Trans debate in Labour - 12 pledges.

Watch
Poll: Do you agree with the 12 pledges?
Yes (2)
18.18%
No (7)
63.64%
I don't know (1)
9.09%
I agree with the LGBT Labour pledges instead (1)
9.09%
Iñigo de Loyola
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#1
The Labour Campaign for Trans Rights have released a pledge card of 12 pledges that they expect every Labour leadership/deputy leadership contender to sign.
So far, Lisa Nandy has signed the 12 pledges in full, Rebecca Long-Bailey has signed them but retracted her support for one of them on Marr (that members of Women's Place UK should be expelled) and opposes self-ID, and Kier Starmer has signed the LGBT Labour pledges (a different set of pledges)
In the deputy leadership contest, Dawn Butler signed them, and then went on to say that children have no biological sex at birth - a denial of science.
Tony Blair has opposed the pledges, saying they will lead to a ”culture war with the right”.

I'll link both sets of pledges here:
The Labour Campaign for Trans Rights pledges
The LGBT Labour pledges

What do you think?
0
reply
username1799249
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 year ago
#2
Omg. Labour members still call themselves comrades? How 1960s!
2
reply
Stiff Little Fingers
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 year ago
#3
Blair's opposed them because he doesn't want a "culture war"? And there was me thinking that the old war criminal loved them. Guess a 'culture war' doesn't involve the murder of enough innocent children for him to be interested.
1
reply
fallen_acorns
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 year ago
#4
For me:

1 - true.. trans people are undeniably discriminated against in the UK as everywhere else
2 - fine, nothing wrong with the statement in principle, we should seek to end transphobia*
3 - respecting their gender, great, this one is also good
4 - this one is ok, as long as you commit to propperly seperating woman/female man/male, within the public concious.. that wouldn't be a problem though
5 - no.. there clearly are conflicts between trans rights and womans rights.. and there clearly are differences between the way trans women experiance the patriarchy/misogyny compared to cis women
6 - fine by me
7, werd statment, commiting to support work that hasn't taken place yet, without knowing what it is, is stupid.
8, makes sense*
9, this one matches with number 5. unless you entirely side with the trans* side of the current debate within feminism/trans circles, its hard to agree to this one. There clearly is a dispute going on, and its clearly deeper than just 'those women are transphobic'. Excluding them, pushes them to the torries/more right wing groups who will accept them. Its probably not the best idea
10, yes*
11, what policies specifically? This is again pledging to support things that are as yet undefined
12, yes*

I could support: 1, 3, 4, 6, 11
I can't support: 5, 9
*I could support, depending on their definition of transphobia: 2, 10, 12
And policies that are not wrong, but just stupidly worded to the point of being pointless: 7, 11

So, presuming they use a reasonable defintion of transphobia, I could get behind 8/10 of these pledges. Ignoring the two that don't make sense.. you can't have people pledge to support X action, when X action hasn't been planned or defined and could be what ever you say it is down the line.

5+9 are where the nuance is. And the Labour candidates seem to recognise this. You can't just brush over the debates by saying 'all who disagree with the trans lobby are transphobic. kick them out, ban their organisations. Done. That really won't work, and it doesn't answer the genuine conflicts that exist between traditional feminist ideology and modern intersectional/trans ideology.
1
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 year ago
#5
As far as issues go this would seem to be gathering rather more attention than its worth.
I am rather curious as to how much the labour leadership actually care about this as opposed to just using it to appeal to the tediously woke activists.
0
reply
Stiff Little Fingers
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 year ago
#6
(Original post by fallen_acorns)
That really won't work, and it doesn't answer the genuine conflicts that exist between traditional feminist ideology and modern intersectional/trans ideology.
You could say the exact same thing about LERFs (Lesbian Exclusionary Radical Feminists) back in the 60s though, the types who argued about the "lavender menace" and the dangers of having women in women's spaces who were "sexual predators" (damn, this all seems familiar...) and at no point did it make any sense within actual progressive groups to throw people under the bus or promote homophobia in order to find an answer to "the genuine conflict between traditional feminist ideology and lesbian ideology".

