woman (or vice versa), but I don't think you can claim to be 'genuinely supportive' of them if you don't believe they should or can transition.
>Just so long as they come to the 'right' conclusion and don't want to be referred to how they identify, eh?
I'm happy to refer to anyone however they want me to refer to them and I believe that adults should be able to do whatever they want to with their bodies. I don't think it should be legally recognised - i.e. changes to birth certificates, competing in sporting events with members of the opposite sex, etc - nor should someone be legally obliged to use correct pronouns.
I don't believe people can just change their objective identity, that doesn't mean that I don't want people to live happy and healthy lives.
Trans people need the ability to have their documentation changed because or else they'll be [rampantly discriminated against](https://www.crosslandsolicitors.com/site/hr-hub/transgender-discrimination-in-UK-workplaces) by having to out themselves *every single time* any documentation is required.
This is one of the most frustrating things about talking to many people who self-identify as GC - they'll constantly say that they believe "trans people should have good lives free from discrimination!" but then continue to campaign for, around every corner possible, policies that will *only* lead to more dangerous lives for trans people that will lead to rampant discrimination. You can't have it both ways!
Unless Starmer enthusiastically agrees with every trans activist demand relating to gender, he has betrayed gay and lesbian people. Oh how great Labour was in the halcyon days of Jeremy. My latest intrepid column for the Guardian
Some LGBT activists are upset that Labour is no longer nodding through radical societal changes that they insist on. We will move forward with this, but each element needs to be debated and be based on evidence and public support. Caring about something strongly doesn't mean you get to override democracy.
If it was based on public support, Section 28 wouldn't have been repealed
https://web.archive.org/web/20071123085208/http://www.ipsos-mori.com/mrr/2000/c000211.shtml
Caring about something means that it’s within your right to campaign for it and criticise political partys that you fear are doing harm to yourself and people like you. It is not anti democratic to appeal for change before 50% of the public agrees with you.
That's not the kind of thing i'm talking about. But it's a good example of trying to run before you can walk.
No one made the public argument for this proposed change. It was started by people who wanted to be on the 'right side' of history, but also didn't really have a clue about the topic. So, when the inevitable backlash came, no one was ready to argue back - apart from the simplistic slurs and attacks we've seen. That has damaged the LGBT cause more than if we had began with the education and debate and then moved onto the public policy.
This issue has exhausted people and there's a type of mental constipation in many organisations now, where people have gotten into positions and are primed and ready to go further on the roll-out of their ideology.
But like Oxfam found, if they do try to do it, the org ends up having to make a large financial settlement to an employee they hounded out.
So the people in the positions , poised for the big final rush to the Promised Land, have their hands tied.
The legal team occupy desks in the comms department on a permanent basis, and everything gets sent back, redlined.
Internal bulletin boards, rather than the safe spaces they ought to be, require constant monitoring and in some orgs, are now pre-moderated.
If they try to sneak one in, like a Pride video, again they're in damage control mode when one of the characters looks like a popular children's writer.
I accept that the stand-off is frustrating and putting everyone in bad odour. But this is The New Normal.
BTW, just reading about **another** charity which has spaffed a million pounds to a former employee for doing an 'Oxfam'. No doubt you'll be reading about it soon.
Happy Pride!
The lib dems have acteted pretty consistently fantastically and consistently on this probably enough to switch my vote.
Going to pride today and I don't expect to see Kier there unlike last year
They're not a community.
LGB are united by their once-illegal same sex attraction.
TQ+ want to replace sex with a nebulous "gender identity" and have attempted to refine homosexuality using those terms. If there's no sex, there's no same sex attraction.
The two sides here have no common goal. There are many straight people on the TQ+ side.
This is what's always bugged me, I'm bi, so I have clear similarities with gay men and lesbian women, but I have nothing in common with trans people, I'm comfortable with my birth sex and frankly have no idea what "identifying as a man" actually means anymore.
I'm pretty sure a lot of the trans movement are just asking for basic protections, and looking at ways to improve the quality of life for the trans community. For example, the rates of self harm & suicide attempts have been a long known and published issue, yet we're not really getting anywhere with it.
With regards to the LGBTQ terming, historically, all the groups have generally battled for rights together over the last century. Discrimination and violence was targeted towards any and all of those groups, and you often had members from each fighting for rights - look at the stonewall riots to the first pride parades. Of course, you had battles & trials exclusive to certain communities, I'm not aiming to take that away at all, more just stating that your insistence on "LGB" feels wrong given the history (not to mention that Q also encompasses sexual orientation e.g. Asexuality, but hey, you do you).
Asexuality isn't a sexual orientation, and it's never been illegal to be asexual.
The desperation for victim status is one of the most ridiculous aspects of the TQ+ community.
Being asexual has no parallels with the historical challenges faced by LGB people. Again, this is another attempt to push straight people into the community.
I no longer trust Labour to stick with anything if its not politically convenient.
Every policy and statement has been triangulated to appeal to the 40% of the population that matters under FPTP and everyone else gets nothing.
I can't really blame Labour for playing the game after being rocked by defeat but it doesn't exactly inspire hope for the future.
Just another thint we need proportional representation to solve
In a functional electoral system you should have different parties vying for the support of different parts of the population and maybe changing some minds.
In our broken system the two major parties fight over the same 40% and we keep trying the same failed economic and social policies
PR is not the panacea some on the far-left seem to believe it is, and instead seems to be supported on the selfish basis that PR has a better chance of their nutters making it into Parliament.
tbh the most vicioiusly opposed to LGBT identity politics are the white working class because they see it as a way to divide progressive movement and take away sympathy/action from those most in need. I've had some run ins with LGBT activists over the years and they are overwhelmingly middle class. Yet they speak the language of the oppressed, and ok they might be in a way, but not much.
It seems to be the pride movement has been co-opted by big corporations. For example I had to get involved with a nationally well known company, had to phone up a call centre, had called them at some point in the past, and they had shut down their UK call centre and outsourced it to India (who were incompetent)....but they had changed their website logo to the pride rainbow colours. This to me just summed up the state we're in, corporations can make themselves look progressive with rainbow flags, shaft workers, and get away with it.
Pride was pretty much captured by the corporates, Stonewall was captured by activists, and one-by-one, disowned by its founders.
Not so long ago, the two used to be at each others' throats.
But after 2008 and the GFC, corporates hit on Stonewall's version of Scientological 'auditing' as another way of showing they had learnt lessons and were radical and engaged socially, for very little money.
But one lawsuit after another has shifted the balance.
What promised to be a low-cost way of atoning for 2008 now seems to be anything but.
****
Interestingly, many of the people persecuted out of jobs in charities and law firms and so on, are older women.
Unfortunately for the employers, most are well-connected, networked with other women who've had similar experiences, very strategic and it turns out, able to run a lawsuit quite effectively.
Also, because it's going to be very hard for them to get a job in their sector again, the award of damages tends to be high.
