Sign up to Gransnet Daily
Our free daily newsletter full of hot threads, competitions and discounts
Subscribe
I've thought for a while that the worm was turning when it comes to 'trans' issues. It is finally getting through that support for self-id is misogynistic and that gender-criticism is not the same as transphobia. Slowly but surely, court cases and policy changes are moving towards (to my mind) a more sensible approach.
Ironically for many women I know who are broadly left-wing, it has been the Tories who have caught on to this first, and it's interesting that at least two of the leadership candidates have mentioned 'gender politics' or 'culture wars' in their campaigns. Meanwhile, the LP has been woefully behind the times, with idiotic comments about men having cervixes and how transpeople are the most marginalised group in society.
But now it appears that they realise that they are behind the curve, and that many feminists and female-supporting men will struggle to vote for them - or maybe it's that they realise that it's becoming more acceptable to speak against the tyranny, and they are now saying what they really think. Either way (and I speak as a member of the LP) it's not a good look, but it's a better look than the craven adherence to Stonewall's No Debate mantra that we've seen so far.
This is from James Kirkup in the Spectator and for those who don't like links the text is at the bottom of the post.
It's probably obvious that I would be delighted if the LP did a U -turn on this. I'm not delighted at the display of what I see as cowardice that has held sway for so long, but it will be such a relief to be able to vote for the party whose policies are closer to my heart than any of the others without fearing that by doing so I am betraying my daughter and future generations of women.
What do others think? Am I being naively optimistic? Will the Lib Dems, the Greens and SNP rethink their ideas ahead of the GE? Will any of it make a difference to how you vote, or do you think that it isn't important compared to other issues?
Here is the text of the Spectator article:
Amid the noise of the Tory leadership fight, some significant comments in the papers could be missed today. Here’s the quote, from a Sunday Times interview with an intelligent, ambitious female politician in her forties:
“Biology is important. A woman is somebody with a biology that is different from a man’s biology. We’re seeing in sport sensible decisions being made about who cannot compete in certain cases."
Could it reflect a new approach to trans issues from the Labour leadership?
She says she would ‘have a problem’ with someone with male genitals identifying as a woman and using a female changing space, and isn’t entirely sold on the use of gender pronouns. ‘You don’t have to say to someone, “Shall I call you he or she?” – it’s pretty obvious. But there are also difficult cases of somebody who is born as one sex and defines as another. I wouldn’t want to deny their right to define themselves in the way they want to be defined.’
Even by the standards of recent days, that’s pretty punchy. In particular that line on rejecting pronouns because ‘it’s pretty obvious’ strikes me as potentially controversial. I certainly know people and groups who would find that offensive. No candidate in the Tory race has thus been so outspoken on sex and gender. So are those quotes above yet another Conservative attempt to stoke a culture war?
That phrase has been used a lot recently, generally with disapproval and often by people keen to dismiss the concerns that some women raise about the impact of trans-rights policies on their rights and standing. And framing women’s concerns as the product of right-wing, social conservative politics makes them easier for lots of people in politics and the media to ignore and denigrate those concerns as marginal and ideological.
Of course, there’s nothing illegitimate about being either right-wing or socially conservative (I’m neither) but in much of our public discourse, those things are routinely denigrated, put beyond the pale of acceptability. So it’s significant that the author of those comments above cannot possibly be described as a right-winger or a social conservative. She is Rachel Reeves, Labour’s shadow chancellor.
The fact that Reeves, as smart and decent a politician as you’ll find in the Commons today, has said these things could have many implications. Could it strain Labour unity? It’s pretty hard to reconcile those comments with the position of some of her frontbench colleagues.
Could it reflect a new approach to trans issues from the Labour leadership? Reeves is today taking a much clearer line than Sir Keir Starmer, who has been more equivocal. I don’t know the answer to those questions, which can wait for another day.
My point here today is simpler. Rachel Reeves, the Labour shadow chancellor, has backed banning transwomen from women’s sport and excluding them from women’s spaces. And she’s rejected using gendered pronouns. By doing so, Reeves has provided yet more evidence to prove that concerns about trans rights policies and their impact on women’s rights are not right-wing or conservative. Nor are they marginal or ideological.
James Kirkup
"Transgender women's rights are women's rights."
Angela Rayner's passionate response as this trans caller asks if a Labour Government would "fix" transphobia in the UK.
mobile.twitter.com/LBC/status/1548987464269930497
if he'd answered honestly he risked being accused of excluding transpeople, whose cervix-having is appropriate to their sex, and not their acquired 'gender'.
Trans people like to say we've got it all wrong because sex & gender are different things.
Then they have a massive tantrum if anyone suggests that gender should not be accepted as if it were sex.
He could have responded "Only people of the female sex have a cervix ."
FarNorth
^if he'd answered honestly he risked being accused of excluding transpeople, whose cervix-having is appropriate to their sex, and not their acquired 'gender'.^
Trans people like to say we've got it all wrong because sex & gender are different things.