And that's without arguing that actually groups like WPUK are fundamentally anti-feminist, relying on tortured Catholicism from people like Mary Daly and Sheila Jefferys that runs contrary to all other feminist theory - particularly the radical feminist theory from the likes of Dworkin, Firestone and McKinnon that they like to abuse. Dworkin in particular is kinda problematic at points, particularly the sex negativity which is utilised the way a rapist would, to void any ability to consent, rather than a reasoned discussion on how compulsory sexuality + consent is key often turns into compulsory consent, and that is where classical feminism clashes with the current 3rd wave; but all radical feminist theory is pretty clear that the enforcement of sexuate differences is antithetical to feminism, that the goal of the feminist revolution be to "not just eliminate male privilege but sex distinction itself, genital differences should have no cultural significance" (roughly paraphrasing from the dialectic of sex)
0
reply
Johnny Tightlips
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 year ago
#7
This is why Labour are no where near getting in to power. Most of those pledges are a joke. And don't affect 90%+ of people. Tories in power for another 10 years guaranteed
Last edited by Johnny Tightlips; 1 year ago
1
reply
Smack
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 year ago
#8
(Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
Blair's opposed them because he doesn't want a "culture war"? And there was me thinking that the old war criminal loved them. Guess a 'culture war' doesn't involve the murder of enough innocent children for him to be interested.
He has a point. In a week where the Tories are tackling immigration, what's the narrative that's seen to be coming from Labour? Trans rights are extremely important for a great many people, but for a great many more people it's very much a fringe issue (and also a very complicated one). Labour candidates should be focusing on bringing the fight to the Tories on the issues that their target demographics will be focusing on, not squabbling about issues about don't resonate with them.
1
reply
Stiff Little Fingers
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 year ago
#9
(Original post by Smack)
He has a point. In a week where the Tories are tackling immigration, what's the narrative that's seen to be coming from Labour? Trans rights are extremely important for a great many people, but for a great many more people it's very much a fringe issue (and also a very complicated one). Labour candidates should be focusing on bringing the fight to the Tories on the issues that their target demographics will be focusing on, not squabbling about issues about don't resonate with them.
In this context though it's not about fighting the Tories, it's the leadership and deputy leadership that's up for debate and whether that leadership is actually going to stand for everyone is an important thing to establish when electing a new leader. It's not as if they're taking this into parliament and PMQs where they could be focusing on the government's current immigration scandals
1
reply
Johnny Tightlips
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 year ago
#10
(Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
In this context though it's not about fighting the Tories, it's the leadership and deputy leadership that's up for debate and whether that leadership is actually going to stand for everyone is an important thing to establish when electing a new leader. It's not as if they're taking this into parliament and PMQs where they could be focusing on the government's current immigration scandals
But ultimately it is about fighting the Tories- you want a leader that can actually defeat the Tories in election.

LGBT rights are just not that important for most people. Does't mean they should be ignored ofc, but for them to dominate discussion as much as they have shows how far removed Labour are from what the country wants/needs.
I mean seriously, who outside of metropolitan-elite circles gives a sh*t about Women's Place UK vs trans rights? People don't care. People do care about (for example) immigration controls. Hence why the Tories have won every single cultural battle in the last 10 years and by all accounts will continue to do so.
Last edited by Johnny Tightlips; 1 year ago
1
reply
Smack
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 year ago
#11
(Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
In this context though it's not about fighting the Tories, it's the leadership and deputy leadership that's up for debate and whether that leadership is actually going to stand for everyone is an important thing to establish when electing a new leader. It's not as if they're taking this into parliament and PMQs where they could be focusing on the government's current immigration scandals
As Labour are currently in opposition, it's always about trying to win over the voters and defeat the Tories. The discussion and output from the debate is in the media, and people are talking about it, forming (or reinforcing) their opinions of the candidates. Labour must be presenting themselves as a party of government, that is in tune with the voters and will deal with issues that most affect them if they are to have any hope of governing again.
0
reply
Stiff Little Fingers
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#12
Report 1 year ago
#12
(Original post by Johnny Tightlips)
But ultimately it is about fighting the Tories- you want a leader that can actually defeat the Tories in election.

LGBT rights are just not that important for most people. Does't mean they should be ignored ofc, but for them to dominate discussion as much as they have shows how far removed Labour are from what the country wants/needs.
I mean seriously, who outside of metropolitan-elite circles gives a sh*t about Women's Place UK vs trans rights? People don't care. People do care about (for example) immigration controls. Hence why the Tories have won every single cultural battle in the last 10 years and by all accounts will continue to do so.
It's only dominating the discussion because the press makes it so - internally it really isn't that relevant, but the press in this country, being completely controlled by the right wing, distorts everything into a right wing driven culture war. The only way for it to not dominate the discussion (short of the preferable option of having a certain Australian billionaire forcibly ejected from the country and all his controlling assets seized) is to not have the discussion at all, but the discussion of LGBT rights is an important one to have when there's still the dirtbag left and other reactionaries with a worker fetish like the authorship of the morning star that LGBT folk aren't guaranteed to be safe in leftist spaces - and those LGBT folk tend to be disproportionately poorer than the majority, so it's far from a "metropolitan elite" deal

(Original post by Smack)
As Labour are currently in opposition, it's always about trying to win over the voters and defeat the Tories. The discussion and output from the debate is in the media, and people are talking about it, forming (or reinforcing) their opinions of the candidates. Labour must be presenting themselves as a party of government, that is in tune with the voters and will deal with issues that most affect them if they are to have any hope of governing again.
I'd fundamentally disagree with that - labour cannot play the press when every major newspaper is controlled by the billionaire class. That the only labour leader to win in half a century completely betrayed what labour stood for and got in bed with the press is testament to that: even when the Tories aren't winning, the likes of Murdoch are. When the likes of Murdoch control the frame of discussion (hence why the barely centre left social democratic platform of Corbyn was portrayed as communism), labour cannot present themselves as a government in waiting, they won't be allowed to - instead they need to work to ensure all members are safe and secure, and create an energised grassroot support like Sanders has
0
reply
Johnny Tightlips
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 year ago
#13
(Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
It's only dominating the discussion because the press makes it so - internally it really isn't that relevant, but the press in this country, being completely controlled by the right wing, distorts everything into a right wing driven culture war. The only way for it to not dominate the discussion (short of the preferable option of having a certain Australian billionaire forcibly ejected from the country and all his controlling assets seized) is to not have the discussion at all, but the discussion of LGBT rights is an important one to have when there's still the dirtbag left and other reactionaries with a worker fetish like the authorship of the morning star that LGBT folk aren't guaranteed to be safe in leftist spaces - and those LGBT folk tend to be disproportionately poorer than the majority, so it's far from a "metropolitan elite" deal
The only people who are making these things an issue is the left. The right don't need to distort anything: the left and Labour are doing a splendid job at maintaining their civil war between the various factions.