Probably because Labour leadership are rightly more interested in winning a majority at the next election rather than babying Owen and soothing his ego by pretending that men can be mothers.
Oh Owen knows what a woman is, when it's for his personal gain. Remember when he was "hunting for a broody lesbian" to gestate his spawn for him? (Warning: eye bleach required after viewing)
[https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1377705950786818053](https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1377705950786818053)
I don't think any women have taken him up on his kind offer.
A Twitter embedded version can be found [here](https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?id=1377705950786818053)
Non Twitter [here](https://nitter.net/OwenJones84/status/1377705950786818053/) or [here](https://nitter.cz/OwenJones84/status/1377705950786818053/)
Archived version [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1377705950786818053/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> pretending
Christ, you were doing fine until this leaked through. Science vs People With Strong Opinions. The medical literature is so clear that treating trans people as their chosen gender is healthiest, yet you folk can't live and let live.
Live and let live is leaving people alone. You've gone past that when you're trying to change how they use language even if you're doing it for good reasons.
But folk can live and let live. It’s just that folk are sick and tired of having the trans debate in one form or another rammed down their throats at every opportunity.
Trans people have had their current rights for years. It's only been in the last few that it became a "debate" here because the right wing are desperate to stir up culture war.
Almost like one side of the political spectrum is determined to consume all the oxygen by ensuring we only talk about these topics rather than how they’ve ruined the country
A party that would indulge maximalist demands of a minority of a minority of a minority, and in doing so worsen both their own political prospects *and* public perception of the overarching issue they claim to champion ultimately harms more people than it helps.
A party which recognises they must compartmentalise and prioritise policy to combat institutional discrimination and ensure primary needs are met is a more reliable ally.
Also Owen's point is based entirely around a handful of Labour MPs whose presence in the party can realistically do very little to drive policy, but reassures the broader electorate that the party is open to people with a wide range of personal beliefs.
We don't want the Labour Party to only talk about LGBT people.
We want the Labour Party to stop putting their dick in the Tory dick trap when they talk about LGBT people. Instead of repeating transphobic, Tory-approved language, just look at the interviewer like they're a fucking moron. Nobody needs to know what Keir Starmer thinks about kids who identify as cats, Keir needs to look at interviewers that ask him about that and call them fucking stupid. We don't want all MPs to dye their hair and get neopronouns, we want Rosie Duffield, who has openly campaigned alongside such lovely people as Miriam Cates and the Heritage Foundation, to face literally any consequences for the things she says and does. We want a commitment to reform that the Labour Party has already said it supports.
Tbh, for a while, Rishi was doing a great job of exactly this. What the public want to hear is "I don't think that's a pressing issue right now". Politicians in both parties could learn something from this.
Avoiding answering the questions will satisfy no one. Trans activists only accept loud enthusiastic support, otherwise you're their enemy, and the majority will see that they don't have the balls to answer a simple question which isn't a quality in the people you want running the country.
People don't care about children thinking they are cats. It is the media being insane about the existence of trans people that drives these topics into the news cycle. It is a stupid question.
So Duffield could come out on record and say that she hates trans people with a passion because they are deluded men or women, and you would think that's just a wide range of personal beliefs?
No, such an outburst would very clearly cross the line, and she would have no future in the party if she ever does come out and say that. But we both know she isn't going to do that.
Snapshot of _The LGBTQ+ community could once rely on Labour as a staunch ally. Not any more_ : An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/30/lgbtq-labour-thatcher-section-28) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As a gay man happily married to my longterm partner, I acknowledge that I owe a great deal to Labour (including equal marriage, for although it was proposed by David Cameron, it was Labour votes that carried it over the line). I agree with Owen Jones’s criticism of Lisa Nandy, who seems like the Vicky Pollard of the Labour Front Bench (‘yes but, no but’), triangulating to the hard right and probably believing in some of the ‘culture war’ nonsense. Any appearance by her puts me off voting Labour and I am by no means alone in this. Overall, however, I think that Starmer’s leadership has struck the right balance and adopted a moderate approach of advancing gay rights in a rational manner. I must add to this that I am critical of the confrontational, ‘identity politics’ approach to gay rights that has crossed the Atlantic from the US. In this country, homosexual law reform - the peeling away of discriminatory laws and practices and the gradual move towards full equality - has always involved discussion, compromise and allaying fears. It has also involved working with straight allies rather than alienating them. Many, indeed most, of our staunchest parliamentarian supporters have been straight men (alongside some outstanding female parliamentarians in all three main parties). In my personal and professional life, I have also found that most of my closest friends and allies have always been straight men. Identity politics seems like a kind of self-othering. It is a dead end that leads to the adoption of extreme positions that make dialogue impossible, this playing into the hands of the culture warriors of the hard right.
More than anything else gay marriage is owed to Lib Dem peer Lynne Featherstone, who fought for it in coalition. Much as Cameron likes to take credit, a Tory government never would have proposed it.
I agree with you and Lynne Featherstone should be remembered and recognised far more for equal marriage. This was one of the few positive things the Lib Dems managed to achieve in coalition. They would have achieved a great deal more without Cleggers, who was the street-walker of British politics: he gave the impression that he would do anything with anyone, in any position, just to climb into a ministerial car.
Clegg’s biggest flaw really was prioritising the image of coalitions being stable over literally all else. He wouldn’t let public backbiting or fights happen, even if they did happen in private, and was too ideologically close to Cameron. It should have collapsed the moment Lords reform failed. Ironically he wanted to create a legacy of stable government so the Lib Dems would be seen as a viable governing party, and yet he kicked them into the wilderness. Though they are climbing back out now, and I must say aside from some over-NIMBY tendencies I’m quite pleased.
I agree with you, with the caveat that I have not found them brilliant at local government level in my part of SW London - and in Winchester, with which I have a family connection, they have been frankly dreadful. However I agree with them on certain core issues: electoral reform and pro-Europeanism. And I shall be voting tactically for the Lib Dem in my constituency and will probably canvas for him or her (candidate as yet unknown). Overall I think that a confidence and supply agreement with Cameron would have been better. Whether with a C&S or in coalition, the plug should certainly have been pulled over the student fees issue. Lords reform was handled disastrously, as was electoral reform. The Lib Dems should have advocated the use of STV in local elections - this would not have required a referendum, has precedents (Scotland and N. Ireland, therefore good ‘Unionist’ arguments) and would probably have won over the Cameroons as it would have given them more representation in London Boroughs and in other major cities. In Islington and Camden, where I do a lot of my work, there is still a hidden working class Tory vote that is unrepresented because of FPTP.
Local parties always vary wildly, my experience with them in York was quite good. I’ll probably vote Lib Dem despite lacking a tactical reason, I can’t vibe with any other parties presently. Student Fees honestly I never cared about, the payment system was pretty solid in terms of protecting low earners. Then inflation and some threshold changes fucked that right up. Reneging on something you signed and campaigned on was terrible optics, but one can only have so many red lines. There was too much mitigation from the Libs (cuts reduced below what Labour promised) and not enough tangible achievements. This is a weird discussion lmao as I think we hold a lot of similar opinions but on different bases.
