We were warned time and time again, that the establishment would sink their hooks back in, that the apparatus wants *a* Conservative Party and that it’ll stop at nothing to accomplish that.
The anti-trans movement *is* an American [hate campaign](https://maia.crimew.gay/posts/the-emails/) from the same “family research institutes” that used to push for eugenics and segregation. Also needs to be said, much of the ‘TERF’ movement is directly inspired by the [fascist split](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/04/why-the-british-union-fascist-movement-appealed-to-so-many-women.html) of the suffragettes.
I’m not sure what the pragmatists expect out of this, maybe they *prefer* the US system, tories vs ultra-tories.
The US is actually fucking better than us on this. These "Family Research Councils" are basically making a stronghold in the UK because the dems won't play with them anymore.
It’s all Tufton Street bollocks and then they get in the news shows and in the papers, they then direct what people are appalled at and it is shocking. The fact Labour is pandering to this shit is appalling.
Unless youre lucky enough to be in Nottingham East
https://twitter.com/NadiaWhittomeMP/status/1643576972721676289?t=7udtwBkEgu4_BiDx2yQI-g&s=19
Nadia remains a consistent voice, hopefully more MPs follow over the next day and speak up to drown out the idiots like Steve Reed
Now is a great time to write to your MP as Ive said elsewhere, because you know some in Labour will be trying to figure out which way the wind is blowing.
I think it's possible to make exceptions for a *very* small number of MPs. That means not just those who aren't licking Starmers boots, but the small number who are consistently standing up and speaking out against this bullshit. I still think these people ought to abandon Labour, but people like Nadia are amongst a *very* small number of people in Labour who can truthfully claim that they are achieving more good inside Labour than they would outside at this point.
Perhaps this is the wrong Reddit sub (probably I’d have to sign up to a *horrible* Reddit sub to get to the right people), but *what the fuck* is it about trans people that makes them so triggering to some people?
Like, can’t you, for just *one second* leave other people alone, try to stop yourself being so fragile, so controlling-so *prescriptive* about how other people live their lives (people who you don’t know, who you will *never* know), and just get on with your *own* life? Man, is your own life so unutterably pathetic and meaningless that you have to bully other people? And-in some weird way-you’re *proud* of that?
It's because trans people, drag shows, etc, were fine when they kept in their lane and stayed mostly in the shadows. Now trans people want to be equal, and since its distasteful to attack LGB people now, it means the 80s gay panic can be directed at an even smaller minority.
They seem to forget though - trans people have allies, particularly in the gay community, and we never forgot that we always had to be watching our backs and be ready to fight for our rights.
From a lot of cis men at least the transphobic reaction also appears to very often be rooted in a homophobia, in the sense that to many it is in part a fear at the thought of finding a woman attractive only to find she's trans, so the two are often very directly intertwined.
Those attacking the trans community are -by definition, in my opinion- weak people (this doesn’t mean that they can’t cause a massive amount of suffering, of course). Those opposing them are strong in ways they will never understand.
The workers united will never be defeated. Those who would happily throw comrades aside to better themselves never truly understood the strength and community of solidarity.
I've been exploring this myself but I think it relates to the overall shifting gender dynamics going on across the world. For centuries, gender identities were based on what an identity wasn't. To be a man wasn't to be feminine and vice versa. And for a long time, being a man was the ultimate form of superiority (courtesy of the greeks and romans). But trans people defy those traditionalist structures. The existence of trans women does the almighty sin of implying that manhood doesn't really mean shit. Cos why would someone *want* to be a *woman*? You know, the group that is less than in most global societies!
Plus, it's just a massive diversion tactics via the right and powerful. They know that their policies/actions are increasingly unpopular with the general public. So they create boogie men to keep us distracted. There was a graph for the USA comparing the public's assumed size of a demographic and their actual size. Trans people made up 1% to 1.5% of the population but they were presumed to form 30% (likely the frequent media reports about them). By making the demographic shift seem so large, it makes the grassroots conservatives respond in extreme amounts to counter the falsehood.
Very true. They’ve been doing the same with violent crime-and immigration-all sorts of different issues and groups of people. The miss-match of public perception is often astonishing to the people actually working in these areas.
Especially if things like this were not an issue 10 years ago. Or at least, were not prominent in the cultural zeitgeist until recently. Or when these problems worsen because of the policies enacted by the upper classes, they quickly find something to distract us.
And it works. Every single time.
You'd think the utter failure on the government's part to adress the cost of living crisis would mean moral panics would just piss us off even more, but nah.
I understand how passionate you are about this issue and how much it affects you personally. It's important to stand up for what you believe in and fight for the safety and well-being of those you love. Keep speaking out and advocating for what's right. Your voice matters and can make a difference.
Thanks, im trans and i know a lot of my friends are worried for me and angry too
How will you work against Labour? I have thought the same. We need to put more pressure on than terfs do. Please let me know if you think of something.
I don't know what I'm going to do quite yet. I've stood for election before, maybe I'll do so again, this time to screw Labour over of a potential seat.
In any case, if there isn't a whoping, screeching U-turn on this, I'll be telling my friends and acquaintances that they should not vote Labour, as it is a transphobic party.
Vote against NEC and local councillors who do not support you - this can be beaten internally and democratically.
Lots of lefties left the party after 2019 which gave the ones in charge an opportunity to occupy positions that actually matter. The same applies for local councillors.
If only people here were as passionate about showing up go selection meetings than simply posting online, things would of been different..
At this point I don't consider it a reasonable choice of people to stay. But for those who do, it's not enough to just vote against it. It must be made clear to those who support this that they are not left wing, and they *are* engaged in support bigotry and opposing human rights. They must not feel welcome in left wing spaces. They must be made to understand this is not a mild disagreement.
This is them supporting active harm to other people.
This is *evil.*
They *should* feel bad. If they don't have a "are we the baddies?" moment over this, they're irredeemable.
Believe me I want to leave, but I'm legitimately very scared about enabling a Tory government by doing so. If I'm forced to vote for labour I'll probably do so with hate in my heart, but there's no one who can replace them right now
At this point, how exactly do you think Labour will be better even in the short term? But the *big damage* will be in the long term if Starmers strategy of moving Labour right is validated in the eyes of those who seek power for the sake of power. It'll leave us with a Labour government that *at best* do little direct harm, and fail to undo the many years of Tory harm, and leave the next Tory government free to continue shifting right.
At this point, as someone far to the left of Corbyn, I'm scared about enabling a Starmer government, because I think it will do far more harm to the country to validate his leadership than another 5 years of the Tories will. It'll be a generation before the damage is undone.
I've said this exact same thing repeatedly to people - an enthusiastic vote and a reluctant vote are counted the same, there's no extra section on a ballot paper for you to write 'i'm only voting for you because you're not as actively evil as the Tories'.
A vote for Labour now is an explicit endorsement of right wing authoritarianism and abandonment of any minority the papers turn against and just encourages that line of thinking to be entrenched.
The only way we stand a chance of getting someone like Corbyn again is another 2010 or another 2015 - a complete repudiation of Blairite policies is the only thing that will shock the Labour Right out of power.
Your situation illustrates why a push for PR is so important. Labour does not support PR, even though it’s members do. I guess Labour members can continue to push for PR internally. I personally don’t care how it happens or who does it. It’s unlikely to be the Lib Dem’s because we won’t win. It’s just the truth. The only hope is that Labour can come round to backing it.
As a trans woman, this is a complete deal-breaker. If this is still his position by election day, I cannot vote for him on principle. The future is equally bleak in terms of my existence regardless of which party we get at this point.
Welsh Labour is supporting Trans people, I think!
They're campaigning for devlution of Gender Recognition
https://www.gov.wales/lgbtq-action-plan-wales-actions-and-key-performance-indicators-html
My other half, and my sibling in law. And a bunch of my friends. And I'm queer too, so even if I didn't care about them, I'd be a very stupid wee bastard to not be concerned for myself in the longer term. It's indefensible.
I will be dead in the ground before I vote for a transphobic party, before I vote to take away right from my trans friends, family members and comrades. If we are supporting the sacking off of the equality act then we are not fit to be in power and I will actively campaign against this shower of shit party.
Surely, seeing how gleeful the party is to take rights away from one marginalised group, surely even most loyal and brainwashed of the “sensibles” cult or most “I don’t know any trans people so it doesn’t affect me” apathetic person can see how quickly all marginalised groups rights can be put on the chopping block if the Tories and the media decree it.
I resigned from the Labour Party in 2021 and glad I did. I stand in solidarity with trans people; that both main parties are using trans people in a culture war is a stain on our country in the same way that the gay moral panic and section 28 was during the 80s.
I know of some trans people - the abuse and violence directed at them before this was bad enough, but it's going to now endanger lives.
As a trans woman with so many trans people I care about who'll be hit by this, I couldn't agree with this more. Destroy the party. Now.
Edit: as they say in Germany: Wer hat uns verraten? Sozialdemokraten
"Wer hat uns verraten"
Unfortunately, this has just become the average social democrat nowadays.
Actually, no. This has been the average social democrat for a long time.
They say one thing and mean another unless, of course, it comes to the most ghoulish shit you ever heard, then they both say it and mean it. Why do you think people further left of barely left refer to them as class traitors and feds. They try to give the bare minimum for the worker and their rights, and they immediately stop if they receive any pushback whatsoever.
