Rosie Duffield Lab MP embroiled in transphobia row.

The comment is true. Only a women can have a cervix. Only a man has testicles. We need to pay more attention to women's rights and the struggles we have been through. I feel my sex is being encroached upon by ignoring what it is that makes someone a woman (female reproductive organs).

The comment is true. Only a women can have a cervix. Only a man has testicles. We need to pay more attention to women's rights and the struggles we have been through. I feel my sex is being encroached upon by ignoring what it is that makes someone a woman (female reproductive organs).

Sometimes i think women who speak like this need help. How is trans ppl just existing ‘enroaching on your rights’ ???????

What rights are ‘enroached’ by the existence of trans people...... i-

Who said rights are encroached on?

As for Rosie Duffield, what we have to remember here is that the issue started when she liked a tweet. She didn't use any of her own words, she just liked the tweet from somebody else. If I was facing that criticism for doing so, my response would be "sorry, I pressed like by accident as I was scrolling on my phone. I didn't mean to cause offence to anyone" and leave it there. Instead she's responded in a very jumpy way that really hasn't helped the situation much at all.

The issue is more the sheer contempt she holds for the people who worked to get her elected. Coming out with transphobic statements like "only women have a cervix", which contributes to the healthcare discrimination trans men face in trying to access cervical smears etc. is bad enough - and that Starmer has not said anything says all you need to know about what bigotries are acceptable within his labour party - doubling down by sharing articles about the "transgender thought police" as she's done today is worse, but on top of all of that she's proceeded to block the Canterbury Young Labour group and members of her CLP for criticising her, and has ignored thousands of emails about this by all account. That said, we shouldn't be surprised, she's a really nasty person - we saw all this a couple of weeks ago when she came out with a puritanical war on NOx then proceeded again to block and hide responses from drugs charities talking about how it was counter productive, and after the journalist Ash Sakar laughed at the policy, suggested that she shouldn't have bothered to defend Ash from racist remarks, as if anti-racism is only something to be done for those who'll support you. Thankfully she'll be gone in 2024 unless she gets moved to a safe seat, she was elected despite her candidacy and purely because of the Corbyn project.

The comment is true. Only a women can have a cervix. Only a man has testicles. We need to pay more attention to women's rights and the struggles we have been through. I feel my sex is being encroached upon by ignoring what it is that makes someone a woman (female reproductive organs).

See comments in bold. Silence is proof of guilt!
You'd fit in well with the communist party.

Since the CPGB-ML are a bunch of class obsessed weirdos who take solidarity with literal billionaires over LGBTQ folk, I absolutely wouldn't. However, it is very clear from the positions labour have taken - the silence over Duffield, Phillips being given the DV brief despite her yearly denial of DV against trans women, the "we're not going to get dragged into a culture war" when conservative ministers started leaking plans to the Sunday times to roll back trans rights and healthcare, refusing to sign the LCTR pledges (unlike Nandy and RLB, and unlike Rayner) during the leadership contest. The signs are clear under Starmer, Labour is not a party of equalities and will not advocate for them. Between that and his anti-BLM stance, it's why I've left and won't be voting for Starmers labour.

The issue is more the sheer contempt she holds for the people who worked to get her elected. Coming out with transphobic statements like "only women have a cervix", which contributes to the healthcare discrimination trans men face in trying to access cervical smears etc. is bad enough - and that Starmer has not said anything says all you need to know about what bigotries are acceptable within his labour party - doubling down by sharing articles about the "transgender thought police" as she's done today is worse, but on top of all of that she's proceeded to block the Canterbury Young Labour group and members of her CLP for criticising her, and has ignored thousands of emails about this by all account. That said, we shouldn't be surprised, she's a really nasty person - we saw all this a couple of weeks ago when she came out with a puritanical war on NOx then proceeded again to block and hide responses from drugs charities talking about how it was counter productive, and after the journalist Ash Sakar laughed at the policy, suggested that she shouldn't have bothered to defend Ash from racist remarks, as if anti-racism is only something to be done for those who'll support you. Thankfully she'll be gone in 2024 unless she gets moved to a safe seat, she was elected despite her candidacy and purely because of the Corbyn project.

With the greatest of respects, I think you would be a scary person if you came into power. I mentioned the communist party not as a serious issue but as a parody. The way that you speak, strikes me, as a classic example of the tunnel-vision purblind Left mixed with moral excoriation - it also heavily features on the Right.

