Women are a minority view so should be disregarded

Galaxy

I do understand doodledog because if we don't let people 'recant' we are just going around in purity circles. But then part of me thinks well that's just another way of telling wonen to 'be kind'. I think they may just have to put up with a number of us fuming for some time.

I echo your sentiments.

Additionally, with the rise of the toxic masculinity - and it is toxic - of the manosphere; I think those days of women "being kind" in fact need to be over.

I do understand doodledog because if we don't let people 'recant' we are just going around in purity circles. But then part of me thinks well that's just another way of telling wonen to 'be kind'. I think they may just have to put up with a number of us fuming for some time.

Don’t get me started.

I know, and I'm not disagreeing, just saying that if we don't give some grace we are going to be without anyone who's deemed fit to do much. Alternatively, we could look to people who did stand up to the zeitgeist on trans issues, but aren't otherwise suited to power.

Remember it was the Tories who let Stonewall do what they did, and Labour were in opposition. How could they argue against Tory policies and run an election campaign whilst simultaneously fighting a rearguard action against Stonewall, which also had unions in its thrall?

I'm not excusing it, more trying to explain it as I see it, I suppose.

Good posts Galaxy and Rosie.

I still find anyone saying that a man could with surgery and hormones could grow a cervix unbelievable.

In the end I didn't vote for Labour because of their stance on trans issues.

I mostly understand and agree with the point you make Doodledog. But when politicians and others with authority not only didn't question any of it but doubled down with endorsement it didn't help the 'little people' one iota. You had the likes of David Lammy saying men could 'with surgery and hormones' grow a cervix for goodness' sake. Giving in to bullies never works as is shown by the increasing demands the trans rights activists made. Every concession was met with a further demand, and institutions ignored the law, decency, fairness and just plain scientific facts, demonising and punishing dissenters. Thank goodness it looks like reality might be making a comeback.
I want people to change their minds about all sorts when they're given new ideas and evidence, but I also expect representatives of the public to be totally honest when they spout their views. You don't believe they truly believed the Stonewall rubbish, but they didn't just keep quiet they absolutely said they believed every word, and that's what makes me never able to fully trust them now.

But if you ( not you personally) can't stand up to Stonewall ( a two bit charity when all is said and done) then I don't know how I can expect you to stand up to say Russia or China. I just find it so depressing in many ways, I have found it quite surprising, whilst I was delighted with the Supreme court ruling, afterwards I found myself being as angry as I have ever been on the subject. I feel it will take a long time to build trust.

Galaxy

But it isn't changing your mind on say Brexit or assisted dying or child benefit, it was a fundamental denial of science, reality, etc. That to be honest is why it was so damaging.

I couldn't agree more. But people didn't believe it, did they? They were coerced into complicity by Stonewall. No, it was not courageous to go along with it, but given the number of other things that needed changing it may have seemed foolish to allow one issue to dominate the agenda, and the howls of 'TERF' or whatever the male equivalent is (is there one?) would have drowned out everything else they were saying.

I remember being annoyed with Labour about their ridiculous stance on trans issues at the last election, but voted for them anyway, as I felt that other their stance on others were enough to compensate, and anyway none of the other parties were doing any better.

Most of us did our bit in very small ways. Which was good, but AFAIK nobody on here risked their whole career and reputation by speaking out in such a way that the whole country would hear about us. If anyone did, I apologise, but I don't think it's fair to refuse to let others change their minds when they were far more bound by circumstances than we were.

As I've said, I refused to comply with things such as email signatures or Zoom/Teams screens with pronouns. I know others did comply, but did so because they had children, mortgages and so on, and needed their jobs. I didn't, so the risk was small. I don't think I'm in any position to criticise them now.

ViceVersa

And this is what we're up against...

Aggressive testosterone filled MEN. They wonder why women feel concerned about safety.

Dear God! And they wonder why we don't welcome them into the ladies room

And this is what we're up against...

But it isn't changing your mind on say Brexit or assisted dying or child benefit, it was a fundamental denial of science, reality, etc. That to be honest is why it was so damaging.

I think that intransigence gets in the way of progress. People need to be able to change their minds without accusations of flip flopping, U turns etc.

There would be no point in anyone campaigning for anything if those who once stood on the opposite side are never allowed to cross over.

Generally I agree but I am afraid I view anyone who fell for this in the same way I view flat earthers. I think people underestimate the damage this has done to faith in politicians, organisations, etc.

Sarnia

Chris Mason, the BBC's Political Editor, asked him about this and it seems he had said this some time ago but they were not his views now. Would that be since becoming the Labour candidate? The more I hear from Andy Burnham the more I hope Sir Keir Starmer stays where he is.

DP said the same this morning, but if Starmer stays then they won’t win the next GE.
Burnham, if he does become MP then PM needs to have some vision but not frighten the horses iyswim.

Mine three

Sarnia

Vintagewhine

I change my mind about things especially as more information becomes available or I hear different points of view and different reasoning. Tbh I'm always suspicious of very dogmatic people IMO it shows a lack of flexibility and openness which is not what I want in friends or politicians.

My feelings exactly.

Mine too

Vintagewhine

I change my mind about things especially as more information becomes available or I hear different points of view and different reasoning. Tbh I'm always suspicious of very dogmatic people IMO it shows a lack of flexibility and openness which is not what I want in friends or politicians.

My feelings exactly.

I change my mind about things especially as more information becomes available or I hear different points of view and different reasoning. Tbh I'm always suspicious of very dogmatic people IMO it shows a lack of flexibility and openness which is not what I want in friends or politicians.

Ah yes, the good old 'live and let live'. Funny how it's always the women who are supposed to 'let' those men live in what are supposed to be women-only spaces, is it not?

Chris Mason, the BBC's Political Editor, asked him about this and it seems he had said this some time ago but they were not his views now. Would that be since becoming the Labour candidate? The more I hear from Andy Burnham the more I hope Sir Keir Starmer stays where he is.

I suspect he means women should do the usual ....put special men and their delicate feelings first and foremost, after all they are the most vulnerable group on the planet. Kids starving in third world countries don't know they're born compared to the 'special men' who don't feel safe when nasty people attempt to make them stay in their sex-lane.

Listening to the late news I caught Andy Burnham using a phrase common to those who think men should be allowed in female spaces even when the speaker says they support the law.
What does he men by live and let live?
Does he mean TW should let women have their male free spaces and sports?
Or . . .

Doodledog
The idea that transpeople were deprived of rights was often voiced on here, but nobody ever managed to explain what those missing rights were. Human rights apply to all, as do sex-based rights, but the trans movement wanted extra rights, based on 'feelings', to override the rights of others (usually women).
My post at 15:30 quoted evidence I found on the internet about the rights trans (mostly TW) claim as being entitled to, and as you point out, they wanted to ^override the rights of others(usually women).

Yes it was good to see him wriggling wasn't it Mollygo and the interviewer did well, not letting him off the hook.