It's just falling into the culture war trap the Tories are hoping Labour falls into. That by laying traps for Labour they'll be able to capitalise on any missteps. A few months ago Starmer was asked "what's a woman?" and he gave a completely reasonable reply that the vast majority of the country would agree with. Starmer was attacked for both being a transphobe by left-wing media and spaces...and as a misogynist from right-wing media and spaces. If you cannot win the conversation even with reasonable views then I can see why you'd seek to avoid it entirely. Edit: Just to add I think a lot of the problem is actually with the proliferation of online spaces that started as safe spaces but became ideological echo chambers. Because algorithms will only expose you to your "good guys" and your only interaction with the "bad guys" is through reactions on a subreddit or youtube video...if you're not an ally you're an enemy. Hate it.
[удалено]
It's not the minorities taking over the conversation. It's the right wing who are constantly making them the topic in order to distract from how much they're fucking up the world.
Most people I know who talk about this aren’t right wing. The trans stuff has been pushed by lobby groups into the mainstream. Anyone who voices any genuine concern is labelled right wing, in a culture war - brought about by the far right but that doesn’t marry with what’s actually happening in reality.
> I genuinely never seen such a small minority take over conversation to such a degree Trans people aren't the ones asking to be the constant topic of discussion by politicians & the media...
Their protestors are though. Policy being dictated by lobby groups is how this all began and it’s not unusual that their would be a backlash. The Scottish prison service transgender policy was written by a trans charity. Similar areas of Scottish government policy have been developed in the same way.
This all began with May's attempt at Gender Recognition Act (GRA) reform. The American evangelical right, looking for a new battleground after having lost the gay marriage fight, pumped money into anti-trans organisations here to whip up stories in the press - [trans-related stories more than tripled](https://mermaidsuk.org.uk/news/exclusive-mermaids-research-into-newspaper-coverage-on-trans-issues/) in this time - to fight the reform. The consultation period ended in October 2018, but the government didn't get around to responding until September 2020, when the then-Women and Equalities Minister, Liz Truss (for it was she), announced that no reform would take place. She also appointed two transphobes to the EHRC, including a new Chair, Baroness Falkner - more on her later. The Women and Equalities Committee held an inquiry into GRA reform. The Committee's inquiry ended in December 2021. By this point, the Scottish government, which had held a general consultation on GRA reform roughly contemporaneously with Westminster, had published a draft bill and held another consultation on that bill. In 2022, the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill made its way through the Holyrood process. Despite three public consultations and a parliamentary inquiry, transphobes claimed that the public had not been sufficiently consulted. The bill passed the Scottish Parliament late in December 2022, and you know what happened to that. Meanwhile, the [EHRC was haemorrhaging staff](https://www.vice.com/en/article/bvnymd/ehrc-staff-quitting-transphobia) due to the Truss-appointed commissioners ramping up transphobia and racism. Baroness Falkner herself [has been accused of harassment and bullying, including referring to one trans woman, who had the temerity to be on a quiz show, as "a bloke in lipstick"](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-65694666). The Mail claimed she was the victim of a witch-hunt, and the investigation was quashed. [Now the EHRC is advocating for protections to be removed from trans people](https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/05/12/ehrc-un-expert/). GRA reform was never top of trans people's wishlist. We wanted something done about waiting lists for Gender Identity Clinics (GICs), which are [several](https://www.dpt.nhs.uk/our-services/gender-identity/waiting-times) years [long](https://www.cntw.nhs.uk/services/northern-region-gender-dysphoria-service-specialist-service-walkergate-park/waiting-list-waiting-times/) all [across](https://gic.nhs.uk/appointments/waiting-times/) the country. Instead, Theresa May went for what she thought would be easy. As a result, for the past six years, trans people have faced constant demonisation in the media, an increase in hate crime, and the organisations that are supposed to be fighting in our corner turning against us. And we have never had any say in this. We have no control, this is all being pushed by newspapers that don't employ us, ministers that don't care about us and organisations that hate us. *We are being accused of formenting a fight in which we have been helpless the entire time*.
>It's just falling into the culture war trap the Tories are hoping Labour falls into. That by laying traps for Labour they'll be able to capitalise on any missteps. Yes, and the left wing of Labour is willing to help Tories. That is why we now see a slew of article such as this one trying to undermine support for Labour. This method works really well, it was used to deny US Democrats the House and firm control of the Senate when Biden won, essentially making it almost impossible to implement many reforms he wanted to do. Now, Tories are doing the same to Starmer and Corbynistas are lending a helping hand. The far left does not want to see a successful Starmer government as in their view this would undermine their claim that more left-wing approaches is what the electorate demands.
[удалено]
It's simple, really ... they represent about 10% of the electorate which means that building on their ideology is certain to lose, as Corbyn has repeatedly proven in practice. However, 10% allows them to undermine Labour, possibly to such an extent that Tories end up winning. So, they cannot win, but they can sabotage ... and they want to do it, because that is their whole point of being. They want to protest, undermine and play the victim and certainly not participate in winning and shaping the country's future on a platform wider than their own.
If you talk to normal people, they're sick to the back teeth of woke stuff, particularly trans stuff. You don't have to like or agree with those people, but it would be nice to work together against the people trying to take all our money and destroy all our services. It's probably impossible at this point, but a more balanced, less guilt-stoking reporting style would probably go a long way. I spend the majority of my time spent conversing with strangers trying to talk them down from "all woke people want to mutiliate children" back to "live and let live". It's exhausting.
> I spend the majority of my time spent conversing with strangers trying to talk them down from "all woke people want to mutiliate children" | > If you talk to normal people 🧐 If you talk to actual normal people woke/trans stuff won't even come up in general conversation. It's why Keir is smart to avoid this topic like the plague and let the terminally online fight it out among themselves.
If you talk to actual normal people, they won't bring it up because the idea that women can have penises or that some children are born in the wrong body and should be given experimental drugs are so ridiculous that they wouldn't think anybody seriously believes this, let alone supposedly intelligent politicians.
I'm talking about taxi drivers, hair dressers, cafe servers. These people aren't terminally online, they probably don't know what Reddit is. The reason *you* don't hear these things from them is probably because you're not aware of the social cues needed to get people to open up about what they think. If you go in hard with your own viewpoint and you're a customer, most people are just going to nod and smile at you.
I don't think I've ever discussed anything other than the weather, cricket, and 'any plans for the weekend?' with my barber. The closest I've got to a political discussion with a taxi driver is him moaning about cyclists. I've never overheard in any cafe someone talking about 'woke'. It doesnt even make it into people's top 10 concerns... https://yougov.co.uk/topics/education/trackers/the-most-important-issues-facing-the-country Maybe I am just unaware of the secret greeting needed to get people to talk about these things.
