UK Politics: It's Time To Think The Unthinkable But This Lot Can't Even Think The Thinkable

[Varysblackfyre321]

57 minutes ago, ants said:

This rational is all about changing labour policy. Sign up to be members, push for candidates for preselection who are pro-trans, and cause a shift within the party. 

Which they can try with tories.

57 minutes ago, ants said:

The main reason not to infiltrate the Tories is that Labour would already have many sympathetic to their position.

For now.

I’ll reading stories about Terfs in Labour complaining about their colleagues not having their back gives me reason to suspect they’ll be better on trans issues.

But I fear depending on how next year’s general election sakes up Starmer may be in a position to see it more fruitful to continue on his conservative streak to keep his grip on the typical conservative voters. I see a danger for trans people coming along with if he wins bigly while fueling the nonesense culture war on trans people.

57 minutes ago, ants said:

Whereas the Tory members are clearly rabidly against it.

The eventual end for the tories—like the republicans the Republicans—is to try to formally criminalize transgender people and gender non-conformity in general.

They are ontologically evil.

40 minutes ago, ants said:

This is hugely disingenuous. It's not a neutral action on the behalf of the person seeking the change. It absolutely is from a government perspective. To equate this change with someone pressuring a person (and therefore being biased) is absurb. 

Oh yeah this line of logic would allow hell demand trans people’s social support network, employers, or any government employees they interact with(let’s say their public school teacher)  upon request to refer to them by certain pronouns or a certain name just dead name and misgender them.

It Can give license to a lot of concern trolling. No you see *Bridget* I can’t refer to you as Brandon as I just care so much for you and I don’t want to pressure you into choosing things that may someday harm you. Now have a good day *ma’m*
 

Edited January 27 by Varysblackfyre321

[BigFatCoward]

Perhaps the reason so many people push back against trans issues (especially in the northern seats we desperately need), is because of the amount of oxygen given to discussing them in comparison to other issues which for the vast majority of people are far more important.  The left seems to be wilfully sleepwalking into this trap being laid by the tories and the right wing press.   

If Starmer suddenly nails his colours to the mast on this, when he should be discussing the financial crisis, how to resolve the issues caused by Brexit, tory corruption and incompetence, interest rates being out of control, the war in russia, the environment, the energy crisis, starving/freezing kids, the deliberate running down of our public services THINGS THAT WILL ACTUALLY WIN VOTES etc etc etc.  Then they get to paint him as the worst kind of bleeding heart liberal who is no better than Corbyn. 

He can't improve anything unless he wins, and we've seen how the press can manipulate the man and woman on the street into voting against their interests.  Let him win (i want a metaphorical American History X kerb stomp like victory), let him absolutely annihilate them at the election, then judge him on his actions, tories lie to get in power, why do we have to be the ones that play fair? 

like honestly @Varysblackfyre321 does literally ever single post have to be about trans issues?   Its important, the level of persecution and mindless hate is horrendous, i get that, but is it one of even the top 5 to 10 issues affecting our country right now?  

Your relentless hyperbole - The eventual end for the tories (and republicans - you might be right on this one, they are fucking lunatics on this issue) is to try to formally criminalize transgender people and gender non-conformity in general -  can be fucking exhausting.  

Edited January 27 by BigFatCoward

[mormont]

Yeah, ants, no offence, but you're coming off somewhat as the guy trying to bluff through his homework here. For example:

1 hour ago, ants said:

Unless there is a requirement to show up for meetings or to interact with fellow members, most of these could be got away with.

Generally, there is, yes. If you, a regular member, want to influence national party policy, you need to do more than just sign up online. You need to get elected to the National Policy Forum or as a delegate to Conference.
 

1 hour ago, ants said:

That was an error of writing. I meant to include "parliamentary" in front of "member". i.e. if 20% of the caucus were strongly pro-trans and would make a stink over legislation/policy I don't think Stamer would piss them off. 

Again, an assumption that I feel isn't borne out by the facts. I think at least 20% of the Parliamentary party are strongly pro-trans.

Maybe don't build an argument on things you assume to be true.

1 hour ago, ants said:

This rational is all about changing labour policy.

Labour party policy right now is for reform of the Gender Recognition Act - a pro-trans position. The messaging, as we see, is a different matter. Not one that can be changed by trans people joining the rank and file Labour party.

Overall, you're not making a persuasive logical argument, you're coming over as critical of and unsympathetic to trans people, who need to pull their finger out and do all the work and then people will stop being mean to them. That may not be your intention, but that is the effect.