You have this Manichean world view that divides the world into two camps - those who agree with you on X and those who don't. Quite often, you'll be surprised to discover, most issues cannot be easily framed into such stark and uncompromising terms. Most reasonable people who form opinions - which are grounded in logic and experience - occupy that grey penumbra of "well-it-depends". They merely disagree with you. But, there is no room for subtleties or gradations or shades with you. In your world view, there is only possible explanation: namely that Starmer's Labour party does not stand for equality. No ifs, and no buts. I think you'll find that there different arguments and there are different opinions. And people aren't evil on account of this disparity.

I think it's absolutely critical to credit your opponent with having at least one good argument to preserve your ability to judge and maintain a measured perspective. As soon as you start dismissing opponents as lacking a single argument; it paves the way to attack their character - as you have done. Not only are they flawed and mistaken - they are also morally dysfunctional and closeted racists or whatever the prevailing a la mode denunciation is. This is dangerous territory. (Lastly, I would suggest that the distilled essence of communism: paranoia that your opponents aren't just wrong but morally evil).

I didn't actually mean to write an essay again. But, your original post that I quoted, struck me, as being laced with some mild paranoia and cynicism that ends up cabbaging your intelligent brain. I thought I'd say my piece. I don't expect you to agree with me, but I'll be glad if you at least where I am coming from.

Take care

pythian

Phillips by denying domestic violence against trans women

I would be interested to see the evidence of this claim.

Even money says there isnt any.. Just like for most of the other spurious claims made in that post

The comment is true. Only a women can have a cervix. Only a man has testicles. We need to pay more attention to women's rights and the struggles we have been through. I feel my sex is being encroached upon by ignoring what it is that makes someone a woman (female reproductive organs).

Except when it comes to equalities you really have to walk the walk. Starmer has made it clear he doesn't care to stop racialised policing - he still talks of the racist convictions in 2011 with pride and dismissed calls to defund the police. He has defended and promoted MPs who cause material harm to trans people in Duffield and Phillips (Duffield by furthering stigma against trans men and encouraging their divorce from necessary healthcare; Phillips by denying domestic violence against trans women) while not standing against attacks on trans rights from the tory government. When you fail to take meaningful action when the opportunity presents to advocate for equal rights and takes the opportunity to diminish civil rights movements or further harm, there is only one conclusion: that the party does not stand for equal rights.

I would be interested to see the evidence of this claim.

Thank you for replying.

Firstly, you may well think it's an excellent notion "to defund the police" and, indeed, I understand why that may seem manifestly virtuous and morally exigent. But are you prepared to recognise that other people may disagree with you without being anti-equality? Could it be possible that Starmer has other genuine reasons that don't involve him being evil. I emphasise a point I made earlier: I don't think it's possible to have a disagreement with you - without simultaneously suffering the wrath of your unalloyed condemnation. I suspect that Starmer doesn't actually agree with you on this point for philosophical and political reasons. Perhaps he feels that the democratic institutions of the state owe their citizenry a broad responsibility to which it's his duty to ensure that they execute to the highest standards? No, he's just plain evil?

Secondly, have you recognised the arguments against your position on trans men rights? I am not asking if you agree with them. I am asking if you recognise that this is a serious argument against your position. It's not 'nothing' and people shouldn't be dismissed on account of holding those views. Feminism used to be a broad church and it used to be possible to have different arguments on nuance and perspective. It used to be possible to respect your opponent enough to credit them with at least possessing honourable motives. It used to be bad-form to attack the person's character (ad hominiem) as opposed to the argument. But, to do that you fundamentally need to to appreciate the perspective of someone who doesn't agree with you. I understand where Duffield & JK Rowling are coming from. But, before you start: they are not evil incarnate. They are not mentally deficient nor suffering from a psychopathic pathology. They are not beasts or vermin. It should be possible to argue without being accused of suffering from some pathological hatred or mental disorder (phobia).

But, on both of these topics; there is a natural disagreement in the population. They are controversial issues. We live in a democracy. Our MPs are elected by their constituents and are expected to represent *them*. The Labour party isn't a committee of appointees! They are elected. People have different opinions because we embrace multiculturalism. Both of these topics are controversial issues with huge disagreement; but you want Starmer to enforce a single absolute edict on the whole party. They must all agree with him on a single unalterable orthodoxy. And if he doesn't, he must be evil.

If you get into power, I'm packing my bags out of here before the purges start!!

Every year she reads the list of women who died as a result of domestic violence in the previous year. That list is compiled by the Counting Dead Women project. The person who runs it, Karen Ingala Smith, refuses to count trans women within that list, dismissing their murders as "male on male violence". Phillips makes no attempt to correct this list and so every year erases domestic violence against trans women from the conversation.

As for the rest:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/labour-stands-back-from-gender-debate-nd730zrnf - this is labour "stepping back" from advocating for equality in the face of the plans leaked in the Sunday times.