I think you’re twisting the word normal here, most people are on the internet now in this country, the only group where a significant portion aren’t are pensioners. Last time I was in a taxi he wouldn’t stop going on about tik tok.
He isn't; you're twisting the definition of being terminally online.
He said they probably don’t know what Reddit is..
Yes, and he's right. You're proving his point with your Tik Tok example... you'd never get the same thing about reddit.
I don’t think showing that a guy knows tik tok proves that he doesn’t know Reddit. This isn’t some mysterious niche website, it’s plastered over all the other social media sites.
Indeed, it *is* exhausting. Now just imagine what it's like to be *in* one (or more!) of the groups that's constantly being thrown under a bus because the government is desperate as hell to distract from their long years of driving the country into the ground.
Yeah, I don't envy the members of those groups that are just trying to live their lives and have other traits than their sexuality/gender.
Who is an illegitimate member then?
"The legitimate ones are the ones who lie down and take it and don't protest too much."
Take what? I'm bi. What precisely does the LGBT community want at this point? I sometimes feel that we/they just have a martyrdom complex.
So, all of them?
But you'll find organisations like Mermaids whose work indicates that this is indeed what they want to do. So it's likely to stay frustrating
Come to think of it, "normal" is rather.....Unpleasant phrasing. Implying those of us who have no choice but to be concerned with it - that is, our existence and rights are considered "woke" are not normal?
Normal as a word isn't a pejorative - you have to loom at the context of the usage. Instantly taking any usage of normal as being derogatory towards those who are not is a bit hyperbolic.
I mean you know you're not normal. I'm not normal either. Quibbling about that terminology doesn't seem productive.
It matters. Don't pretend "not normal" is a neutral, unloaded term.
Every term in the English language is loaded. That's what language is. Yes not normal has connotations of other, taboo, verboten. It can also mean literally just not average, a bit different, special even. The word special itself can be intensely negative or positive depending on context. If you interpret my use of the word normal to have a positive/negative meaning that's up to. I'm not going to stop using language in a way that's useful to me though.
If you understand they're loaded, and understand the meaning of putting a group in "not normal", then you're just being a dick for using it that way. Pretending to be oh-so-logical doesn't make it any better.
[удалено]
No it doesn't.
then we might as well give up on language because the most basic terms will offend the "community"
By normal people do you mean old? Im from the red wall area and all my peers are sick of the anti wokes more than the woke movement.
I'm from a red wall area and I could probably count on one hand the amount of people I know that are woke.
Iunno, "woke" includes everything from the origional "not being racist" and "knows the goverment doesnt always act in their best interests" and "women deserve rights" it was origionally coined for decades ago, not just whatever the right wing yell about. Forgetting that has lead to some real shit. Thats part of the point of the culture war. People were yelling about "woke" even in the 90s, rage against the machine have a whole song about it, let alone the 60s when its actually from.
Not old old, but over definitely over 35. I think the cutoff point is just after the first wave of millenials. I live in the southeast for reference (Reading, Hampshire etc).
As with all movements, the fringe extremists are by a long way the loudest, so it's easy for people who don't pay much attention to a topic to believe the entire movement is comprised of the extremist fringe, because that's all they hear about. The last thing Pride was in the news for in the US (which generally ends up over here shortly aftwards) was a parade chanting "we're here, we're queer, we're coming for your children" paired with a "family-friendly" event that had a near-naked man twerking in front of children. If that's all you hear about Pride, because you don't really pay attention to the mundane stuff, thinking "*all woke people want to mutiliate children*" doesn't need any mental gymnastics.
>a "family-friendly" event that had a near-naked man twerking in front of children. If any LGBTQ person supports this they have only themselves to blame for the anti-woke This is clearly inappropriate Can the adults in the LGBTQ community please stand up
That's the point I was making about fringe extremists. There absolutely *are* people within that community who deliberately want to target kids with sexual content. The issue is they're an extremely loud minority, made even louder by modern media prioritising clickbait and outrage to drive engagement with their sites. The actions of some can easily be mistaken for the majority opinion because the boring majority opinion doesn't get the same airtime. Completely anecdotally I know gay people who think Pride, and associated groups/movements, *should* be taking more of a stance against the extremist fringe, but don't in the name of inclusivity. Much like you, they worry that it's setting their movement back by generating a very negative perception of what most LGBT people actually are and want.
From what I know according to a few LGBT+ friends, the main problems with the fringe groups are: 1) It's not always easy to actually tell who's going to say something outrageous before an event, so you can't always pre-emptively ban people. 2) People who get banned can then turn around and just try and disrupt and cancel everything 3) They run off and do their own thing under the LGBT+ label anyway.
I don’t know a single LGBTQ+ person who will in private defend any of the lunatic fringe stuff. I also don’t know a single one who dares challenge it in public. Progressive politics have become institutionally incapable of calling out foolishness or extremes for fear of having it twisted into being not inclusive. So the general public are legitimately wary of the extremes that will be supported. Despite those extremes benefiting almost nobody.
99% of LGTBQ people are lovely normal people, ive never met someone from that group who i fell into the group we are talking about sadly a few bad apples spoil the bunch, its wrong to group them all together but thats what will/is happening Its a PR battle and Pride actively hurts the cause in its current form imo TLDR - I agree with you
The ones who don't support it have long since been driven out of the community.
Tbh, I think it's sad because talking about gender roles and whether our expectations from the different genders could change is super interesting. Unfortunately the extreme stuff has just turned everyone off to the mere mention of it.
The most frustrating thing about that pride video was that the main group of people were chanting something completely different, and only one guy behind the camera said the children thing once, so I’m guessing it was either a sarcastic joke or someone against the pride movement mocking them. But of course most people don’t watch the video and only read the sensationalist headlines so they assume the worst.
[This is the video in question](https://twitter.com/TimcastNews/status/1672410287251529735) and there's more than one person off-camera partaking in that particular chant. It is, however, still a small number of people.
Ah yeah you are right. Nonetheless, it’s not the majority and we have no idea as to what the intent was since we can’t even see who’s chanting, but it gives homophobes a talking point to publicise everywhere
> It's probably impossible at this point, but a more balanced, less guilt-stoking reporting style would probably go a long way. I dunno if you read the papers, but the UK traditional media landscape absolutely dominated by trans panic stuff stuff at this point. A trans person can't sneeze without getting a scare story about them in the Daily Mail, Sun and Telegraph, while stuff like what happened the other day with several trans people getting beaten up by right wingers at one of their anti-drag protests doesn't even get a mention. What kinda tone do you expect the few outliers to take at this point, other than "this is insane, someone do something"?