Then they have a massive tantrum if anyone suggests that gender should not be accepted as if it were sex.
He could have responded "Only people of the female sex have a cervix ."
He could Far North. If he had done so, he wouldn’t have risked being accused of breaking equality laws.
I’m disappointed in Raynor
Angela Rayner's passionate response as this trans caller asks if a Labour Government would "fix" transphobia in the UK. She replied "trans right are women's rights"
Unbelievable!
Shes sort of right. Trans rights are womens rights. That's why the unprecedented increase in girls transitioning needs to be looked at as a matter of urgency, it's why transwomen for example gain considerable advantage in sport whilst transmen are disadvantaged at every turn. It's why someone needs to look at which sex (not gender) is most prevalent in the stats for detransitioning. So yes trans rights are womens rights I just disagree with her on who the women are.
FarNorth
The woman in the street feels even more strongly.
Not this woman. Please don't speak for me.
I am content to let people make up their minds as they acquire more knowledge, as we did about homosexuality in the 1960s and 70s. The LP will sort it out. They are just not automatically agreeing with the extremists. They don't appear to be spouting anyone else's view, but the extremists are the ones who take offence.
I do feel strongly about those who think they are "entitled to an opinion" and that opinion treated as fact. I also feel strongly about those who have gone on and on about this on thread after thread. I don't feel quite as strongly if those starting these threads make it completely apparent what it is about, then I can avoid it. All extremes are boring to those who don't hold those views in the long run.
This is not the same as homosexuality though. Gay people are just that - they are not forcing their sexuality onto others, or using it to take rights from others. Trans issues are not about sexuality, which is why they insist on 'gender' being used instead of 'sex'. What sort of knowledge do you think people are going to acquire? I realise that public attitudes to homosexuality have changed over the years, but I don't see the equivalence with trans issues.
I'm not sure what you are getting at when you talk about people who are 'entitled to an opinion'. Do you mean that it is an opinion that trainwomen are women? Or that allowing self-id will impinge on women's rights? There are a lot of opinions on these threads - which ones are 'extreme', in your own opinion?
Doodledog trans-sexuality is the same as the changes that caused us to pass new laws concerning homosexuality, abortion or divorce, or other cultural challenges. They are all complex and difficult.
I had and have no intention of arguing your premises regarding this. As I posted, from what I have heard, the LP also will not join in those arguments. They are thinking it through and not rushing to judgement; I applaud them for that. These treads catch the mood of a small minority. The LP has to be able to offer policy not mood.
I agree that they have to offer policy, and that the issue is complex and difficult. The trouble is that the LP need people to vote for them, and as long as they make statements such as 'trans rights are women's rights' they are, IMO going to put a lot of people off doing that.
Do we know that they are thinking it through? I have seen no evidence of that, although I would be pleased to think that it is the case. If you can point me to anything that shows that the matter is under consideration it would come as a relief, as I very much want to be able to vote for them when the time comes. If there were a snap election (not beyond the realms of possibility) before the scheduled GE is due, I would struggle to know what to do.
I still don't understand how 'transexuality' is the same as changes such as the ones you describe. The whole crux of the matter is that the terms have changed to trans gender, which is a very different thing, and far more nuanced and complex than before.
I'm also not sure what you meant about people having opinions, when you are putting forward your own, as are we all. I don't see questioning the idea that anyone can be a woman if they say they are as 'extreme', but it may be so in your opinion. I'm just trying to respond to your post here, not being picky, btw. I agree with some of what you say.
I think DaisyAnne just wanted to say how boring it all was whilst offering the opinion that she wasnt going to debate this issue. A perspective I must have seen at least a thousand times before.
I missed your post last night, FN. Sorry -we must have cross-posted then I went to bed. Yes, that’s a very fair point. The photo of Keir and Angela leading a Pride march was cringeworthy. Attend these things as ‘allies’, by all means. Go along for the ride - why not, as it’s all about inclusivity? But two straight people leading a Pride March is tasteless appropriation (and Keir looked so uncomfortable, too, bless him 
). They are making a total bollox of this, particularly when their stance on trans is anathema to many gay people, whose day it’s meant to be.
Quite! Galaxy
The last point from Simon Edge, in my pp, is a stunner.
*We champion gay people - but not if you want to have only same-sex relationships.
It’s quite funny one one level, but the serious point is that we have a group of people who are arguing for freedom of choice, yet are dictating how others should run their sex lives. It doesn’t get more personal than that, and these things can’t be dictated. As the crux of the gay fight was/is for acceptance of different sexualities, the irony is palpable.
I don't know how to put it in any way you will find easier to comprehend Doddledog. That is my failing, not yours. I'll try again and apologise if it's getting boring.
I still don't understand how 'transexuality' is the same as changes such as the ones you describe. The whole crux of the matter is that the terms have changed to trans gender, which is a very different thing, and far more nuanced and complex than before.