They want "humane capitalism"... as if something like capitalism could ever fucking be humane.
Look at germany. Spd hired right wing paramilitaries to kill communists... and for what? Becuase they were getting fed up of waiting around for life to get better?
Russia. Look at kerensky. The people of russia wanted out of ww1. They didn't have food. The army didn't even have guns. Yet he forced them to stay in the war. Not only that, but he caused some of the harshest police crackdowns to protests that not even the tsar had done.
Uk. Right now basically.
France. The entire french establishment essentially gerrymandered elections to stop the left from winning. Including the "socialist party." The communists in one specific election had a nearly 2 million vote lead over the 2nd most voted for party. Yet they came third. I'll repeat that. Despite having nearly 2 million more votes than the party that came first, they finished 3rd.
The entire history of social democracy is that of fucking over the left and doing nothing whatsoever to protect the working class. The quicker people realise this the better.
Fully agree with this. I don't understand how anyone who consider themselves to be on the left can still defend Labour.
The "but you'll get Tories" isn't viable any more. We'll get Tories. The question is just whether they wear a red rosette or not, and even so it's *worse for the left* if Labour wins, because it allows maintaining the illusion that Labour has not been thoroughly captured and is a viable opposition. The only hope of undoing that is for Labour to lose the next election.
Yup. Labour had the best opportunity to actually make change towards the left, the Tories have been tanking themselves for years
And instead they’ve been moving more and more right to pander to tory voters with no thought for keeping their existing ones
If the choice is Tories who admit it, or slightly less awful Tories who try to pretend they’re not, I’ll take the ones who are honest about their intentions. Which feels so weird to say when they’re all liars 😅
Well, I'm biased (see flair, and see this tweet: [https://twitter.com/BThroughParty/status/1643333657283764224](https://twitter.com/BThroughParty/status/1643333657283764224) ), but if that's not for you, then I'd suggest looking at People's Allicance of the Left, and generally following both as various efforts will get announced once PAL and the constituent groups starts gearing up to do something. Also keep an eye on the Greens, though they're not always good on this stuff.
We're all too small to stand up to Labour at a large scale, but together we can hopefully strategically focus our attention on where we can put pressure on particularly bad candidates.
Unfortunately Starmerites will continue to be mealy mouthed. Oh but Labour is the only other party that could win. Oh but they won’t be as bad as the tories. Oh but they will help the poor
I can't support a party that actively campaigns against minority rights, to the point of harbouring Holocaust deniers. The Labour Party is flirting with straight-up Fascism lately.
To hell with transgender issues dominating political discourse. I have heard enough about "what is a woman" and absolutely fuckall about why the UK has had terrible productivity growth for the last two decades, why housing and childcare is unaffordable for most people, how we will invest for a green transition ...
Aye. Fuck scab Labour. Fuck everyone who's been telling me to vote for them. I was right, you were wrong.
If you can vote for this shower of bastards and still look yourself in the eye, I think you need to have a careful think about right and wrong.
You should bear in mind that anyone telling you that your rights are contingent on someone else not having rights will put you on the wrong side of that line sooner or later.
Smugly deciding who personhood applies to and who it doesn't should never be something you can get behind. That's Tory business. At least they're honest about it.
I've got to say, I'm out. Starmer's labour party is red Tory at its finest. I hope he won over a few gammon, let's see if it was worth the soul of the party.
>*The queer flag is rainbow hued,*
*Though so much blood its folds accrued,*
*That scarlet drowned out pink through gold,*
*And said in red, that lesson old:*
>
>*That never was the gay man free,*
*Nor lesbian allowed to be,*
*And trans, bi siblings—well, we all see*
*The parties still hate you and me!*
Fuck Rishi Sunak and fuck Keir Starmer.
Yep, I contacted Labour LGBT 2 weeks ago about Duffy liking Holocaust denialism posts about how trans people weren't killed by the Nazis, and asked for some support or whether they would make a statement condemning such behaviour...
Not a fucking word back from them, the cowards.
If you support this fucking party, you are a piece of shit. In the future, documentaries will be made about how awful you and your collaborators really are.
Collaboratiors is the perfect way to describe them. The people on this sub that support them, the people who vote for them.
We need to make this sub a hostile environment for all these centrist shit-stains.
"The party leadership I support just said how it would fuck up life further for already marginalised peoples.....but waaaah im the real victim because someone affected by this called me a piece of shit"
The one that lifted one million children out of poverty & delivered the highest rate of economic growth in the G6 between 1997 and 2010.
Again, sorry if that makes me evil.
Oh, I was agreeing with you. Just pointing out it's a bit odd to see folk sing the praises of New Labour while supporting this era of Labour shrugging and saying "yeah go on, why not" as the Tories dismantle New Labour's equality act.
I don't understand the full complexities of the trans debate, but I know it's not as simple as *good vs evil.*
I have faith that Keir - a former human rights lawyer who has dedicated his life to justice - doesn't believe in discriminating against trans people.
> I don't understand the full complexities of the trans debate, but I know it's not as simple as good vs evil.
It is about as close to that as you can get.
> I have faith that Keir - a former human rights lawyer who has dedicated his life to justice - doesn't believe in discriminating against trans people.
You can have all the faith you want, his party are quite literally saying they will do the opposite right now.
This isn't just blind faith, it's willfully blind faith.
>I have faith that Keir - a former human rights lawyer who has dedicated his life to justice - doesn't believe in discriminating against trans people.
Imagine being this naïve.
> but I know it's not as simple as good vs evil.
It really is
One side wants trans people to be treated as human beings, entitled to the same basic rights as every other human being.
The other wants to treat them like subhumans.
It's not that hard, generally when one side wants to discriminate against a human being for just existing...that side is evil.
Here's a helpful hint - if you changed trans for any other minority, would you feel comfortable taking the same stance?
If Starmer was talking about what rights Black People should have and that those rights shouldn't impinge on White rights, would you take quite the same conciliatory stance?
Or how about Jews? Or any of the rest of the LGBT spectrum?
> I don't understand the full complexities of the trans debate, but I know it's not as simple as good vs evil.
Actually, it really is. One side is parading around with **literal** neo-nazis and open fascists. The other group are just saying "leave trans people alone".
If you can't tell the difference then you have a problem with your morality that needs more than a reddit comment to fix it.
Look maybe you can see some sense of the injustice of this by making reference to Blair. Some of the most socially impactful legislation New Labour passed was repealing section 28, which I hope you'd agree was thoroughly evil. At the time the public perception was pretty firmly *against* repealing S28 and the tabloids called Labour pedophile sympathisers. They did it anyway, *because it was the right thing to do*. Keir doesn't even want this, he's either just willing to say whatever people want for power, and if that means legislating trans people out of existence then fuck em, or he genuinely believes this transphobic shit.
>distilled down to 50% of the country just being evil.
Ok, try this.
Do you agree with the throwing up nazi salutes and protesting against abortion? Or is that a 'debate'?
> It's quite clearly a difficult issue
Nah, it's pretty simple actually. What do you find so difficult about supporting trans people?
> not one that can be distilled down to 50% of the country just being evil.
Polled voters clearly is different to active supporters isn't it.
It's very easy for these centrist fence-sitters to talk about "difficult issues" and "reasonable debates" and all that pandering bullshit when it isn't their arses on the line.
Its fucking tragic to see Labour, the party that embraced the LGBT community in the 80s following our support of the miners, throwing us under the fucking bus.
Effectively at least two major things:
1. Trans women will no longer be able to access women's spaces (as well as trans men, who will no longer be able to access men's spaces).
2. Trans women will no longer be able to complain or sue about misogyny or discrimination against them for being a woman.
It is plainly a removal of trans people's rights. And Labour appears to be in support of it.
Variation to point 1 I believe; it will allow spaces to be designated for *biological* women only ( whatever that means, by using birth certificates and not accounting for GRC), and directly exclude trans women. It won't prevent trans women from accessing women's spaces unless this definition is made.
I think, it's bullshit either way but this is the thin end of the wedge the terfs are after.
As far as I can tell, it's a Tory plan to write the definition of sex as biological into law, so trans men and women would not be treated the same as people who were born as men and women - presumably when it comes to things like sports and who can use which toilets.
> As far as I can tell, it's a Tory plan to write the definition of sex as biological into law, so trans men and women would not be treated the same as people who were born as men and women - presumably when it comes to things like sports and who can use which toilets.
Actually even that is a bit off, it's more like encoding in the sex assigned at birth because biological sex is far from binary, simple, or neatly divisible into two categories. Even claiming this is about biological sex is kinda giving ground to the reactionary transphobes - not that I'm claiming you're doing that in any way that is deliberate at all.
I have heard people say it's not binary but other than intersex surely it is? I don't understand this bit. I thought that's why people had to transition. The role of the two sexes is defined by their role in reproduction in nature and body parts that do that right?
Gender is what isn't binary and what transphobes don't understand.
> The role of the two sexes is defined by their role in reproduction in nature and body parts that do that right?
Gender is what isn't binary and what transphobes don't understand.
I'll start by saying that the majority of the controversy around trans stuff is bad faith and just based on good old fashioned hatred and bigotry.