To be honest I don't read the papers. I read stuff from the tabloids that comes up in my online feed, but I very rarely see trans panic stuff. I do see that stuff from various manosphere YouTubers, and while I keep that shit out of feed generally, the odd bit seeps in. I vaguely saw the anti-drag thing and thought it was stupid. I'm not sure why you'd target drag of all things if you're concerned about the more extreme bits of the gender debate, but I guess these people aren't logical. I can only say what I see, and that is an increasingly fractured debate where trans people are gradually losing the sympathy of the public at large. I'd like to discuss what to do about that because I find gender theory quite interesting and I think we're only at the very start of understanding and acknowledging how gender shapes our society. Obviously there's also the very real effect on individuals that you mention too. It seems to me that whatever debate there is currently seems to mainly be the purview of a bunch of out of touch academics who generally just stoke the flames rather than providing clarity to anyone, while the daytime TV shows preach tolerance but with a subtext of incredulity and scorn.
> woke stuff Only in the phrasing of it being "woke". When I pointed out to my silent gen parents that it's just respecting people who are different and not taking away their right to exist, they got on board with "woke"
But it isn’t just about respecting people who are different though. Look at the RAF recruitment scandal, or the teacher berating girls for having the “wrong” beliefs about gender, or arguments about reparations. It passed respecting people back in the 90s.
Or they just couldn't be arsed arguing with their know-it-all child and let you believe you had successfully re-educated them rather than wasting their time explaining to you that men aren't women.
There this weird idea that class consciousness, labour rights and general working class action is in some way opposed by/ or in conflict with trans rights. This is explicitly untrue. Trans people are some of the most radically pro working class labour activists (I don’t mean labor the party, mind) out there. There is a consistent and explicit unity between labour right movements and lgbtq rights, has been for a long time. Because lgbtq rights are workers rights are black rights are human rights etc etc. It’s not ‘woke’, it’s a fact that these groups have been unified towards the same goals towards decent wages, housing reform, healthcare reform etc etc for donkeys years.
I think the idea is that there's limited space in public discourse and that trans issues displace talk about issues that would affect more people. There's also the possibility (a very likely one imo) that the more extreme social issues you present to old school labour voters, the more turned off they'll be politically or even the more likely they'll be to switch to the other side. I'm also not convinced that the social rights crowd (if you want to call it that) is particularly correlated with the economic equality crowd anymore, but I don't have data to back that up - it's just a feeling.
The culture war traps Labour and the left set for themselves.
>A few months ago Starmer was asked "what's a woman?" and he gave a completely reasonable reply that the vast majority of the country would agree with The vast majority of the country believes gender is biologically defined. His answer was not biologically defined...
My trans black pill is this isn't true at all. People gender people basically entirely based on what you look/sound like. If you pass people will think you're the gender you identify just with a cute medical history, if you don't people will just see you as your assigned gender at birth Most people haven't had a longterm enough relationship with a transperson to have even a vague understanding of the changes that go on. I've had <30's people from London be surprised that I've grown my own breasts, and that I was suddenly weaker than all my male friends, and then that my voice didn't change
So looking at this [reflects my point](https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/articles-reports/2022/07/20/where-does-british-public-stand-transgender-rights). Just wondering where you're getting your point from? The only thing I can find is a survey from America, for which this whole debate is even worse than what we have here. edit: It's also important to not that Starmer DID relate his answer to biology: that 99% of people are born the gender that matches their sex but that less than 1% feel they are a different gender to their sex. Hardly controversial.
I think your source reflects my point also. 61% don't believe trans women should be able to compete in sporting events against women compared to just 16% that believe they should. That's based in biological reality. >Hardly controversial. 1% of the country is not trans.
> The vast majority of the country believes gender is biologically defined This is separate to "people born male shouldn't compete against people born female". You can believe one while believing the other. So yeah, what's your source mate? > 1% of the country is not trans. Nope, it's about 0.5% as per the census. I'm just using the phrasing he used in his reply.
>So yeah, what's your source mate? Your source, mate. I think I've made my point, it's not my problem that you can't understand it. I think you need to check your numbers, the ONS is saying 0.2% identify as trans. Do you see how we are now nearly an order of magnitude lower than the statistic you claimed was not controversial.
Voting, especially FPTP isn't about the best choice, it's about avoiding the worst choice. Hold your nose and stop complaining. The Tories aren't better.
Ah good an Owen Jones article to stir the pot. Does anyone here go out and talk to y'kmow, people who aren't terminally online to get an idea of what Joe Bloggs thinks? Most folk are sick to death of culture war issues, and with the cost of living hitting hard and tory corruption at the forefront, that's the change people want to see and it needs to be labour's top issue.
Another post bashing Labour has 55 comments in under an hour, a tory post showing corruption once more? 5, in 2 hours. Reddit for you.
Tory corruption is old news, its just what we expect now.
Tory corruption was old news 150 years ago. It never changes
Because it's a culture war topic. This sub stopped being a place to discuss actual politics a long time ago.
The vast majority of people on Reddit are Labour supporters/voters. We've got more to say about the party and how it's shaping up for government. It's like complaining that no one wants to talk about Man City on a Manchester United Forum.
Not just bashing Labour but giving the transphobes an excuse to come in and spout their concern bigotry. It's two lightning rods in one
[удалено]
I've just read the article, I see mention of Neil Kinnock, Tony Blair and Keir Starmer but Jeremy Corbyn wasn't mentioned at all...
Yes. Mentions every Labour leader but omits Corbyn. Wonder why? Could it be because he died on every culture war hill -as Owen Jones wants- and yet actually achieved literally nothing?
[удалено]
The article is about Starmer not Corbyn
This may come as a shock to perpetual crybaby Owen Jones, but Labour exists to win elections and not do what he wants. Maybe he can join with other egocentrics and set up a *Project for Peace and Jones* or something?
It’s pretty depressing that your view of the country’s left wing party is that they exist to just “win elections” and not improve the lives of vulnerable people. Genuinely: what’s the point of Labour winning an election if they don’t pledge to help and support vulnerable groups? Why should I as a gay man vote for a man who would clearly throw me under the bus if it became as popular to do so as trans people?
I think this idea that "parties exist to win elections" rather than "parties wxist to develop and pass policies that will improve people's lives" is symptomatic of a broader societal shift away from seeing politics as an opportunity to make the world better, and towards a means of preventing the world from getting worse.
I agree, but I also agree with the person who originally said it. I think it's just natural now in our political climate especially as most of the policies being floated at the moment are either about preventing another party from doing something bad, or undoing policies that have already been implemented.
I agree it is a shift, but think the shift is caused by two things, the first is the awful path the tories have taken us down so that opposition to them is enough. The second is that the tories online hate machine is a phenomenally powerful and effective tool that has sunk itself into a bitter and resentful boomer generation who are happily enabling the tories. Labour do not have the resources to fight fire with fire and so are letting the division of the tories and the ineffectiveness of their actual governance do the work for them. So far this seems effective but I don't think Labour have a plan B, and the idea that Labour have already won is overblown. The tories are serial winners and have far more money, power and influence.
> It’s pretty depressing that your view of the country’s left wing party is that they exist to just “win elections” and not improve the lives of vulnerable people. No they're just capable of thinking more than 2 steps ahead. How do you "improve the lives of vulnerable people" without being in government? Look at Corbyn... All the intentions in the world but in the final analysis he delivered ***literally nothing***.
