Briefing against women ministers in Westminster

Galaxy

Yes we aren't allowed to mention when the labour party ( and many others) pretended that men were women. We should be quiet about that because it makes them look foolish.

Mention that political parties and many organisations elected, appointed and employed transgender, non binary and gender diverse people as often as you like. It doesn't change the fact as Wyllow3 highlights that there has been social, political and legislative change in recent years. Some have accepted this and moved on. You think these organisations were foolish. Sueinkent goes further and claims this is/was an organisation capable of misogyny.

You may believe that the LP, Conservative Party, Lib dems and other parties are capable of any type of misogyny for electing, appointing and employing transgender, non binary and gender diverse people like sueinkent- somewhat extreme and reactionary but so be it

You may or may not as a result of your views decide to vote or decline to avail yourself of their services, including the NHS. Again your personal choice.

How does AB know of this “culture”, he hasn’t been based in Westminster for years?

It’s all a bit vague.

It is not the appointment of people who to wish to pretend they have changed sex; they may believe whatever they wish as long as the acceptance of their belief is imposed on others. It is the people who pretend to support their mistaken beliefs, that a person can actually change sex that brings ridicule, as in the obfuscation of 'does a woman have a penis.?

Lemonjam knows that. She has portrayed my view as if I object to employment of transgender people. I have reported the post.

LemonJam

eazybee

Hollie Ridley, Labour's General Secretary (never heard of her) has announced she will step down after two years in the job, citing personal reasons and saying she wanted to make room for a successor.

HOWEVER, a' Labour Source' told the DT that Ms Ridley had been pushed out by allies of Mr. Burnham briefing against her, and who had warned her that the briefings would get 'nastier and more personal' if she did not go. And so it begins?

Make of that what you will.

Starmer appointed her as party General Secretary as she was ally of him and McSweeney as he came into role as PM 2 years ago. Usual and normal just as new PM selects their cabinet. A “labour source” no name, sounds like right wing newspaper tittle tattle as it makes no sense.

As you point out she’s resigning of her own volition and also has widely reported she will be supportive of new PM.

AB if new PM need not brief against her or any other potential cabinet ministers etc as he has complete free choice as do all PMs. He will have his own Allira and not Linley to want Starmers and Mcsweeney”s allies as mistakes were made- hence why anonymous source gossip makes no sense.

I'm so pleased Allira has found herself a new occupation in higher places outside GN. What made you think of her LemonJam?

Good to see our friends name back on GN 👍

MartavTaurus

LemonJam

eazybee

Hollie Ridley, Labour's General Secretary (never heard of her) has announced she will step down after two years in the job, citing personal reasons and saying she wanted to make room for a successor.

HOWEVER, a' Labour Source' told the DT that Ms Ridley had been pushed out by allies of Mr. Burnham briefing against her, and who had warned her that the briefings would get 'nastier and more personal' if she did not go. And so it begins?

Make of that what you will.

Starmer appointed her as party General Secretary as she was ally of him and McSweeney as he came into role as PM 2 years ago. Usual and normal just as new PM selects their cabinet. A “labour source” no name, sounds like right wing newspaper tittle tattle as it makes no sense.

As you point out she’s resigning of her own volition and also has widely reported she will be supportive of new PM.

AB if new PM need not brief against her or any other potential cabinet ministers etc as he has complete free choice as do all PMs. He will have his own Allira and not Linley to want Starmers and Mcsweeney”s allies as mistakes were made- hence why anonymous source gossip makes no sense.

I'm so pleased Allira has found herself a new occupation in higher places outside GN. What made you think of her LemonJam?

Sorry I don't understand your post MartavTaurus.

Just noticed a typo- should have read- He will have his own allies and not like to want Starmer's and McSweeney's allies.....😊

eazybee

It is not the appointment of people who to wish to pretend they have changed sex; they may believe whatever they wish as long as the acceptance of their belief is imposed on others. It is the people who pretend to support their mistaken beliefs, that a person can actually change sex that brings ridicule, as in the obfuscation of 'does a woman have a penis.?

I agree eazybee that it's not the appointment of transgender people that's a problem. Also I believe people in organisations should be able to elect who they think is the best person for the role where there is a democratic vote- even if that is a transgender person. The democratic majority vote elects the person c chosen by the majority as a result.

My earlier post was in response to:

Sueinkent: Any party that can appoint a transitioned male as Women’s Officer as Labour did is capable of any type of misogyny

My response was: "Historically, going back to 2017, Lily Madigan was elected as a women's officer for Labour Students.

However since then the LP ruling body has since updated rules such that when something refers to a woman, including a woman's role, it must be interpreted on the basis of biological sex. Think the Girls Guides, WI and many other organisations have similar updated their rules?

More recently Katie Wells (formerly Jamie Wells) transitioned in 2022 and came out as a transgender Conservative MP for Bridgend in Wales. Abriel Jerram serves for the Lib Dems.

The phrase 'transitioned' refers to anyone transgender, non binary and gender diverse. Maybe you are just transgender, non binary and gender diverse critical for all the political parties.

Nobody that puts themselves up for a democratic vote selection is imposing their beliefs on anyone I would have thought. I would have thought the electorate are able to choose for themselves to whom they offer their vote.....

Just noticed my omission.
.^It is not the appointment of people who to wish to pretend they have changed sex; they may believe whatever they wish as long as the acceptance of their belief is NOT imposed on others^
As in 'transgender women are women.(Harriet Harman.)