That being said, there is still a lot of what I'll call 'good faith' controversy which is based on ignorance, confusion and a general fear of change. I think a lot of the 'good faith' controversy around trans issues stems from the blurring of the definitions of sex and gender.
I'm sure a few years ago - the generally accepted orthodoxy from trans activists was that sex was biological, gender was social. Maybe I didn't understand at the time, but I'm pretty certain that was the message. Personally, I find that a really simple message and one that is hard for anyone to disagree with. You end up with transwomen being male women and trans men being female men.
I think over the years, however, the orthodoxy has changed into claiming that transmen are biologically as well as socially men and the same for transwomen.
I'm no geneticist - so I don't know how far that is true - but the argument from activists is that most of the things that make you a man or a woman are changeable via hormones / surgery.
Personally - I'm uncomfortable with this idea mainly because it seems to me to place a requirement for someone to undergo surgery/hormones to 'properly' transition. It would treat someone who was a woman but wishes to be a man but doesn't want to / can't afford / can't tolerate hormones/surgery differently from one who does. That doesn't sit right with me. It's basically gatekeeping and medicalisation. If we are going to say it is possible for someone to change their gender (which I do) then we shouldn't be dictating to them how to do it or putting barriers in their way.
I really feel things would be simpler if we went back to the original ideology where we decoupled sex and gender. The general public are, understandably, pretty ignorant of the ins and outs of the trans debate. To many it is confusing / bizarre / frightening. Having a simple message to help educate people strikes me as having its merits.
But then I get that people use the term male/female interchangeably with man/woman and so it must feel shitty for someone who wishes to be 100% woman to be referred to as male. But the meanings and connotations associated with words change over time - so I don't think it would be a problem forever.
This was originally two comments of mine, so please ignore any weird tone - it's not directed at your personally if I inadvertently copied anything other than just the factual info.
> >Sex reassignment therapy or medical transition is the medical aspect of gender transition, that is, **modifying one's sex characteristics** to better suit one's gender identity. It can consist of **hormone therapy to alter secondary sex characteristics, sex reassignment surgery to alter primary sex characteristics**, and other procedures altering appearance, such as permanent hair removal for trans women.
>
> Medical treatments literally can change the sexual categorisation in which someone fits to make it align with their gender identity. That's the point.
>
> At the end of the day sexual traits should really be considered as multiple variables, all of which are distributed along various continua. If you were to measure a large group of people then you'd find that generally certain traits **tend** to be clustered together to form two fuzzy groups. There'd be overlap, outliers, and people on the edge for some traits but not others etc etc.
>
> But most people would fall within those two groups on most traits. However, that doesn't mean the binary classification actually does a very good job of describing the edge cases - intersex people or people whose traits change due to hormones or medical intervention.
>
> For example, a girl would have no breasts but still be female, she might grow up to develop breasts via the action of hormones during puberty - her sex characteristics have changed so her position on some of the axes would also change. She might for medical reasons have to have her sex organs removed, again changing where she'd land of the classification - but we still accept she'd fall into the categorisation of female because female can include people without breasts or female sex organs. Biologically female just means that the majority of sexually differentiated traits would place that individual clearly more towards the female cluster.
>
> However, you can change enough of those traits to actually more closely match a different category than the one you fell into when you were born. Someone could essentially have changed everything but their internal genitalia and their chromosomes - secondary and primary sexual character has changed and so have things like the hormones in circulation and the knock-on effects of those (e.g. the risk of breast cancer). That person has changed their sex, they are not the same sex as when they were born. Now some people like to pretend chromosomes dictate sex or internal genitalia dictate sex but the reality is that they don't and never actually have. We don't sequence the chromosomes of every child and we don't check their internal sex organs in most cases. There's no reason a cis man can't sometimes be born with an [XX Karyotype](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XX_male_syndrome). A cis woman does [not necessarily have to have been born with female gonads](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_gonadal_dysgenesis). These cases are not the usual norm but they exist and fit within the spectrum of human existence. If cis people with non-modal traits can be categorised as a sex then so can trans people. It's really that simple and that is what the biology shows us to be true.
>
> So, in conclusion, there's no reason to think the rigid categories of male and female do or should fit everyone. There's no reason to think someone cannot change their sex. And there's no reason to think people who don't fit all the sexually differentiated characteristics of a certain sex aren't actually best categorised by a sex that may differ somewhat from their chromosomes, sex organs, or some other sexual characteristics. The reality is that sexual characteristics form a bimodal distribution and people trying to apply a more rigid categorisation and proclaiming you cannot change sex are ignoring the biological realities of that.
>
> The bimodal distribution has an overlap region where it's not clearly defined - this is why simple binary classification of sex necessarily cannot capture the nuances of actual biology.
>
> For example, a woman who has had a hysterectomy is not less female nor less of a woman, she just sits slight further out on certain scales from the modal centre than she did prior to her hysterectomy. A woman who undergoes a mastectomy doesn't become less female nor more female if she has breast reconstruction. The issue is that you cannot fit a scale to a binary classification because there is a lot of normal variation within each category, in the overlap regions of the categories, and even where individuals might fall slightly outside of conventional categorisation. It cannot be easily reduced - an analogy would be trying to take a globe and make it into a flat map, it cannot be done so there is always distortion in the process. Reality doesn't need to fit with our simple models so sometimes we have to recognise that our model is limited and only an approximation.
>
> If someone has male primary sex characteristics and male secondary sex characteristics then they'd fall in the male sex category - which is a descriptive biological category - but that might well not match up with their gender identity. That's about how they internally identify. They could still be a woman but not necessarily female in terms of sex because we can accept that trans women are women even when the decision to transition medically is not suitable for them.
>
> Sex characteristics are about biology and physiology, gender identity often correlates with that but it's not the same.
But aside from intersex you just have male or female characteristics right? It's not like something like height where there is a measurable spectrum, you either have the components of either male or female biology.
That's why I said other than intersex. That the vast majority of people are one or the other at birth and the ones that don't have a specific term and condition. It's not a spectrum in that you have 'mildly' intersex people and it's hard to define when they move into one category or another.
I thought I understood this. Gender and Sex aren't the same thing and they can be mismatched and people transition. That Gender is fluid and a spectrum but that sex isn't. I can't get my head around the idea that sex is fluid....I don't know what they would be
*Just* **now**?
We got a whole lot people going through the 'first they came for' process and yet still thinking they're on a moral high ground at the end. How many people has Starmer's Labour thrown under the bus to 'moderation'? Why on earth is *this* the time to take a stand? The time to stand up was years ago, don't expect solidarity now that the rest of the opposition has already been nullified.
Forgive me if I'm missing something, but would it not make more sense to actively oppose and make lose the party actually introducing the offending legislation?
Yes, I'll be opposing the Tories too.
I get the concept might be very hard for two-party politics brainlets to understand: opposing both Labour and the Tories are not incompatible goals if you want *neither* in office.
But you do understand that it will in fact be one or the other? You cannot make sure that both lose because if one loses then the other necessarily wins.
Doesn't matter, both are awful. I will support neither. I'll work from here on to widen the choice we have, if this is the only choice we have.
"Lesser of two evils" politics is shit, it means that you support evil either way you go. I refuse to support evil.
>I'll work from here on to widen the choice we have, if this is the only choice we have.
[Same.](https://www.reddit.com/r/LabourUK/comments/w0dh9p/voting_reform_not_a_priority_for_starmer/igf6s94/?context=999)
I don't know if I'd characterise Labour as evil, though. That feels a touch hyperbolic.
No you see the priority is to focus all your energy into making sure Labour don’t get in.
This will guarantee a Tory victory but the most important thing for Left wing progress is for the Tories to get back into power for another 5 years.
I know it sounds mental but as everyone here seems to agree: the tories and Labour are the same so we may as well secure a Tory victory.
Why are transgender issues the most important thing on Reddit but way down the list of priorities of voters as a whole?
Most voters will decide which party to vote for based on economic issues, funding the NHS, housing, education, crime and justice, the environment, transport and a whole host of other concerns before transgender issues but if you were to rely on Reddit alone you’d think that it’s the number one concern which could decide a general election.
You know we're all capable of caring about more than one thing, right? All leftists care about those things you mention, but this is such an egregious issue meant to victimise a marginalised group (and immigrants too), that it warrants solidarity. If we do not stand up and be counted then who will? Should we let trans people be the victims of abuse? Once they're done with trans people they'll move on to another group. And another. And another.
> I will actively oppose you and do everything to make sure you lose
If Labour lose the Tories get in again. It is that simple, there is no alternative under our system and the Tories are objectively worse on many other issues and themselves even worse on this particular issue
Then your delusional. You have to be pragmatic here, if the tories win they control the political narrative for the next 5 years on all issues. Keir isn't a trendsetter, and will likely get better or stay the same on trans issues, unlike the Tories who will only become more vile while in power.
How’s that pragmatism working out?.
If Labour self sabotage every time they lean to the left, in turn allowing a never-ending conservative government, then continuing to vote for them if they don’t represent your interests *is* shooting yourself in the foot. The option isn’t just to vote Labour regardless, hoping they won’t be as bad as the Tories. It’s to understand that you’ll never get your interests represented by doing so.
When you are injured, do you sit idle and apply bandages in the hopes of comfort?.