9 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

Your relentless hyperbole - The eventual end for the tories (and republicans - you might be right on this one, they are fucking lunatics on this issue) is to try to formally criminalize transgender people and gender non-conformity in general -  can be fucking exhausting. 

Is that actually hyperbole?

I dunno. For me, human rights are a big issue. And trans rights are human rights. Just as much as women's rights are. If this was a discussion about women's rights, would you complain about how exhausting it is to hear about it all the time?

[BigFatCoward]

18 minutes ago, mormont said:

 

I dunno. For me, human rights are a big issue. And trans rights are human rights. Just as much as women's rights are. If this was a discussion about women's rights, would you complain about how exhausting it is to hear about it all the time?

I think that something that affects 50% of the population should get a lot more coverage than something that affects less than half of 1 % of the population (while admitting that the level of attack on the rights of trans people is more excessive than the attack on womens rights currently). 

[Raja]

We simultaneously need these northern seats and shouldn't talk about trans rights so we don't lose an election whilst simultaneously these things don't matter and nobody actually cares about them.

Make it make sense.

Enshrining and protecting the rights of the most vulnerable should be a priority -  you can throw trans people, asylum seekers and anyone else who is not deemed worthy by you under the bus because it affects an 'insignificant' number of people - you can go ahead and do this, but don't be surprised if people 1. Don't agree at all 2. Find those views abhorrent.

( In addition, almost all of the news/ round tables etc are about the NHS, cost of living, strike action etc so it's an odd comment to make to begin with)

 

Edited January 27 by Raja

[DaveSumm]

34 minutes ago, mormont said:

Is that actually hyperbole?

No, I don’t think that’s the right word. ‘Flat out delusional’ maybe.

[BigFatCoward]

 

18 minutes ago, Raja said:

We simultaneously need these northern seats and shouldn't talk about trans rights so we don't lose an election whilst simultaneously these things don't matter and nobody actually cares about them.

Make it make sense.

Enshrining and protecting the rights of the most vulnerable should be a priority -  you can throw trans people, asylum seekers and anyone else who is not deemed worthy by you under the bus because it affects an 'insignificant' number of people - you can go ahead and do this, but don't be surprised if people 1. Don't agree at all 2. Find those views abhorrent.

( In addition, almost all of the news/ round tables etc are about the NHS, cost of living, strike action etc so it's an odd comment to make to begin with)

 

i never said throw them under a bus, i said shut the fuck up about them until we are in a position to do something about them and make sure we don't give the right wing press another wedge to drive between the party and its historical core vote. 

i very specifically pointed out that tories lie to get elected all the time, and so should we, then when we are in power we can do what we want, hopefully with a big enough mandate from the electorate to deliver a truly progressive tranche of policies.  

You can't enshrine shit from the sidelines.  

if you think trans rights hasn't been front and centre for a number of weeks now (alongside those issues you mentioned), it must be because you have been not watching the news.  

Nobody has every improved anything in any meaningful way in opposition.  in any sane world the tories would never come to power, they don't represent anything the vast majority of the country need or believe in, yet they keep winning because the left are so fucking wishy washy and think fairness and being right is more important than being in power. 

Edited January 27 by BigFatCoward

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, BigFatCoward said:

Perhaps the reason so many people push back against trans issues (especially in the northern seats we desperately need), is because of the amount of oxygen given to discussing them in comparison to other issues which for the vast majority of people are far more important. 

By push back what do you mean?

Do you mean become hostile towards discussing the topics or adopt a more regressive in said topics?

1 hour ago, BigFatCoward said:

If Starmer suddenly nails his colours to the mast on this, when he should be discussing the financial crisis, how to resolve the issues caused by Brexit, tory corruption and incompetence, interest rates being out of control, the war in russia, the environment, the energy crisis, starving/freezing kids, the deliberate running down of our public services etc etc etc.  Then they get to paint him as the worst kind of bleeding heart liberal who is no better than Corbyn. 

I don’t want him to mail his colors to mast in support of trans rights—my stated grievance was the possibility of him joining in on the tories culture war against trans people.

1 hour ago, BigFatCoward said:

He can't improve anything unless he wins,

Even if he wins He can’t improve anything if he’s just going to do what the tories do on economic or social issues which he seems primed to do.

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/nigel-farage-has-praised-keir-starmers-speech-on-immigration_uk_637cab17e4b0e771d958131a
 

1 hour ago, BigFatCoward said:

nestly @Varysblackfyre321 does literally ever single post have to be about trans issues?