Because how can you compromise between 2 polar opposite groups? eg one wants trans women to be acknowledged as real women whilst the other sees them as men. Nobody wants to compromise anyway- the whole point of identity politics is division. So maybe the shouting matches should be put on hold because it isn't involving the 95% of people who don't care.

Blaming the right wing press all the time is such a cop out. There are numerous left wing media outposts- the Guardian, metro, daily mirror, indy, buzzfeed, huffington post off the top of my head. Most of the news about trans rights and women's rights are from these papers because, like I said, it's the left that make these things a massive issue when most people don't care.
(Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
I'd fundamentally disagree with that - labour cannot play the press when every major newspaper is controlled by the billionaire class. That the only labour leader to win in half a century completely betrayed what labour stood for and got in bed with the press is testament to that: even when the Tories aren't winning, the likes of Murdoch are. When the likes of Murdoch control the frame of discussion (hence why the barely centre left social democratic platform of Corbyn was portrayed as communism), labour cannot present themselves as a government in waiting, they won't be allowed to - instead they need to work to ensure all members are safe and secure, and create an energised grassroot support like Sanders has
The line that Labour were and continue to be excellent, it's the press that makes them unpopular is just so so wrong. And shows how out of touch you all are. The Tories will be in power for another 10 years at least with that attitude. Which is not good!
Last edited by Johnny Tightlips; 1 year ago
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 year ago
#14
(Original post by Smack)
As Labour are currently in opposition, it's always about trying to win over the voters and defeat the Tories. The discussion and output from the debate is in the media, and people are talking about it, forming (or reinforcing) their opinions of the candidates. Labour must be presenting themselves as a party of government, that is in tune with the voters and will deal with issues that most affect them if they are to have any hope of governing again.
Rather begs the question as to why theyre wasting time with these ineffectual episodes of moral self indulgence when the majority of the populace likely couldnt give a monkeys for this issue as opposed to ensuring their health service works, they have jobs and so on.
0
reply
Smack
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#15
Report 1 year ago
#15
(Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
I'd fundamentally disagree with that - labour cannot play the press when every major newspaper is controlled by the billionaire class. That the only labour leader to win in half a century completely betrayed what labour stood for and got in bed with the press is testament to that: even when the Tories aren't winning, the likes of Murdoch are. When the likes of Murdoch control the frame of discussion (hence why the barely centre left social democratic platform of Corbyn was portrayed as communism), labour cannot present themselves as a government in waiting, they won't be allowed to - instead they need to work to ensure all members are safe and secure, and create an energised grassroot support like Sanders has
I don't think I buy into that. There are plenty of left-of-centre media platforms. If they don't have the same readership figures as centrist and right-of-centre platforms, it's because the populace isn't generally left-of-centre.

(Original post by Napp)
Rather begs the question as to why theyre wasting time with these ineffectual episodes of moral self indulgence when the majority of the populace likely couldnt give a monkeys for this issue as opposed to ensuring their health service works, they have jobs and so on.
Sometimes I think Labour are much more comfortable in opposition (unfortunately they're not even very good at that either).
1
reply
Iñigo de Loyola
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#16
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#16
(Original post by ByEeek)
Omg. Labour members still call themselves comrades? How 1960s!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=U06jlgpMtQs
(Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
other reactionaries with a worker fetish like the authorship of the morning star
The Morning Star is reactionary now?
every major newspaper is controlled by the billionaire class.
The Independent isn't IIRC.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Poll: What factors affect your mental health most right now? Post-lockdown edition

Anxiousness about restrictions easing (54)
6.07%
Uncertainty around my education (101)
11.35%
Uncertainty around my future career prospects (94)
10.56%
Lack of purpose or motivation (110)
12.36%
Lack of support system (eg. teachers, counsellors, delays in care) (44)
4.94%
Impact lockdown had on physical health (48)
5.39%
Social worries (incl. loneliness/making friends) (99)
11.12%
Financial worries (60)
6.74%
Concern about myself or my loves ones getting/having been ill (40)
4.49%
Exposure to negative news/social media (56)
6.29%
Difficulty accessing real life entertainment (26)
2.92%
Lack of confidence in making big life decisions (86)
9.66%
Worry about missed opportunities during the pandemic (72)
8.09%

Watched Threads

View All