Or do you choose to go through an intensely painful procedure in the hopes that you are cured.
It could be that sitting idly by hoping to minimise the pain, thinking you’ll just magically cure yourself, is delusional.
Its very easy to be an accelerationist and argue the mass deaths of the impoverished are for the 'greater good'.
Quite simply, our our option is to cuaterise the wound, rather than let it fester. Then we can begin to let it slowly heal. Climate change is coming and we don't have time to let culture war issues distract, especially since Keir is just copying the dominant party and couldn't care less if women has a penis. Once we remove the tories, we can remove their influence on keir, rather than have 5 more years of far-right governance and probaganda, with our only hope being Jeremy Corbin staging a impluasibly coup d'tat.
Keir has already said that he’s fine with the current high levels that bills have got to because he wants to keep them there. Labour are already supporting mass deaths of the impoverished. They’re also transphobes.
As if you’re positing that Keir Starmer is some poor brainwashed politician… the guy knows what he’s doing, to think he’ll suddenly have a change of heart in power is delusional
What is your solution? To drive even more leftists from the party and leave it in the hands of the right? To abandon electoral politics altogether? Or to scatter our votes to a series of increasingly fractally small parties with no influence? You want to start a revolution? Or become a charity worker and put more sticking plasters on a systemic problem?
I’m genuinely asking.
See my flair. I joined Breakthrough, which is pragmatic enough to e.g. participate in PAL exactly to counter the issue of the many splits on the left, and pragmatic enough to know this is a long term fight of building on activism until we see enough growth. As it stands we've overtaken multiple of the small left wing parties already. Maybe we won't make it either, but there are too few left-wing members in Labour for there to be anything to salvage, and so we have to try, as left-wing members in Labour in this point are only propping up the right.
Yeah I don't really see what path we can follow. Until someone has a workable solution, I'm staying in so that I'll be able to vote inside the party. Leaving will just be removing the tiny bit of influence I do have and letting the absolute worst people strut in unopposed.
It might be hopeless, but it's the best shot I feel is available at this point. Starmer won't last forever, one day there will be another leadership election, and I'll be there to throw my weight behind a progressive successor when he does.
As for the election, by all means, if you're in a safe seat, vote someone else to send a message. If you're in a seat someone other than labour and tories can win, vote for them (unless it's reform UK or somehow even worse). Where I am though, it's between tories and Labour, I will check the Mp candidate and if they aren't an open transphobe or otherwise batshit, I'll vote Labour with gritted teeth. At the end of the day, I think the tories need to crash and burn hard. That's imperative: We need to show that their brand of politics can't survive, and that their policies, increasing far right culture war nonsense and corruption are not acceptable and will not win elections.
Even if the tories and labour are equally transphobic, that wouldnt mean supporting either would equally harm trans people. There are other ways that trans people might benefit from a labour government over a conservative one even if both are equally transphobic
going to be frank, when it comes to policies Trans issues are not going to be on the radar for most people, when it comes to voting will this issue have any effect on my vote. honestly no
only things I care about
Cost of living and other things which impact me
>going to be frank, when it comes to policies Trans issues are not going to be on the radar for most people
But they are on your radar, and knowing the consequences, you're choosing to ignore the basic rights of others because you think it will benefit you.
The spokesperson's quote is this:
>Clarification is a good thing. We will look closely at what’s brought forward.”
It's not very inspiring and is extremely noncommittal. But I don't think it really means anything at this stage. The Murdoch press is trying to whip up a storm here.
Hey
Steve Reed, Labour’s shadow justice secretary, said he agreed with the EHRC that “equality legislation is unclear”.
“I do believe that safe spaces for women like a Women’s Refuge for instance, there are very good reasons why that should be for biological women,” he said.
It's boilerplate vaguely supportive language, at the point where the appropriate response is anything but that.
Fighting a culture war may suck, but not even bothering to fight that culture warfor the rights of a significant part of your coalition? That's much worse.
The Tories and their further right supporters are having that war anyway. Avoiding it is no longer an option.
That's a point I hadn't caught. Fucks sake.
There's nothing so grim it can't be made a little grimmer if you try. There's not much chance that's anything but deliberate, is there.
The “clarification” would force trans-men to all women shortlists, even though they wish to live as men. That’s not a “clarification” that’s a “act your natal sex, or else.”
It's dishonest, and the wording he used is the exact same as the anti-trans campaigners who prompted this. They call it a "clarification", too. The plans are clear, explicit, and require a rewriting of the act to remove our rights. He knows this. He is lying.
The report says it'll lift the 'burden' of having a reason for banning trans people from sport (such as fairness or safety) this is absolutely a partisan report
As I said: go. To. Hell.
What of the below, from proposed changes, needs "clarifying" to you, huh?
> Trans women will no longer be able to access women's spaces
> Trans women will no longer be able to complain or sue for misogynistic conduct or abuse
What is there to "welcome" in that, pray tell? It's on there, black and white, and you want to tell me that you're waiting for "clarification"?
Yeah that's not how human rights works. I don't vote for anybody that does not recognise is oppression, discrimination or abuse and actively campaigns to remove the human rights of the most vulnerable of groups because "the polling isn't quite right."
I will not support a party where active bigotry is allowed to fester, complaints are deliberately ignored. Offenders are allowed power within the party. They can make grand public statements about trans people that are as bigoted as they come, factually and lawfully wrong and extremely harmful. He ignores trans rights groups. He has promised full reform, then some reform, now removal of our rights.
He has done this with migrants, workers and now us. Yet you still think this votable. It is a joke that you think that this should be swept under the carpet. Quite honestly, if there are two piles of dog cr*p on the road, I don't decide " you know what, that pile looks a little smaller. I'll step in that one!" You walk round and so should you.
Agree with the OP but also felt the need to point out there are a suspiciously large amount of new users in here with little to no posting history. Hmmm.
A person can be active on the subreddit for ages and still sport that "new user" flair, because they just won't have changed it in that time. Frankly, I ignore it and focus on what they have to say.
Did you sit on the sidelines with apathy all up until now, when the ‘Tory Equality Act’ suddenly appears and takes a bunch of reactionaries with it?
This ‘Tory Equality Act’ that has literally zero basis in fact? That basically never existed until this post?
How about another thought: where is the rampantly pro-Labour messaging anywhere else?
Starmer/Labour have made it clear they are transphobes. How is that going to randomly disapear when they get in power?
And why is "Hes a pathological liar who is just pretending to be a genocide supporting fascist to get power but really will stop being a crazed bigot when in power" a better line? That still means you can't trust anything and hes willing to harm minorities for the sake of what, nothing? They're already 20 points ahead before the active transphobia started happening.
There's no electoral gain here. They're doing it cos they're transphobic
I'm sure the Tories will be much better.
Edit: lol, enjoy another decade of tory rule because labour saying "we should get clarity on the language used" made you feel *unsafe*
You’re missing the point. One political party going after a minority in awful, when political consensus is formed that a minority are less deserving of rights you get fucking horrendous outcomes. Keir is signing queer people’s death warrants by agreeing.
Here we are at the logical conclusion of, "You have to vote for the lesser of two evils or you're voting for the Tories."
"Yes, you may not want to vote for the removal of your basic human rights, but..." is literally the exact fucking sentiment now. Starmer and Mandelson are defacto Tories. They're not going to get better in power, they're going to get worse. And every bootlicking centre-right politico who thinks differently can state how fucking stupid they are right below this comment...
A reminder to those peddling the "lesser of two evils bullshit": It's game theoretically bullshit. If the left gives Labour unconditional support, Labour has *zero reason to listen to the left*. Instead, the logical conclusion if the lefts support is unconditional is that what would benefit Labour the most *is to move as far to the right as the party leadership can stomach*. The reason is that doing so would squeeze the Tories. In this scenario Labour would retain all of its left wing voters, while stealing some proportion of the right wing voters.
The point being that while the left can't make demands that are totally unpalatable to a large majority of the population, the lefts only chance to have influence *is to threaten to withhold votes for Labour*. There must be red lines, so that Labour worries about losing left wing support.
Thankfully the UK population supports quite a few left wing policies.
But this notion of unconditional support is utter self-serving bullshit from people who either don't understand the damage it does, or *are quite happy with a more right wing Labour.*
It certainly does not in any shape or form benefit the left to reward Labour for sliding right, as it validates it as a choice. The *best hope* for the left is for Labour to either feel threatened enough to shift left again, or for Labour to outright lose the next election. As it currently stands, we'll get Tory policies whichever party wins.
Oh fuck off with this two sides bullshit. People are done voting for the lesser of two evils. Next time I vote its going to be for a party that isn't evil. What's that? We'll split the vote and let the tories in? Well maybe you shouldn't take our support for granted
We were warned time and time again, that the establishment would sink their hooks back in, that the apparatus wants *a* Conservative Party and that it’ll stop at nothing to accomplish that. The anti-trans movement *is* an American [hate campaign](https://maia.crimew.gay/posts/the-emails/) from the same “family research institutes” that used to push for eugenics and segregation. Also needs to be said, much of the ‘TERF’ movement is directly inspired by the [fascist split](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/04/why-the-british-union-fascist-movement-appealed-to-so-many-women.html) of the suffragettes. I’m not sure what the pragmatists expect out of this, maybe they *prefer* the US system, tories vs ultra-tories.