Of course not. 
 

1 hour ago, BigFatCoward said:

Its important, the level of persecution and mindless hate is horrendous, i get that, but is it one of even the top 5 to 10 issues affecting our country right now?  

Yes. I do think a society’s treatment/perception of social injustice can color their perception/treatment of economic injustice.

30 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

I think that something that affects 50% of the population should get a lot more coverage than something that affects less than half of 1 %

the U.K has been a good testing ground for Evangelicals on what legal arguments are most effective against things like abortion in a western style liberal democracy.

 

1 hour ago, BigFatCoward said:

Your relentless hyperbole

It isn’t hyperbole it’s the inevitable logical end of what we both can acknowledge is relentless hate and persecution. 
 

Edited January 27 by Varysblackfyre321

[Raja]

5 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

 

i never said throw them under a bus, i said shut the fuck up about them

The right won't though -  Same with asylum seekers, immigration, channel boats, trans rights - and whatever else they think will give them the next election - stay silent whilst these people are constantly attacked? Some of us have the privilege to do that, others don't.

IMO, the election will be decided on the economy, our public services and health - and yougov polling has those things and immigration as the top issues facing the country, even though the conservatives are trying to make sure the country doesn't focus on the terribe state public services, the economy and our health service is in.

[BigFatCoward]

17 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

 

the U.K has been a good testing ground for Evangelicals on what legal arguments are most effective against things like abortion in a western style liberal democracy.

 

It isn’t hyperbole it’s the inevitable logical end of what we both can acknowledge is relentless hate and persecution. 
 

I don't see the UK ever having even remote support for an abortion ban.  Literally there is no appetite in the UK.  

I do acknowledge there is a move towards making things much more difficult for trans people, i don't agree there is an endgame of criminalising them.  Apart from anything else i don't think this tory party has any plans, they just make shit up as they go along. 

Edited January 27 by BigFatCoward

[BigFatCoward]

8 minutes ago, Raja said:

 

IMO, the election will be decided on the economy, our public services and health - and yougov polling has those things and immigration as the top issues facing the country, even though the conservatives are trying to make sure the country doesn't focus on the terribe state public services, the economy and our health service is in.

only 1% of people thought that the EU was the most important thing affecting the UK, until they were told it wasn't.  

i hope you are right, i really do.  

[Raja]

10 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

only 1% of people thought that the EU was the most important thing affecting the UK, until they were told it wasn't.  

i hope you are right, i really do.  

It's also in 2025 - who knows what the next 2 years has in store till we get there. No one saw the Ukraine war coming, and external events like that are bound to occur.

I expect the health service, econ & immigration to be big factors but hard to say about the rest. It's possible Brexit might be something that comes back, it's hard to say.

[BigFatCoward]

a stark reminder about the very real costs of the catastrophic reduction in social care and the NHS under consecutive Tory goverments.  That being said, the family have a bit of a nerve throwing round criticism.  

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-64400776

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, DaveSumm said:

No, I don’t think that’s the right word. ‘Flat out delusional’ maybe.

Hmm I feel as though you’d sneer at this view even if the tories raised  the age to medically transition to 26 by within a year or two and cry referring to a trans boy by his prounouns as child abuse.

If this is an unfair estimation I apologize.

If it isn’t..

1 hour ago, BigFatCoward said:

I don't see the UK ever having even remote support for an abortion ban

Eh, in 2006 over a thousand people applied for a GRC in the U.K and had 97% acceptance rate. Quite literally no one cared 

Between 2020-2021, 477 people  applied for a GRC, had a lower rate of acceptance and that’s much more an issue.

1 hour ago, BigFatCoward said:

Literally there is no appetite in the UK.  

Yet. 
Unfortunately the bad rational people use to arrive at one ludicrous conclusion can/will be used in another area.

For example. Flat earth communities although on the onset being goofy tend to be comprised of people who are really authoritarian and bigoted in other areas. 

The same rational to deny a 16 year old trans boy the opportunity to get his gender changed on his birth certificate would work just as well to deny him an abortion.

1 hour ago, BigFatCoward said:

I do acknowledge there is a move towards making things much more difficult for trans people, i don't agree there is an endgame of criminalising them.  

I feel I must say given our earlier discussions that when I say criminalize I mean make it impossible to try and get the tools necessary to medically transition and make it illegal to refrence their gender identity in public or have others acknowledge it(especially if they’re kids).