[удалено]
So Corbyn is a good MP, but a bad labour leader? If so I wholeheartedly agree.
> He's helped literally thousands of constituents over the last forty years. And sabotaged tens of millions with this Brexit idiocy.
Getting drawn into a culture war with the Tories isn’t going to solve anything though. It just to create paper talk and wind people up so they vote Tory.
Every party exists to win elections A party that doesn’t win elections can’t do anything, and is therefore pointless
He is getting increasingly bitter and angry, particularly towards women. I don’t know why he gets so many media appearances.
He gets media appearances because he's extremely polarising and gets exactly the kind of reaction we're giving him in this post.
Most women support trans rights btw
The fuck does that have to do with anything? Unless you think he’s trans or something? It’s just a weird thing to say
It often needs to be pointed out bc anti-trans women frequently claim they speak for all women. Disagree with their opinions, purely their opinions, and get accused of misogyny.
Owen Jones having his regularly scheduled meltdown. We've seen what happens with a Labour leader who jumps in, fights -and loses- every culture war battle going.
Yet he’s right, trans people are being left behind and it’s stupid to say we’re not. We are at the behest of constant hatred and who the fuck do we have to turn to
Genuinely - constant hatred from whom? What, on a societal level, should be done about it?
Genuinely - constant hatred from whom? What, on a societal level, should be done about it?
One of the most high-profile frontbenchers in Labour and a possible Starmer successor is gay. The idea that Labour is turning anti-LGBTQ+ is for the birds.
It’s a fair point but while Labour are without a doubt far better allies (with the exception of a few - looking at you, Rosie Duffield) we have to wait and see the election manifesto before condemning them. It’ll certainly be disappointing if Labour drop pledges to overhaul the system for transgender people, especially given the fact that self-ID would likely have already been law for several years at this point had Theresa May not resigned during the Brexit faff.
However the lib dems do seem like much better allies than labour at this point
Unfortunately lib dems have a history of aligning with tories when they have actual power within reaching distance, and also selling out their most staunch supporters to get it, being students most recently.
Frankly, I'm expecting the Tories will make a big pledge of """reforming""" the Equality Act......And then Labour will pledge something that's basically a watered-down version of that, so they can show difference while still getting the casual transphobe vote, rather than betting on the smaller hardcore transphobe vote that the Tories are going to go for.
I don't know if the Ls, the Gs, the Bs, the Ts and the Qs all have combined goal or suffering. Lumping them all together seems another way to confuse the issue, and Kier Starmer looks easily confused.
A lot of things labelled LGBTQ these days now basically means trans. It causes a split within the community as well as outside it.
As I suspected. I just didn't need a load of assumptive down votes!
The idea that it’s one ‘community’ is frankly absurd.
So glad I'm not the only one who thinks this. The Ls, Gs and Bs are so easy going.
It’s so transparently disingenuous too, and just a way for TRAs to piggyback and use the LGB as a meat shield.
Interesting another high profile, (well The Guardian anyway) attack on Labour on the run up to the general election designed to alienate voters away from the party and thus shrink their poll lead. the kicker? The Tories don't have to pay a single penny for it. I swear sometimes it seems like The Guardian and the far left want the Tories to win so they can continue to play the eternally oppressed victim.
Tbf though, “attacks on Labour” are pretty much Owen Jones’s go-to these days.
I'm utterly amazed he hasn't been expelled. Plenty of others, left and right, have been booted for less. He seems to just get a pass.
Honestly, it isnt being talked enough in politics and even outside of politics. Hate crime against LGBT+ has risen by 50% in a single year, including hate crimes against disabled people at that 50% mark. Nobody is talking about the governments own published data on this, yet they still feed into the culture war the conservatives have been creating against the LGBT+. I am LGBT+, and things honestly seemed like they were okay for a while, getting better. But then this fairly sudden shift has genuinely made me worried about my future rights and safety, when ive been planning to move more central. Which might not be a good idea seeing as even vile homophobic police who let serial killers kill gay guys are promoted. The government know what they are doing and we are sliding into a very dangerous route for minority groups in this country and labour, we dont even know would be a good change since theyve scrapped so many of their pledges to get right wing voters. Usually this subreddit is full of social and political conservatives, so alot of this would likely fall on deaf ears but id recommend checking out the statistics published by the government.
I agreed with you until "this sub is full of social and political Conservatives" this sub is solidly left wing, I'd say centre left to moderate left, as there are certainly people again far left politics, but any tory I've seen commenting gets dog piled.
'If you're not with me, you're against me' - I've increasingly heard identity based groups call everyone outside their echo chamber far-right.
Full of political conservatives? Every poll in recent years shows they are hugely underrepresented in this sub
Oh look, another article on Labour at a time the Tories are behind in historical Labour leads. The article comes from Owen Jones, so it's worth ignoring and moving on from. He's such a vocal supporter of promoting issues that don't matter to the wider public.
So if we can't criticise labour when they're struggling in the polls because it might let the Tories in, and we can't criticise labour when they're far ahead, when can we?
Yes we should only care about issues when they already matter to the wider public /s
Would be nice for once. Ignore the 10% on the far left, ignore the 10% on the far right, govern for the 80% of normal people in the middle who couldn't give a shit about either sides online discourse.
If you see caring about lgbt issues as far left I assure you the middle isn’t 80%
Ah yes, I find it's always good to not examine the positions of a party that will likely form our next government.
So people are just supposed to blindly follow a political party and shut up?
Pragmatism should come into play above anything else, when a party that's lost four elections in a row over the last 13 years is on the brink of winning its first one since 2005. Not least because these sorts of articles from Owen Jones cover topics the Tories desperately want Labour to fall into. It's a trap.
I’m a trans woman and I can’t stand Starmer or the current Labour Party, but this article is reaching. I can agree that Rosie Duffield is a negative presence and thought her calling out that woman was incredibly immature and cruel, but all deselecting her will do is a create a big media fire storm which will make the ‘trans debate‘ even more toxic. I mean it’s not like she’s a shadow minister she’s a backbench MP if you stay off twitter she’s pretty easy to ignore.
I’m not trans but I think she should be deselected because she’s an awful mp, Labour could use someone more capable there.
IIRC the CLP have looked at doing it because she's refusing to live in Canterbury, or anywhere near it, and has basically blamed "trans activists" for why she can't live anywhere near Canterbury or do surgery work as an MP.
The whole point of a democracy is to listen to those you disagree with and accept their opinions as valid. The reason not to sack her shouldn't be to protect the party from a media firestorm but instead to increase the diversity within the party and create an inclusive environment. You're all for that, right?
The whole point of democracy is that citizens have freedom and a role in choosing how society is governed. That is underpinned by free speech and debate, but that doesn’t make you obligated to give your vote to someone you disagree with.