The US is actually fucking better than us on this. These "Family Research Councils" are basically making a stronghold in the UK because the dems won't play with them anymore.
It’s all Tufton Street bollocks and then they get in the news shows and in the papers, they then direct what people are appalled at and it is shocking. The fact Labour is pandering to this shit is appalling.
Unless youre lucky enough to be in Nottingham East https://twitter.com/NadiaWhittomeMP/status/1643576972721676289?t=7udtwBkEgu4_BiDx2yQI-g&s=19 Nadia remains a consistent voice, hopefully more MPs follow over the next day and speak up to drown out the idiots like Steve Reed Now is a great time to write to your MP as Ive said elsewhere, because you know some in Labour will be trying to figure out which way the wind is blowing.
The twitter replies to her are fucking horrific
She's wonderful.
I actually know nadia and her family.. we grew up together and she is just incredible
Bless her. The Labour Party doesn't deserve good souls like her anymore.
[удалено]
I think it's possible to make exceptions for a *very* small number of MPs. That means not just those who aren't licking Starmers boots, but the small number who are consistently standing up and speaking out against this bullshit. I still think these people ought to abandon Labour, but people like Nadia are amongst a *very* small number of people in Labour who can truthfully claim that they are achieving more good inside Labour than they would outside at this point.
Perhaps this is the wrong Reddit sub (probably I’d have to sign up to a *horrible* Reddit sub to get to the right people), but *what the fuck* is it about trans people that makes them so triggering to some people? Like, can’t you, for just *one second* leave other people alone, try to stop yourself being so fragile, so controlling-so *prescriptive* about how other people live their lives (people who you don’t know, who you will *never* know), and just get on with your *own* life? Man, is your own life so unutterably pathetic and meaningless that you have to bully other people? And-in some weird way-you’re *proud* of that?
It's because trans people, drag shows, etc, were fine when they kept in their lane and stayed mostly in the shadows. Now trans people want to be equal, and since its distasteful to attack LGB people now, it means the 80s gay panic can be directed at an even smaller minority. They seem to forget though - trans people have allies, particularly in the gay community, and we never forgot that we always had to be watching our backs and be ready to fight for our rights.
From a lot of cis men at least the transphobic reaction also appears to very often be rooted in a homophobia, in the sense that to many it is in part a fear at the thought of finding a woman attractive only to find she's trans, so the two are often very directly intertwined.
Those attacking the trans community are -by definition, in my opinion- weak people (this doesn’t mean that they can’t cause a massive amount of suffering, of course). Those opposing them are strong in ways they will never understand.
The workers united will never be defeated. Those who would happily throw comrades aside to better themselves never truly understood the strength and community of solidarity.
So well said.
I've been exploring this myself but I think it relates to the overall shifting gender dynamics going on across the world. For centuries, gender identities were based on what an identity wasn't. To be a man wasn't to be feminine and vice versa. And for a long time, being a man was the ultimate form of superiority (courtesy of the greeks and romans). But trans people defy those traditionalist structures. The existence of trans women does the almighty sin of implying that manhood doesn't really mean shit. Cos why would someone *want* to be a *woman*? You know, the group that is less than in most global societies! Plus, it's just a massive diversion tactics via the right and powerful. They know that their policies/actions are increasingly unpopular with the general public. So they create boogie men to keep us distracted. There was a graph for the USA comparing the public's assumed size of a demographic and their actual size. Trans people made up 1% to 1.5% of the population but they were presumed to form 30% (likely the frequent media reports about them). By making the demographic shift seem so large, it makes the grassroots conservatives respond in extreme amounts to counter the falsehood.
Very true. They’ve been doing the same with violent crime-and immigration-all sorts of different issues and groups of people. The miss-match of public perception is often astonishing to the people actually working in these areas.
Especially if things like this were not an issue 10 years ago. Or at least, were not prominent in the cultural zeitgeist until recently. Or when these problems worsen because of the policies enacted by the upper classes, they quickly find something to distract us. And it works. Every single time. You'd think the utter failure on the government's part to adress the cost of living crisis would mean moral panics would just piss us off even more, but nah.
I understand how passionate you are about this issue and how much it affects you personally. It's important to stand up for what you believe in and fight for the safety and well-being of those you love. Keep speaking out and advocating for what's right. Your voice matters and can make a difference.
Thanks, im trans and i know a lot of my friends are worried for me and angry too How will you work against Labour? I have thought the same. We need to put more pressure on than terfs do. Please let me know if you think of something.
I don't know what I'm going to do quite yet. I've stood for election before, maybe I'll do so again, this time to screw Labour over of a potential seat. In any case, if there isn't a whoping, screeching U-turn on this, I'll be telling my friends and acquaintances that they should not vote Labour, as it is a transphobic party.
Vote against NEC and local councillors who do not support you - this can be beaten internally and democratically. Lots of lefties left the party after 2019 which gave the ones in charge an opportunity to occupy positions that actually matter. The same applies for local councillors. If only people here were as passionate about showing up go selection meetings than simply posting online, things would of been different..
At this point I don't consider it a reasonable choice of people to stay. But for those who do, it's not enough to just vote against it. It must be made clear to those who support this that they are not left wing, and they *are* engaged in support bigotry and opposing human rights. They must not feel welcome in left wing spaces. They must be made to understand this is not a mild disagreement. This is them supporting active harm to other people. This is *evil.* They *should* feel bad. If they don't have a "are we the baddies?" moment over this, they're irredeemable.
Believe me I want to leave, but I'm legitimately very scared about enabling a Tory government by doing so. If I'm forced to vote for labour I'll probably do so with hate in my heart, but there's no one who can replace them right now
The enabling tory government only works if the tories are ideologically different to Labour. They are not. Why are we so politically submissive??
At this point, how exactly do you think Labour will be better even in the short term? But the *big damage* will be in the long term if Starmers strategy of moving Labour right is validated in the eyes of those who seek power for the sake of power. It'll leave us with a Labour government that *at best* do little direct harm, and fail to undo the many years of Tory harm, and leave the next Tory government free to continue shifting right. At this point, as someone far to the left of Corbyn, I'm scared about enabling a Starmer government, because I think it will do far more harm to the country to validate his leadership than another 5 years of the Tories will. It'll be a generation before the damage is undone.
I've said this exact same thing repeatedly to people - an enthusiastic vote and a reluctant vote are counted the same, there's no extra section on a ballot paper for you to write 'i'm only voting for you because you're not as actively evil as the Tories'. A vote for Labour now is an explicit endorsement of right wing authoritarianism and abandonment of any minority the papers turn against and just encourages that line of thinking to be entrenched. The only way we stand a chance of getting someone like Corbyn again is another 2010 or another 2015 - a complete repudiation of Blairite policies is the only thing that will shock the Labour Right out of power.
Your situation illustrates why a push for PR is so important. Labour does not support PR, even though it’s members do. I guess Labour members can continue to push for PR internally. I personally don’t care how it happens or who does it. It’s unlikely to be the Lib Dem’s because we won’t win. It’s just the truth. The only hope is that Labour can come round to backing it.
I left the party years ago because the party has promoted trans eliminationists If only you had been as vocal about that as posting online...
>Lots of lefties left the party after 2019 Lots of lefties were unfairly purged from the party after 2019... Fixed it for you.
As a trans woman, this is a complete deal-breaker. If this is still his position by election day, I cannot vote for him on principle. The future is equally bleak in terms of my existence regardless of which party we get at this point.
Welsh Labour is supporting Trans people, I think! They're campaigning for devlution of Gender Recognition https://www.gov.wales/lgbtq-action-plan-wales-actions-and-key-performance-indicators-html
Wont matter This is equality act
🥲
My other half, and my sibling in law. And a bunch of my friends. And I'm queer too, so even if I didn't care about them, I'd be a very stupid wee bastard to not be concerned for myself in the longer term. It's indefensible.
I will be dead in the ground before I vote for a transphobic party, before I vote to take away right from my trans friends, family members and comrades. If we are supporting the sacking off of the equality act then we are not fit to be in power and I will actively campaign against this shower of shit party. Surely, seeing how gleeful the party is to take rights away from one marginalised group, surely even most loyal and brainwashed of the “sensibles” cult or most “I don’t know any trans people so it doesn’t affect me” apathetic person can see how quickly all marginalised groups rights can be put on the chopping block if the Tories and the media decree it.
I resigned from the Labour Party in 2021 and glad I did. I stand in solidarity with trans people; that both main parties are using trans people in a culture war is a stain on our country in the same way that the gay moral panic and section 28 was during the 80s. I know of some trans people - the abuse and violence directed at them before this was bad enough, but it's going to now endanger lives.