 I think that is a inevitably when type casting their existence as a dangerous social contagion particularly towards the precious children(usually girls).

1 hour ago, BigFatCoward said:

i never said throw them under a bus, i said shut the fuck up about them until we are in a position to do something about them and make sure we don't give the right wing press another wedge to drive between the party and its historical cor

Which would be preferable to actively joining in on the beat up.

1 hour ago, BigFatCoward said:

i very specifically pointed out that tories lie to get elected all the time, and so should we, then when we are in power we can do what we want, hopefully with a big enough mandate from the electorate to deliver a truly progressive tranche of policies.  

How do you hold chastise for doing they said they’d do before you voted for them, and not doing the things they promised they wouldn’t?

To be clear this goes past trans issues, Starmer’s hasn’t hinted in terms of actual policy whether social or economic he’d be substantially different than tories.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2023/01/22/jsic-j22.html

Edited January 27 by Varysblackfyre321

[Heartofice]

Of course 'trans rights' is a big trap for Labour, but then they do keep falling into it at every point. Just look at what has happened only recently in the Isla Bryson case, where a two time rapist was being moved to a woman's prison in Scotland because they had declared themselves female. Multiple members of Labour found it incredibly difficult to say that a rapist should not be housed with women, instead reverting to some bland lines about trans rights. 

This is one area where the mask tends to come off from the lefty side of Labour and they expose just how out of step they are with the general public on a number of issues. 

It's interesting that Sturgeon has had to step in and do a U-Turn against her principles and move Bryson to a male prison due to the huge public backlash, but I would seriously doubt that would have happened were it not for the public outcry.

But then there is this attempt to frame this all as some moral panic against trans people, when what has actually happened is we've seen a step change in what 'trans rights' supposedly means. It's no longer that trans people should be treated as much as possible in the gender identity with which they identify, with respect and care (something I and pretty much everyone when polled agrees with).

Instead now we have to believe that anyone who says they are a different gender literally is that gender, almost overnight. That is a very different claim, it's something that does not align with most peoples views and is simply an untrue statement that defies reality. However now, not agreeing with this position and all the many loopholes and complications it creates is being defined as being 'against trans rights'. 

So pointing out how these loopholes might be exploited, for instance in the case of Bryson, gets people labelled as transphobic, which is simply not the case. 

The issue here really is that a series of unscientific, poorly thought out policies have been enacted based on an ideology not on reality, and it has all happened with little to no pushback, because nobody was paying attention. Now people are paying attention and any time anyone might push back on it they are labelled as 'transphobic' or against trans rights. 

So yes, Labour absolutely should shut up about it. The election will not be won or lost on trans rights debates, but it is the biggest flag for them on where they sit ideologically, and I do think that it will paint a picture of Labour as being out of step with the population which won't help them.


 

Edited January 27 by Heartofice

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

trans rights' is

Interesting use of quotation marks. Careful it can be misconstrued as sarcasm, as if you find the phraseology sillier than say woman’s rights or civil rights.

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

but then they do keep falling into it at every point. Just look at what has happened only recently in the Isla Bryson case, where a two time rapist was being moved to a woman's prison in Scotland because they had declared themselves female.

Is the misgendering a conscious choice of yours or a linguistic fluke.

Sorry previously you kept using they/them pronouns when discussing a trans woman who was sexual assault survivor attending meetings for women who’d raped.  and it felt to me(and I can be wrong) deliberate on your part.

I await your response.

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

Multiple members of Labour found it incredibly difficult to say that a rapist should not be housed with women,

Question do you think cis women who’ve raped people should be housed with women?

Or would it be better to segregate people guilty for hard sexual offenses away from the general prison populace male or female?
Like Bryson was?

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

This is one area where the mask tends to come off from the lefty side of Labour and they expose just how out of step they are with the general public on a number of issues. 

Oh I get it because the left describes the right when they get bluntly bigoted as mask off you’re appropriating it and saying the left is mask off by being bluntly I guess woke.

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

It's interesting that Sturgeon has had to step in and do a U-Turn against her principles and move Bryson to a male prison due to the huge public backlash, but I would seriously doubt that would have happened were it not for the public outcry.

Eh.

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

But then there is this attempt to frame this all as some moral panic against trans people,

It is please dude you’ve framed 16 year olds changing their birth certificates slightly as something that’s likely to cause irreparable harm

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

when what has actually happened is we've seen a step change in what 'trans rights'

Really feeling a sense of disgust towards the phraseology that I hope I wouldn’t feel if/when you Refrence things gay rights, women’s rights, civil rights or human rights

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

It's no longer that trans people should be treated as much as possible in the gender identity with which they identify, with respect and care (something I and pretty much everyone when polled agrees with).