The only person who has brought up the election of transgender people as being a problem is lemonjam unless I have missed a post. The problem people have highlighted is appointing a man as a womsns officer.

It is going backwards as far as I am concerned to get stuck on trans issues again and letting it take over a discussion on representation of Women in parliament and in our wider communities and significant institutions

And the pressing needs of women and children who have suffered abuse of all kinds.

We are facing a fight back by misogynists just look at US leaders and look at the likes of Andrew Tate. Can we get a sense of proportion please?

I am afraid I will talk about anything I like, and the way my views have been misrepresented on here demonstrates my sense of proportion and my mistrust is absolutely spot on.

Just look at where we are ending up - "you started this or that".

Look, if it turns into everyone wanting yet another thread only on transgender issues, then I'm OK with it for those who want to take part.

But I think the issue of Womens right's, and Women's safety in a era of the rise of the Far Right and the misogyny within it, and the dangerous effects of the worst sort of SM threaten to turn the clocks back on us Women as a whole and our girl grandchildren. Essentially, the O/P was around

"is the clock turning backwards" for women in one significant context

and my goodness when did that stop being important?

I will respond when people represent my views in that way, there is quite a weird thing on here at the moment where we are just expected to take this kind of behaviour. It appears to me to be the exact opposite of treating women or anyone fairly.

If the representation of women in parliament was achieved by men who declare they’re really women then that representation would be invalid. I thought the mantra of ‘transwomen are women no debate’ was over, has it now been amended to just don’t mention the issue at all?
What sense of proportion ignores any diminishing of the female sex/women as a unique class?

None. We are not that threatened, imo, simply put, by a tiny minority of people and now have adequate boundaries in place.

Like I said, all of us are in need of being aware of attacks on Womens rights in the broadest sense. going on and on about a tiny group imo help no one.

So I shall be going go to my Womens Interfaith group tomorrow afternoon to actually build bridges between the variety of cultures and enjoy those experiences not carp.

Sigh.

As regards trans women my POV is that everyone is different, with different POV,

and how many times have we said - as regards racism for example that not all Muslims or Jewish people or whomever are "the same" is tarred with the same brush.

So one takes people as they come:

but as regards the backward steps on womens' progress forwards, there are really significant issues we cannot afford to ignore.

Sigh. We are threatened by the misogyny of those who thought it was ok to place vulnerable women in prisons with rapists. Those people had much more access to power than the andrew tates of this world.
We also don't want to fight misogyny alongside those who will misrepresent our views. It is thanks but no thanks.

We won't agree, Galaxy. I think we will both take the political route we personally find most helpful to women broadly.

Galaxy

The only person who has brought up the election of transgender people as being a problem is lemonjam unless I have missed a post. The problem people have highlighted is appointing a man as a womsns officer.

Incorrect. Sueinkent posted:

Any party that can appoint a transitioned male as Women’s Officer as Labour did is capable of any type of misogyny

I responded to her post that the person in question was not appointed but was elected to the Labour student body that is chosen by by a majority vote.

Then eazybee posted:

It is not the appointment of people who to wish to pretend they have changed sex; they may believe whatever they wish as long as the acceptance of their belief is imposed on others. It is the people who pretend to support their mistaken beliefs, that a person can actually change sex that brings ridicule, as in the obfuscation of 'does a woman have a penis.?"

I responded; I agree eazybee that it's not the appointment of transgender people that's a problem. Also I believe people in organisations should be able to elect who they think is the best person for the role where there is a democratic vote- even if that is a transgender person. The democratic majority vote elects the person c chosen by the majority as a result.

My earlier post was in response to:

Sueinkent: Any party that can appoint a transitioned male as Women’s Officer as Labour did is capable of any type of misogyny

My response was: "Historically, going back to 2017, Lily Madigan was elected as a women's officer for Labour Students.

However since then the LP ruling body has since updated rules such that when something refers to a woman, including a woman's role, it must be interpreted on the basis of biological sex. Think the Girls Guides, WI and many other organisations have similar updated their rules?

More recently Katie Wells (formerly Jamie Wells) transitioned in 2022 and came out as a transgender Conservative MP for Bridgend in Wales. Abriel Jerram serves for the Lib Dems.

The phrase 'transitioned' refers to anyone transgender, non binary and gender diverse. Maybe you are just transgender, non binary and gender diverse critical for all the political parties.

Nobody that puts themselves up for a democratic vote selection is imposing their beliefs on anyone I would have thought. I would have thought the electorate are able to choose for themselves to whom they offer their vote....."

Galaxy then posted:

'Yes we aren't allowed to mention when the labour party ( and many others) pretended that men were women. We should be quiet about that because it makes them look foolish"
.
Well I thought Galaxy is free to post whatever she wants and responded:

Mention that political parties and many organisations elected, appointed and employed transgender, non binary and gender diverse people as often as you like. It doesn't change the fact as Wyllow3 highlights that there has been social, political and legislative change in recent years. Some have accepted this and moved on. You think these organisations were foolish. Sueinkent goes further and claims this is/was an organisation capable of misogyny.

You may believe that the LP, Conservative Party, Lib dems and other parties are capable of any type of misogyny for electing, appointing and employing transgender, non binary and gender diverse people like sueinkent somewhat extreme and reactionary but so be it.

You may or may not as a result of your views decide to vote or decline to avail yourself of their services, including the NHS. Again your personal choice.

I saw that post, which was about the ridiculousness of a man holding a position meant for women. You then began to talk about the appointment in general of transgender people, and described my 'imagined' beliefs as extreme and reactionary.