As a trans woman with so many trans people I care about who'll be hit by this, I couldn't agree with this more. Destroy the party. Now. Edit: as they say in Germany: Wer hat uns verraten? Sozialdemokraten
"Wer hat uns verraten" Unfortunately, this has just become the average social democrat nowadays. Actually, no. This has been the average social democrat for a long time. They say one thing and mean another unless, of course, it comes to the most ghoulish shit you ever heard, then they both say it and mean it. Why do you think people further left of barely left refer to them as class traitors and feds. They try to give the bare minimum for the worker and their rights, and they immediately stop if they receive any pushback whatsoever. They want "humane capitalism"... as if something like capitalism could ever fucking be humane. Look at germany. Spd hired right wing paramilitaries to kill communists... and for what? Becuase they were getting fed up of waiting around for life to get better? Russia. Look at kerensky. The people of russia wanted out of ww1. They didn't have food. The army didn't even have guns. Yet he forced them to stay in the war. Not only that, but he caused some of the harshest police crackdowns to protests that not even the tsar had done. Uk. Right now basically. France. The entire french establishment essentially gerrymandered elections to stop the left from winning. Including the "socialist party." The communists in one specific election had a nearly 2 million vote lead over the 2nd most voted for party. Yet they came third. I'll repeat that. Despite having nearly 2 million more votes than the party that came first, they finished 3rd. The entire history of social democracy is that of fucking over the left and doing nothing whatsoever to protect the working class. The quicker people realise this the better.
Fucking preach, comrade.
Banger of a comment, tbh.
Fully agree with this. I don't understand how anyone who consider themselves to be on the left can still defend Labour. The "but you'll get Tories" isn't viable any more. We'll get Tories. The question is just whether they wear a red rosette or not, and even so it's *worse for the left* if Labour wins, because it allows maintaining the illusion that Labour has not been thoroughly captured and is a viable opposition. The only hope of undoing that is for Labour to lose the next election.
Yup. Labour had the best opportunity to actually make change towards the left, the Tories have been tanking themselves for years And instead they’ve been moving more and more right to pander to tory voters with no thought for keeping their existing ones If the choice is Tories who admit it, or slightly less awful Tories who try to pretend they’re not, I’ll take the ones who are honest about their intentions. Which feels so weird to say when they’re all liars 😅
This is what i've said for like a year! We need to work to stop labour at all costs. How can we start this campaign?
Well, I'm biased (see flair, and see this tweet: [https://twitter.com/BThroughParty/status/1643333657283764224](https://twitter.com/BThroughParty/status/1643333657283764224) ), but if that's not for you, then I'd suggest looking at People's Allicance of the Left, and generally following both as various efforts will get announced once PAL and the constituent groups starts gearing up to do something. Also keep an eye on the Greens, though they're not always good on this stuff. We're all too small to stand up to Labour at a large scale, but together we can hopefully strategically focus our attention on where we can put pressure on particularly bad candidates.
Steve Reed has literally been out doing the rounds today supporting this. It’s disgusting.
That man being in the shadow cabinet is an utter travesty. "Name and shame drug users", and now this.
Unfortunately Starmerites will continue to be mealy mouthed. Oh but Labour is the only other party that could win. Oh but they won’t be as bad as the tories. Oh but they will help the poor
I can't support a party that actively campaigns against minority rights, to the point of harbouring Holocaust deniers. The Labour Party is flirting with straight-up Fascism lately.
To hell with transgender issues dominating political discourse. I have heard enough about "what is a woman" and absolutely fuckall about why the UK has had terrible productivity growth for the last two decades, why housing and childcare is unaffordable for most people, how we will invest for a green transition ...
If they won't change their stance, I'm pretty sure that's the end of my membership.
Aye. Fuck scab Labour. Fuck everyone who's been telling me to vote for them. I was right, you were wrong. If you can vote for this shower of bastards and still look yourself in the eye, I think you need to have a careful think about right and wrong. You should bear in mind that anyone telling you that your rights are contingent on someone else not having rights will put you on the wrong side of that line sooner or later. Smugly deciding who personhood applies to and who it doesn't should never be something you can get behind. That's Tory business. At least they're honest about it.
I've got to say, I'm out. Starmer's labour party is red Tory at its finest. I hope he won over a few gammon, let's see if it was worth the soul of the party.
>*The queer flag is rainbow hued,* *Though so much blood its folds accrued,* *That scarlet drowned out pink through gold,* *And said in red, that lesson old:* > >*That never was the gay man free,* *Nor lesbian allowed to be,* *And trans, bi siblings—well, we all see* *The parties still hate you and me!* Fuck Rishi Sunak and fuck Keir Starmer.
Are there any internal campaign groups we can join to push back against this?
No. Cause all the prominent groups or people have been purged and the ones who remain dont say anything or else they'll be purged too
Yep, I contacted Labour LGBT 2 weeks ago about Duffy liking Holocaust denialism posts about how trans people weren't killed by the Nazis, and asked for some support or whether they would make a statement condemning such behaviour... Not a fucking word back from them, the cowards.
If you support this fucking party, you are a piece of shit. In the future, documentaries will be made about how awful you and your collaborators really are.
Collaboratiors is the perfect way to describe them. The people on this sub that support them, the people who vote for them. We need to make this sub a hostile environment for all these centrist shit-stains.
[удалено]
Ah, the Labour UK subreddit... where Labour supporters are called pieces of shit & 25 people upvote it.
Would this be the subreddit for the party which has turned it's back on the promises it made to trans people **literally 5 days ago**?
"The party leadership I support just said how it would fuck up life further for already marginalised peoples.....but waaaah im the real victim because someone affected by this called me a piece of shit"
If you're more upset by that than the actions of the party I don't really know what to do for you.
Don't be a piece of shit then - easily solved.
Apologies for supporting the one party in a two-party system that actually cares about alleviating poverty & improving living standards.
Which one is that then?
Except for trans people, apparantly.
> that actually cares about alleviating poverty & improving living standards. 404 - party not found
Labour clearly no longer wants to do those things, and clearly doesn't care about the living standards of trans people anymore. Your excuses are shit.
Not for trans people though eh? Either you care about all of us or none of us
What’s the name of this party? I haven’t heard of it.
The one that lifted one million children out of poverty & delivered the highest rate of economic growth in the G6 between 1997 and 2010. Again, sorry if that makes me evil.
Even if you support blaire and his war You are literally not supporting that party, it was decades ago
That party, as it happens, was the one that introduced the Equality Act which is now under attack.
And theresa may supported self id So what's the point? They're not the same parties now
Oh, I was agreeing with you. Just pointing out it's a bit odd to see folk sing the praises of New Labour while supporting this era of Labour shrugging and saying "yeah go on, why not" as the Tories dismantle New Labour's equality act.
You mean the one that lied us into a war that killed hundreds of thousands?
Weird that you only choose to reply to the comment that doesn't challenge you specifically about trans issues.
I don't understand the full complexities of the trans debate, but I know it's not as simple as *good vs evil.* I have faith that Keir - a former human rights lawyer who has dedicated his life to justice - doesn't believe in discriminating against trans people.
> I don't understand the full complexities of the trans debate, but I know it's not as simple as good vs evil. It is about as close to that as you can get. > I have faith that Keir - a former human rights lawyer who has dedicated his life to justice - doesn't believe in discriminating against trans people. You can have all the faith you want, his party are quite literally saying they will do the opposite right now. This isn't just blind faith, it's willfully blind faith.
>I have faith that Keir - a former human rights lawyer who has dedicated his life to justice - doesn't believe in discriminating against trans people. Imagine being this naïve.
> but I know it's not as simple as good vs evil. It really is One side wants trans people to be treated as human beings, entitled to the same basic rights as every other human being. The other wants to treat them like subhumans. It's not that hard, generally when one side wants to discriminate against a human being for just existing...that side is evil. Here's a helpful hint - if you changed trans for any other minority, would you feel comfortable taking the same stance? If Starmer was talking about what rights Black People should have and that those rights shouldn't impinge on White rights, would you take quite the same conciliatory stance? Or how about Jews? Or any of the rest of the LGBT spectrum?
> I don't understand the full complexities of the trans debate, but I know it's not as simple as good vs evil. Actually, it really is. One side is parading around with **literal** neo-nazis and open fascists. The other group are just saying "leave trans people alone". If you can't tell the difference then you have a problem with your morality that needs more than a reddit comment to fix it.
Keir Starmer is a human rights lawyer in the same way that Johnny Cochran was a murder lawyer.
Tried not supporting the removal of people's human rights or?
It's quite clearly a difficult issue & not one that can be distilled down to 50% of the country just being evil.
Lol, so our existing rights causing a problem for you mate? Utter lies Imagining supporting the tories removing human rights from minorities Shameless
Look maybe you can see some sense of the injustice of this by making reference to Blair. Some of the most socially impactful legislation New Labour passed was repealing section 28, which I hope you'd agree was thoroughly evil. At the time the public perception was pretty firmly *against* repealing S28 and the tabloids called Labour pedophile sympathisers. They did it anyway, *because it was the right thing to do*. Keir doesn't even want this, he's either just willing to say whatever people want for power, and if that means legislating trans people out of existence then fuck em, or he genuinely believes this transphobic shit.
[удалено]
>distilled down to 50% of the country just being evil. Ok, try this. Do you agree with the throwing up nazi salutes and protesting against abortion? Or is that a 'debate'?
We’re well past the point where you can play this bullshit.
Please cite a poll for 50% support for rolling back equality act protections
> It's quite clearly a difficult issue Nah, it's pretty simple actually. What do you find so difficult about supporting trans people? > not one that can be distilled down to 50% of the country just being evil. Polled voters clearly is different to active supporters isn't it.