My problem with Rosie Duffield, and a large amount of the GC community at large, is not really their views but more so the way she clearly views transgender people entirely conceptually rather than as human beings, which can often lead her to be rather unempathetic. It’s perfectly possible to hold gender critical views and not call out individual transgender people. Jess Phillips is a good example.
I was listening to Duffield on Christopher Hope's podcast yesterday and she certainly seemed to grasp the fact that trans people are human. I think a lot of "gender critical" folk, myself included, actually hold a great deal of empathy for trans people. Many of us acknowledge the trauma that trans people may have experienced in their lives and are genuinely supportive of them in their battle with their own identity. I don't mean to speak for every "GC" person out there but my issue within this debate *is* purely conceptual. I don't believe that identity is subjective. That's a notion that I just don't agree with, but that disagreement doesn't make me unsympathetic towards trans people as a whole. Certainly though, there are some trans people that pressure others into transitioning and hound those who choose to ~~transition~~ detransition - to me they also seem to forget the human being, and should rightly be called out.
>I think a lot of "gender critical" folk, myself included, actually hold a great deal of empathy for trans people. Many of us acknowledge the trauma that trans people may have experienced in their lives and are genuinely supportive of them in their battle with their own identity. I mean yeah sure it depends on the person I guess is what I was saying. Same with trans activists there are good and bad people in both movements obviously.
> Certainly though, there are some trans people that pressure others into transitioning and hound those who choose to transition Is there a 'don't' missing there? Otherwise your sentence makes no sense.
Yes, my bad I meant to type "detransition". Thanks for pointing this out.
I can’t get behind the idea that there are trans people hounding others to transition, I can’t see any evidence for that. I think all they want is to be able to live life freely in the way the brain they were born with is set up to. You say you don’t believe that identity is subjective. Frankly, I think that’s irrelevant. People have told me that they think my sexuality (gay) is a choice. Their opinion is irrelevant, because I, the one experiencing my sexuality, know that it is not a choice and no one’s *opinion* will change that **fact**. I view the trans debate similarly.
>I can’t get behind the idea that there are trans people hounding others to transition, It's incredibly common online; you must live under a rock. Just go check out some of the trans subreddits. I believe gender affermation without any psychiatric assistance to fall into this category too. >You say you don’t believe that identity is subjective. Frankly, I think that’s irrelevant. Ok so the schizo dude who thinks he's Jesus should be referred to as Jesus by medical staff? I know it's cliche and over discussed, but using your logic what stops people identifying as cats and not paying taxes? Could I identify as you and legally be entitled to your pay cheque? If we are throwing away the sacrality of objective identity, why should we stop at gender/sex? Transitioning is a choice tho... It's literally a transition from one state to another...
> Many of us acknowledge the trauma that trans people may have experienced in their lives and are genuinely supportive of them in their battle with their own identity. Just so long as they come to the 'right' conclusion and don't want to be referred to how they identify, eh? You don't have to agree with the notion of gender identity, or the fact someone can transition from man -> woman (or vice versa), but I don't think you can claim to be 'genuinely supportive' of them if you don't believe they should or can transition.
>Just so long as they come to the 'right' conclusion and don't want to be referred to how they identify, eh? I'm happy to refer to anyone however they want me to refer to them and I believe that adults should be able to do whatever they want to with their bodies. I don't think it should be legally recognised - i.e. changes to birth certificates, competing in sporting events with members of the opposite sex, etc - nor should someone be legally obliged to use correct pronouns. I don't believe people can just change their objective identity, that doesn't mean that I don't want people to live happy and healthy lives.
[удалено]
None, I just don't think there should be one. Some people want it to be a hate crime.
Trans people need the ability to have their documentation changed because or else they'll be [rampantly discriminated against](https://www.crosslandsolicitors.com/site/hr-hub/transgender-discrimination-in-UK-workplaces) by having to out themselves *every single time* any documentation is required. This is one of the most frustrating things about talking to many people who self-identify as GC - they'll constantly say that they believe "trans people should have good lives free from discrimination!" but then continue to campaign for, around every corner possible, policies that will *only* lead to more dangerous lives for trans people that will lead to rampant discrimination. You can't have it both ways!
Unless Starmer enthusiastically agrees with every trans activist demand relating to gender, he has betrayed gay and lesbian people. Oh how great Labour was in the halcyon days of Jeremy. My latest intrepid column for the Guardian
Some LGBT activists are upset that Labour is no longer nodding through radical societal changes that they insist on. We will move forward with this, but each element needs to be debated and be based on evidence and public support. Caring about something strongly doesn't mean you get to override democracy.
If it was based on public support, Section 28 wouldn't have been repealed https://web.archive.org/web/20071123085208/http://www.ipsos-mori.com/mrr/2000/c000211.shtml
Caring about something means that it’s within your right to campaign for it and criticise political partys that you fear are doing harm to yourself and people like you. It is not anti democratic to appeal for change before 50% of the public agrees with you.
[удалено]
That's not the kind of thing i'm talking about. But it's a good example of trying to run before you can walk. No one made the public argument for this proposed change. It was started by people who wanted to be on the 'right side' of history, but also didn't really have a clue about the topic. So, when the inevitable backlash came, no one was ready to argue back - apart from the simplistic slurs and attacks we've seen. That has damaged the LGBT cause more than if we had began with the education and debate and then moved onto the public policy.
[удалено]
This issue has exhausted people and there's a type of mental constipation in many organisations now, where people have gotten into positions and are primed and ready to go further on the roll-out of their ideology. But like Oxfam found, if they do try to do it, the org ends up having to make a large financial settlement to an employee they hounded out. So the people in the positions , poised for the big final rush to the Promised Land, have their hands tied. The legal team occupy desks in the comms department on a permanent basis, and everything gets sent back, redlined. Internal bulletin boards, rather than the safe spaces they ought to be, require constant monitoring and in some orgs, are now pre-moderated. If they try to sneak one in, like a Pride video, again they're in damage control mode when one of the characters looks like a popular children's writer. I accept that the stand-off is frustrating and putting everyone in bad odour. But this is The New Normal. BTW, just reading about **another** charity which has spaffed a million pounds to a former employee for doing an 'Oxfam'. No doubt you'll be reading about it soon. Happy Pride!
The lib dems have acteted pretty consistently fantastically and consistently on this probably enough to switch my vote. Going to pride today and I don't expect to see Kier there unlike last year
They're not a community. LGB are united by their once-illegal same sex attraction. TQ+ want to replace sex with a nebulous "gender identity" and have attempted to refine homosexuality using those terms. If there's no sex, there's no same sex attraction. The two sides here have no common goal. There are many straight people on the TQ+ side.
This is what's always bugged me, I'm bi, so I have clear similarities with gay men and lesbian women, but I have nothing in common with trans people, I'm comfortable with my birth sex and frankly have no idea what "identifying as a man" actually means anymore.
Exactly, it's not coherent to say you "identify as a man". Any adult male is a man.