It is.

And not really no. I wish though.

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

Instead now we have to believe that anyone who says they are a different gender literally is that gender, almost overnight.

In most everyday circumstances that is more practical and likely true.

 

Wait I need clarification here what do you mean Literally is?

Because it sounds like to me(and I could be wrong if so I apologize),that you literally don’t think trans are the gender they identify with and what determines whether or not they’re a real man or woman is their birth sex.

 

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

That is a very different claim, it's something that does not align with most peoples views and is simply an untrue statement that defies reality.

I apologize but what is the process you’d like trans people to go through before they can ask people to not misgender them and how on hand would you expect them to demonstrate they’d gone through the process  such in their everyday life?

 

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

However now, not agreeing with this position and all the many loopholes and complications it creates is being defined as being 'against trans rights'. 

It’d be great if you could answer my earlier question on if you think a 16 year trans boy should keep getting misgendered by those around him until they get a Gender recognition certificate. 
 

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

Now people are paying attention and any time anyone might push back on it they are labelled as 'transphobic' or against trans rights. 

Hmm do you still claim gender critical activists aren’t transphobic when their ideology is the only thing that determines whether they’re a man or woman is their birth sex?

If so I think you’ve an unreasonable barometer for what is transphobic.

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

The election will not be won or lost on trans rights debates,

Nope.
I do hope eventually British conservatives move on from it and actually help try fixing their countries actual problems. 
 

But likely they’ll get more extreme and along the way you’ll probably downplay their extremism.

Edited January 27 by Varysblackfyre321
Asking for clarification*

[DaveSumm]

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Hmm I feel as though you’d sneer at this view even if the tories raised  the age to medically transition to 26 by within a year or two and cry referring to a trans boy by his prounouns as child abuse.

If this is an unfair estimation I apologize.

If it isn’t..

Based on what exactly? I’m not sure why you seem to have assigned yourself the board’s resident Troll Hunter when there are no trolls here. You “feel” like my opinion is a secretly transphobic one? One I didn’t express? Oh wait, but then you’ve apologised so I guess all is forgiven, my bad.

You said that the Tories ultimately want to criminalise trans people. That is, I repeat, flat out delusional. There is zero evidence for it, and you’ve completely lost perspective if you think it’s the case.

[mormont]

3 hours ago, DaveSumm said:

No, I don’t think that’s the right word. ‘Flat out delusional’ maybe.

That's a very strong reaction. But when we look at where the moral panic around trans rights has led in the US, and consider how much progress in how little time it has made in the UK, I think this sort of response is... dismissive and possibly ill-considered.

[Varysblackfyre321]

36 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

Based on what exactly? 

Eh thumbing up hoi’s post where he fear mongered(without citing actual studies to show such) on 16 year trans kids changing their birth certificates slightly earlier could cause irresverible permanent harm. 

Again If my assumption was unfair please correct me now and I will apologize.

36 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

I’m not sure why you seem to have assigned yourself the board’s resident Troll hunter

I didn’t.

36 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

You “feel” like my opinion is a secretly transphobic one?

Eh?

36 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

Oh wait, but then you’ve apologised so I guess all is forgiven, my bad.

On the condition of my inclination being mistaken.

 

36 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

You said that the Tories ultimately want to criminalise trans people. That is, I repeat, flat out delusional.

It is not—it’s the natural endpoint to presenting the presence of trans people in society  as mostly a dangerous social contagion or scheme to assault women and children.

36 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

There is zero evidence for it, and you’ve completely lost perspective if you think it’s the case.

Well they’re preparing to go from obstruction of progress to active regression.

Note these certificates would have just allowed people the opportunity to join the fast track path to applying for a GRC in the U.K. 

[Heartofice]

2 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Eh thumbing up hoi’s post where he fear mongered(without citing actual studies to show such) on 16 year trans kids changing their birth certificates slightly earlier could cause irresverible permanent harm. 

In fact I wrote a massive long post containing links to reports and research that you didn't read. Which is why mainly I'm not engaging with you on the topic any longer. I gave you a chance to add something useful and you kinda blew it.

Also, I'd urge anyone considering using Owen Jones as a source of information on the topic to reconsider. 

Edited January 27 by Heartofice