I have said I am not interested in arguing your point of view. Of course, it is reasonable for you and others to discuss it. However, there isn't much discussion on these threads, is there? They are a bit of an echo chamber.
My interest is in the fact that it is a discussion about a very complex cultural change. To see what we are up against, substitute the word 'religious' or 'cultish' for 'cultural'. That helps to show the difficulty in the discussion. What one group believes is not seen as an opinion; it becomes their right to be "right". The same will be true of the equally extreme who oppose them.
Abortion may be a better example as (hopefully) there are no tangents to pursue. In the cultural war on abortion, you have two minority, extremist camps. One will tell you that a baby is a human from conception; the other will tell you it is a group of cells that cannot function outside another body. One says, therefore, it is murder; the other, therefore, women have a right to choose.
And they are both quite sure they are right.
Each extreme's argument is no more 'right' than the opposite argument but sadly, because this is cultural, neither extreme will be prepared to discuss; they will insult and join in cultish agreement circles. What these extremists will not do - is be open-minded.
It is that open-mindedness I see in the Labour Party's answers. The extremists (in either direction) will see them as 'wrong' (because they believe they are 'right'). Because they disagree with the 'basic belief' of the extremist, they are treated as heretics and jeered.
Generally, those with an open mind can develop and thrive. Groups who adhere to one view in a changing world tend to die out. There should, at least, be some lesson in that.
DaisyAnne do you believe that the categories of female & male exist?
I "believe" you didn't read my post FarNorth.
You are mistaken DaisyAnne.
I don't see an answer to my question, in your post.
I understand what you are saying, DA, but it's a bit of a circular argument, as whatever I reply will be written off as coming from a member of an 'extremist camp', and the fact that I don't see it that way will be viewed as irrelevant because (in your opinion) my opinion doesn't matter because I am in an extremist camp. There is no escape from that trap, is there?
Nevertheless (and knowing that in the light of the above I am wasting my time) I will say that until recently I have seen no open-mindedness in LP statements such as 'trans rights are women's rights'. In fact I see no sense in that statement (literally - I don't think it makes sense). Other LP statements have not, in my eyes been 'open-minded' either, although I started this thread as I hope this is changing, and that Rachel Reeves' comments herald a new stage of genuine open-mindedness.
Daisy Anne isn’t there’s a massive difference between a particular viewpoint and perspective, however strongly held or believed in, Than scientific indisputable immutable facts. We all probably consider ourselves to be as open minded as the next person and can hold a view, believe what we choose, and change our minds. But for me Scientific Truth in these maters must hold sway. And I expect to hear that from those in Authority
FarNorth
You are mistaken DaisyAnne.
I don't see an answer to my question, in your post.
There you are. Another example of how belief will not replace reasoning. You ask about whether I 'believe' what you 'believe'. Why? The OP's question was: "Is the LP changing it's stance on 'gender'?". I answered that.
If you had read my post, understood it and accepted it as a view I am allowed to hold, you would not be asking that question. I wonder why you feel the need to do so?
DaisyAnne you mistakenly posted in the belief that these threads are there to encourage open discussion. Further research will reveal to you that they are there for the gender critical to encourage each other in their views. Most of us know there are lots of real people out there, just trying to be themselves and they are supported by many of us. But not on these threads. Best not to engage.
But you're in the other 'extremist camp' t Glorianna. Sauce for the goose and all that.
DaisyAnne, what do you see as evidence that the LP is open minded? Again, I would very much like to believe that, and if I've missed anything (or have screened it out because of my extremism 
) I'd be genuinely interested to know what it is.
Stormystar
Daisy Anne isn’t there’s a massive difference between a particular viewpoint and perspective, however strongly held or believed in, Than scientific indisputable immutable facts. We all probably consider ourselves to be as open minded as the next person and can hold a view, believe what we choose, and change our minds. But for me Scientific Truth in these maters must hold sway. And I expect to hear that from those in Authority
Stormystar, you ask, "isn’t there’s a massive difference between a particular viewpoint and perspective, however strongly held or believed in, ..."
There is a difference between a point of view/opinion and perspective; they are two different things. An opinion is what you think, perspective is how you think it. You could say that all opinions are reached from an individual's perspective. So no, I don't think there is a "massive difference" between them. One is the parent of the other. But I may have misunderstood you. It is difficult to read that sentence.
You seem to have added "scientific indisputable immutable facts" into the same argument. I'm not able to work out what you are saying. Perhaps you could let me know.
Meanwhile, as far as I know, no scientific facts are indisputable or immutable. We have to make do, although happily so, in most cases, with the latest scientists can provide for us. I think the scientific world would be the first to say that all science is and should be open to debate and that it changes over time, therefore, both disputable and mutable.
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join the discussion, watch threads and lots more.
Register now »Already registered? Log in with:
Gransnet »Get our top conversations, latest advice, fantastic competitions, and more, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter here.