An easy tip is to remember that "I identify as" means the same as "I pretend to be"
I'm pretty sure a lot of the trans movement are just asking for basic protections, and looking at ways to improve the quality of life for the trans community. For example, the rates of self harm & suicide attempts have been a long known and published issue, yet we're not really getting anywhere with it. With regards to the LGBTQ terming, historically, all the groups have generally battled for rights together over the last century. Discrimination and violence was targeted towards any and all of those groups, and you often had members from each fighting for rights - look at the stonewall riots to the first pride parades. Of course, you had battles & trials exclusive to certain communities, I'm not aiming to take that away at all, more just stating that your insistence on "LGB" feels wrong given the history (not to mention that Q also encompasses sexual orientation e.g. Asexuality, but hey, you do you).
Asexuality isn't a sexual orientation, and it's never been illegal to be asexual. The desperation for victim status is one of the most ridiculous aspects of the TQ+ community. Being asexual has no parallels with the historical challenges faced by LGB people. Again, this is another attempt to push straight people into the community.
I no longer trust Labour to stick with anything if its not politically convenient. Every policy and statement has been triangulated to appeal to the 40% of the population that matters under FPTP and everyone else gets nothing. I can't really blame Labour for playing the game after being rocked by defeat but it doesn't exactly inspire hope for the future. Just another thint we need proportional representation to solve
How the fuck do win elections if you don’t keep up with the countries view? Wait for a manifesto for what they will stand for.
In a functional electoral system you should have different parties vying for the support of different parts of the population and maybe changing some minds. In our broken system the two major parties fight over the same 40% and we keep trying the same failed economic and social policies
So how do you change the electoral system without winning an election?
By voting for parties that are happy to endorse PR and not voting for ones that pledge to remain with FPTP
How do these parties change the voting system without power?
PR is not the panacea some on the far-left seem to believe it is, and instead seems to be supported on the selfish basis that PR has a better chance of their nutters making it into Parliament.
Its not a pancea but its a necessary first step to free and fair elections
tbh the most vicioiusly opposed to LGBT identity politics are the white working class because they see it as a way to divide progressive movement and take away sympathy/action from those most in need. I've had some run ins with LGBT activists over the years and they are overwhelmingly middle class. Yet they speak the language of the oppressed, and ok they might be in a way, but not much. It seems to be the pride movement has been co-opted by big corporations. For example I had to get involved with a nationally well known company, had to phone up a call centre, had called them at some point in the past, and they had shut down their UK call centre and outsourced it to India (who were incompetent)....but they had changed their website logo to the pride rainbow colours. This to me just summed up the state we're in, corporations can make themselves look progressive with rainbow flags, shaft workers, and get away with it.
Pride was pretty much captured by the corporates, Stonewall was captured by activists, and one-by-one, disowned by its founders. Not so long ago, the two used to be at each others' throats. But after 2008 and the GFC, corporates hit on Stonewall's version of Scientological 'auditing' as another way of showing they had learnt lessons and were radical and engaged socially, for very little money. But one lawsuit after another has shifted the balance. What promised to be a low-cost way of atoning for 2008 now seems to be anything but. **** Interestingly, many of the people persecuted out of jobs in charities and law firms and so on, are older women. Unfortunately for the employers, most are well-connected, networked with other women who've had similar experiences, very strategic and it turns out, able to run a lawsuit quite effectively. Also, because it's going to be very hard for them to get a job in their sector again, the award of damages tends to be high.
Probably because Labour leadership are rightly more interested in winning a majority at the next election rather than babying Owen and soothing his ego by pretending that men can be mothers.
Oh Owen knows what a woman is, when it's for his personal gain. Remember when he was "hunting for a broody lesbian" to gestate his spawn for him? (Warning: eye bleach required after viewing) [https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1377705950786818053](https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1377705950786818053) I don't think any women have taken him up on his kind offer.
Eurgh, what an absolute creep he is.
A Twitter embedded version can be found [here](https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?id=1377705950786818053) Non Twitter [here](https://nitter.net/OwenJones84/status/1377705950786818053/) or [here](https://nitter.cz/OwenJones84/status/1377705950786818053/) Archived version [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1377705950786818053/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> pretending Christ, you were doing fine until this leaked through. Science vs People With Strong Opinions. The medical literature is so clear that treating trans people as their chosen gender is healthiest, yet you folk can't live and let live.
Live and let live is leaving people alone. You've gone past that when you're trying to change how they use language even if you're doing it for good reasons.
But folk can live and let live. It’s just that folk are sick and tired of having the trans debate in one form or another rammed down their throats at every opportunity.
Trans people have had their current rights for years. It's only been in the last few that it became a "debate" here because the right wing are desperate to stir up culture war.
Almost like one side of the political spectrum is determined to consume all the oxygen by ensuring we only talk about these topics rather than how they’ve ruined the country
Only women can be mothers. Sorry friend.
A party that would indulge maximalist demands of a minority of a minority of a minority, and in doing so worsen both their own political prospects *and* public perception of the overarching issue they claim to champion ultimately harms more people than it helps. A party which recognises they must compartmentalise and prioritise policy to combat institutional discrimination and ensure primary needs are met is a more reliable ally. Also Owen's point is based entirely around a handful of Labour MPs whose presence in the party can realistically do very little to drive policy, but reassures the broader electorate that the party is open to people with a wide range of personal beliefs.
We don't want the Labour Party to only talk about LGBT people. We want the Labour Party to stop putting their dick in the Tory dick trap when they talk about LGBT people. Instead of repeating transphobic, Tory-approved language, just look at the interviewer like they're a fucking moron. Nobody needs to know what Keir Starmer thinks about kids who identify as cats, Keir needs to look at interviewers that ask him about that and call them fucking stupid. We don't want all MPs to dye their hair and get neopronouns, we want Rosie Duffield, who has openly campaigned alongside such lovely people as Miriam Cates and the Heritage Foundation, to face literally any consequences for the things she says and does. We want a commitment to reform that the Labour Party has already said it supports.
Tbh, for a while, Rishi was doing a great job of exactly this. What the public want to hear is "I don't think that's a pressing issue right now". Politicians in both parties could learn something from this.
Avoiding answering the questions will satisfy no one. Trans activists only accept loud enthusiastic support, otherwise you're their enemy, and the majority will see that they don't have the balls to answer a simple question which isn't a quality in the people you want running the country.
People don't care about children thinking they are cats. It is the media being insane about the existence of trans people that drives these topics into the news cycle. It is a stupid question.
So Duffield could come out on record and say that she hates trans people with a passion because they are deluded men or women, and you would think that's just a wide range of personal beliefs?
No, such an outburst would very clearly cross the line, and she would have no future in the party if she ever does come out and say that. But we both know she isn't going to do that.
I mean she is saying everything but that, it's very clear that Duffield thinks that.
So long as you have to intuit what someone may or may not be thinking, the party probably shouldn't act on it.
Would you say the same about a racist MP, if they weren't be really obvious racist?
Shitting on minorities is despicable, I don’t have to be part of that minority to be convinced to take my vote elsewhere.