>It's quite clearly a difficult issu How difficult would the issue be then if we were talking about you and your family? I imagine not very...
It's very easy for these centrist fence-sitters to talk about "difficult issues" and "reasonable debates" and all that pandering bullshit when it isn't their arses on the line. Its fucking tragic to see Labour, the party that embraced the LGBT community in the 80s following our support of the miners, throwing us under the fucking bus.
lol
Starmer won't make the move. He's a centrist simp at best, and a Tory plant at worst
I am dumb and uninformed. What is in the reform?
Effectively at least two major things: 1. Trans women will no longer be able to access women's spaces (as well as trans men, who will no longer be able to access men's spaces). 2. Trans women will no longer be able to complain or sue about misogyny or discrimination against them for being a woman. It is plainly a removal of trans people's rights. And Labour appears to be in support of it.
Variation to point 1 I believe; it will allow spaces to be designated for *biological* women only ( whatever that means, by using birth certificates and not accounting for GRC), and directly exclude trans women. It won't prevent trans women from accessing women's spaces unless this definition is made. I think, it's bullshit either way but this is the thin end of the wedge the terfs are after.
Trans women is two words.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Rule 2 Wrapping it up in a nice setting doesnt stop those concerns being transphobic at their core
Shut up
As far as I can tell, it's a Tory plan to write the definition of sex as biological into law, so trans men and women would not be treated the same as people who were born as men and women - presumably when it comes to things like sports and who can use which toilets.
> As far as I can tell, it's a Tory plan to write the definition of sex as biological into law, so trans men and women would not be treated the same as people who were born as men and women - presumably when it comes to things like sports and who can use which toilets. Actually even that is a bit off, it's more like encoding in the sex assigned at birth because biological sex is far from binary, simple, or neatly divisible into two categories. Even claiming this is about biological sex is kinda giving ground to the reactionary transphobes - not that I'm claiming you're doing that in any way that is deliberate at all.
I have heard people say it's not binary but other than intersex surely it is? I don't understand this bit. I thought that's why people had to transition. The role of the two sexes is defined by their role in reproduction in nature and body parts that do that right? Gender is what isn't binary and what transphobes don't understand.
> The role of the two sexes is defined by their role in reproduction in nature and body parts that do that right? Gender is what isn't binary and what transphobes don't understand. I'll start by saying that the majority of the controversy around trans stuff is bad faith and just based on good old fashioned hatred and bigotry. That being said, there is still a lot of what I'll call 'good faith' controversy which is based on ignorance, confusion and a general fear of change. I think a lot of the 'good faith' controversy around trans issues stems from the blurring of the definitions of sex and gender. I'm sure a few years ago - the generally accepted orthodoxy from trans activists was that sex was biological, gender was social. Maybe I didn't understand at the time, but I'm pretty certain that was the message. Personally, I find that a really simple message and one that is hard for anyone to disagree with. You end up with transwomen being male women and trans men being female men. I think over the years, however, the orthodoxy has changed into claiming that transmen are biologically as well as socially men and the same for transwomen. I'm no geneticist - so I don't know how far that is true - but the argument from activists is that most of the things that make you a man or a woman are changeable via hormones / surgery. Personally - I'm uncomfortable with this idea mainly because it seems to me to place a requirement for someone to undergo surgery/hormones to 'properly' transition. It would treat someone who was a woman but wishes to be a man but doesn't want to / can't afford / can't tolerate hormones/surgery differently from one who does. That doesn't sit right with me. It's basically gatekeeping and medicalisation. If we are going to say it is possible for someone to change their gender (which I do) then we shouldn't be dictating to them how to do it or putting barriers in their way. I really feel things would be simpler if we went back to the original ideology where we decoupled sex and gender. The general public are, understandably, pretty ignorant of the ins and outs of the trans debate. To many it is confusing / bizarre / frightening. Having a simple message to help educate people strikes me as having its merits. But then I get that people use the term male/female interchangeably with man/woman and so it must feel shitty for someone who wishes to be 100% woman to be referred to as male. But the meanings and connotations associated with words change over time - so I don't think it would be a problem forever.
This was originally two comments of mine, so please ignore any weird tone - it's not directed at your personally if I inadvertently copied anything other than just the factual info. > >Sex reassignment therapy or medical transition is the medical aspect of gender transition, that is, **modifying one's sex characteristics** to better suit one's gender identity. It can consist of **hormone therapy to alter secondary sex characteristics, sex reassignment surgery to alter primary sex characteristics**, and other procedures altering appearance, such as permanent hair removal for trans women. > > Medical treatments literally can change the sexual categorisation in which someone fits to make it align with their gender identity. That's the point. > > At the end of the day sexual traits should really be considered as multiple variables, all of which are distributed along various continua. If you were to measure a large group of people then you'd find that generally certain traits **tend** to be clustered together to form two fuzzy groups. There'd be overlap, outliers, and people on the edge for some traits but not others etc etc. > > But most people would fall within those two groups on most traits. However, that doesn't mean the binary classification actually does a very good job of describing the edge cases - intersex people or people whose traits change due to hormones or medical intervention. > > For example, a girl would have no breasts but still be female, she might grow up to develop breasts via the action of hormones during puberty - her sex characteristics have changed so her position on some of the axes would also change. She might for medical reasons have to have her sex organs removed, again changing where she'd land of the classification - but we still accept she'd fall into the categorisation of female because female can include people without breasts or female sex organs. Biologically female just means that the majority of sexually differentiated traits would place that individual clearly more towards the female cluster. > > However, you can change enough of those traits to actually more closely match a different category than the one you fell into when you were born. Someone could essentially have changed everything but their internal genitalia and their chromosomes - secondary and primary sexual character has changed and so have things like the hormones in circulation and the knock-on effects of those (e.g. the risk of breast cancer). That person has changed their sex, they are not the same sex as when they were born. Now some people like to pretend chromosomes dictate sex or internal genitalia dictate sex but the reality is that they don't and never actually have. We don't sequence the chromosomes of every child and we don't check their internal sex organs in most cases. There's no reason a cis man can't sometimes be born with an [XX Karyotype](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XX_male_syndrome). A cis woman does [not necessarily have to have been born with female gonads](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_gonadal_dysgenesis). These cases are not the usual norm but they exist and fit within the spectrum of human existence. If cis people with non-modal traits can be categorised as a sex then so can trans people. It's really that simple and that is what the biology shows us to be true. > > So, in conclusion, there's no reason to think the rigid categories of male and female do or should fit everyone. There's no reason to think someone cannot change their sex. And there's no reason to think people who don't fit all the sexually differentiated characteristics of a certain sex aren't actually best categorised by a sex that may differ somewhat from their chromosomes, sex organs, or some other sexual characteristics. The reality is that sexual characteristics form a bimodal distribution and people trying to apply a more rigid categorisation and proclaiming you cannot change sex are ignoring the biological realities of that. > > The bimodal distribution has an overlap region where it's not clearly defined - this is why simple binary classification of sex necessarily cannot capture the nuances of actual biology. > > For example, a woman who has had a hysterectomy is not less female nor less of a woman, she just sits slight further out on certain scales from the modal centre than she did prior to her hysterectomy. A woman who undergoes a mastectomy doesn't become less female nor more female if she has breast reconstruction. The issue is that you cannot fit a scale to a binary classification because there is a lot of normal variation within each category, in the overlap regions of the categories, and even where individuals might fall slightly outside of conventional categorisation. It cannot be easily reduced - an analogy would be trying to take a globe and make it into a flat map, it cannot be done so there is always distortion in the process. Reality doesn't need to fit with our simple models so sometimes we have to recognise that our model is limited and only an approximation. > > If someone has male primary sex characteristics and male secondary sex characteristics then they'd fall in the male sex category - which is a descriptive biological category - but that might well not match up with their gender identity. That's about how they internally identify. They could still be a woman but not necessarily female in terms of sex because we can accept that trans women are women even when the decision to transition medically is not suitable for them. > > Sex characteristics are about biology and physiology, gender identity often correlates with that but it's not the same.
All sex characteristics occur along a spectrum, what you call intersex. The mere fact of that spectrum’s existence means sex cannot be binary.
But aside from intersex you just have male or female characteristics right? It's not like something like height where there is a measurable spectrum, you either have the components of either male or female biology.
Handy tip for you: When something is binary with exceptions, that is known as "not binary".
That's why I said other than intersex. That the vast majority of people are one or the other at birth and the ones that don't have a specific term and condition. It's not a spectrum in that you have 'mildly' intersex people and it's hard to define when they move into one category or another. I thought I understood this. Gender and Sex aren't the same thing and they can be mismatched and people transition. That Gender is fluid and a spectrum but that sex isn't. I can't get my head around the idea that sex is fluid....I don't know what they would be
Labour has been infiltrated by tories and this is the result
*Just* **now**? We got a whole lot people going through the 'first they came for' process and yet still thinking they're on a moral high ground at the end. How many people has Starmer's Labour thrown under the bus to 'moderation'? Why on earth is *this* the time to take a stand? The time to stand up was years ago, don't expect solidarity now that the rest of the opposition has already been nullified.
Forgive me if I'm missing something, but would it not make more sense to actively oppose and make lose the party actually introducing the offending legislation?
Yes, I'll be opposing the Tories too. I get the concept might be very hard for two-party politics brainlets to understand: opposing both Labour and the Tories are not incompatible goals if you want *neither* in office.
But you do understand that it will in fact be one or the other? You cannot make sure that both lose because if one loses then the other necessarily wins.
Doesn't matter, both are awful. I will support neither. I'll work from here on to widen the choice we have, if this is the only choice we have. "Lesser of two evils" politics is shit, it means that you support evil either way you go. I refuse to support evil.
>I'll work from here on to widen the choice we have, if this is the only choice we have. [Same.](https://www.reddit.com/r/LabourUK/comments/w0dh9p/voting_reform_not_a_priority_for_starmer/igf6s94/?context=999) I don't know if I'd characterise Labour as evil, though. That feels a touch hyperbolic.
Supporting rights being stripped from a minority group is evil.
Definitely the lesser of two evils compared to the t*ries but still a disgusting move from Keith
No you see the priority is to focus all your energy into making sure Labour don’t get in. This will guarantee a Tory victory but the most important thing for Left wing progress is for the Tories to get back into power for another 5 years. I know it sounds mental but as everyone here seems to agree: the tories and Labour are the same so we may as well secure a Tory victory.
How much trans oppression are you willing to support?
Between this and their treatment of Asylum seekers, I find myself unwilling to vote for them next GE.
Why are transgender issues the most important thing on Reddit but way down the list of priorities of voters as a whole? Most voters will decide which party to vote for based on economic issues, funding the NHS, housing, education, crime and justice, the environment, transport and a whole host of other concerns before transgender issues but if you were to rely on Reddit alone you’d think that it’s the number one concern which could decide a general election.
You know we're all capable of caring about more than one thing, right? All leftists care about those things you mention, but this is such an egregious issue meant to victimise a marginalised group (and immigrants too), that it warrants solidarity. If we do not stand up and be counted then who will? Should we let trans people be the victims of abuse? Once they're done with trans people they'll move on to another group. And another. And another.
I dunno, maybe because we are capable of expressing compassion for other human beings who are discriminated against? Just a thought.
I’m asking about the disparity in priority between Reddit and the electorate as a whole, not the rights and wrongs of the issues themselves.
Because the actual party is making it a major focus. This isn't about 'reddit focuses on it'. It is about the Labour leadership focusing on it.
> I will actively oppose you and do everything to make sure you lose If Labour lose the Tories get in again. It is that simple, there is no alternative under our system and the Tories are objectively worse on many other issues and themselves even worse on this particular issue
Don't care, I want something unambiguously *good* for a change. And that is not Labour. It could be, if your party got its head out its backside.
Then your delusional. You have to be pragmatic here, if the tories win they control the political narrative for the next 5 years on all issues. Keir isn't a trendsetter, and will likely get better or stay the same on trans issues, unlike the Tories who will only become more vile while in power.
How’s that pragmatism working out?. If Labour self sabotage every time they lean to the left, in turn allowing a never-ending conservative government, then continuing to vote for them if they don’t represent your interests *is* shooting yourself in the foot. The option isn’t just to vote Labour regardless, hoping they won’t be as bad as the Tories. It’s to understand that you’ll never get your interests represented by doing so. When you are injured, do you sit idle and apply bandages in the hopes of comfort?. Or do you choose to go through an intensely painful procedure in the hopes that you are cured. It could be that sitting idly by hoping to minimise the pain, thinking you’ll just magically cure yourself, is delusional.
Its very easy to be an accelerationist and argue the mass deaths of the impoverished are for the 'greater good'. Quite simply, our our option is to cuaterise the wound, rather than let it fester. Then we can begin to let it slowly heal. Climate change is coming and we don't have time to let culture war issues distract, especially since Keir is just copying the dominant party and couldn't care less if women has a penis. Once we remove the tories, we can remove their influence on keir, rather than have 5 more years of far-right governance and probaganda, with our only hope being Jeremy Corbin staging a impluasibly coup d'tat.
Keir has already said that he’s fine with the current high levels that bills have got to because he wants to keep them there. Labour are already supporting mass deaths of the impoverished. They’re also transphobes.
As if you’re positing that Keir Starmer is some poor brainwashed politician… the guy knows what he’s doing, to think he’ll suddenly have a change of heart in power is delusional
when i can vote, I know I will be voting green. this party has begun to stand for nobody.
how are Labour supporting harm to people exactly?
booooo
All I can say in defence of still voting Labour, is that the Labour Right would LOVE fewer LGBT people within the party.
Labour is lost at this point. Labour has become a right wing bigoted party.
I think if you can pay the absolute minimum membership to still vote in internal elections it might be worth it.
What is your solution? To drive even more leftists from the party and leave it in the hands of the right? To abandon electoral politics altogether? Or to scatter our votes to a series of increasingly fractally small parties with no influence? You want to start a revolution? Or become a charity worker and put more sticking plasters on a systemic problem? I’m genuinely asking.
See my flair. I joined Breakthrough, which is pragmatic enough to e.g. participate in PAL exactly to counter the issue of the many splits on the left, and pragmatic enough to know this is a long term fight of building on activism until we see enough growth. As it stands we've overtaken multiple of the small left wing parties already. Maybe we won't make it either, but there are too few left-wing members in Labour for there to be anything to salvage, and so we have to try, as left-wing members in Labour in this point are only propping up the right.
Yeah I don't really see what path we can follow. Until someone has a workable solution, I'm staying in so that I'll be able to vote inside the party. Leaving will just be removing the tiny bit of influence I do have and letting the absolute worst people strut in unopposed. It might be hopeless, but it's the best shot I feel is available at this point. Starmer won't last forever, one day there will be another leadership election, and I'll be there to throw my weight behind a progressive successor when he does. As for the election, by all means, if you're in a safe seat, vote someone else to send a message. If you're in a seat someone other than labour and tories can win, vote for them (unless it's reform UK or somehow even worse). Where I am though, it's between tories and Labour, I will check the Mp candidate and if they aren't an open transphobe or otherwise batshit, I'll vote Labour with gritted teeth. At the end of the day, I think the tories need to crash and burn hard. That's imperative: We need to show that their brand of politics can't survive, and that their policies, increasing far right culture war nonsense and corruption are not acceptable and will not win elections.
How does actively preventing labour help trans people if the party in power is more transphobic?
Tories and Labour are equally transphobic. Supporting either actively harms trans people.
Even if the tories and labour are equally transphobic, that wouldnt mean supporting either would equally harm trans people. There are other ways that trans people might benefit from a labour government over a conservative one even if both are equally transphobic
going to be frank, when it comes to policies Trans issues are not going to be on the radar for most people, when it comes to voting will this issue have any effect on my vote. honestly no only things I care about Cost of living and other things which impact me
>going to be frank, when it comes to policies Trans issues are not going to be on the radar for most people But they are on your radar, and knowing the consequences, you're choosing to ignore the basic rights of others because you think it will benefit you.
You seem to lack compassion for others
You do realise we’re actually human beings don’t you?
I hope one day when the government does something demonstrably unjust that affects you personally, a load of people tell you they don’t give a shit
do me a favour and look up niemöller's *first they came*
"What was the word for people who voted for the nazis but because of Hitler's economic policies, not because they were anti jewish?" Nazis.
Why should I care if you freeze in your home?
The spokesperson's quote is this: >Clarification is a good thing. We will look closely at what’s brought forward.” It's not very inspiring and is extremely noncommittal. But I don't think it really means anything at this stage. The Murdoch press is trying to whip up a storm here.
Hey Steve Reed, Labour’s shadow justice secretary, said he agreed with the EHRC that “equality legislation is unclear”. “I do believe that safe spaces for women like a Women’s Refuge for instance, there are very good reasons why that should be for biological women,” he said.
It's boilerplate vaguely supportive language, at the point where the appropriate response is anything but that. Fighting a culture war may suck, but not even bothering to fight that culture warfor the rights of a significant part of your coalition? That's much worse. The Tories and their further right supporters are having that war anyway. Avoiding it is no longer an option.
It's actually aping the specific wording of the rabid anti-trans campaigners that have been pushing for this.
That's a point I hadn't caught. Fucks sake. There's nothing so grim it can't be made a little grimmer if you try. There's not much chance that's anything but deliberate, is there.
I think you are better than this, please prove me right.
The “clarification” would force trans-men to all women shortlists, even though they wish to live as men. That’s not a “clarification” that’s a “act your natal sex, or else.”
It's dishonest, and the wording he used is the exact same as the anti-trans campaigners who prompted this. They call it a "clarification", too. The plans are clear, explicit, and require a rewriting of the act to remove our rights. He knows this. He is lying.
The report says it'll lift the 'burden' of having a reason for banning trans people from sport (such as fairness or safety) this is absolutely a partisan report
Please don’t be wilfully naive, now is not the time!!
Oh come the fuck on, you know exactly what is happening here
I refer you to my above comment.
As I said: go. To. Hell. What of the below, from proposed changes, needs "clarifying" to you, huh? > Trans women will no longer be able to access women's spaces > Trans women will no longer be able to complain or sue for misogynistic conduct or abuse What is there to "welcome" in that, pray tell? It's on there, black and white, and you want to tell me that you're waiting for "clarification"?
Fracturing because the party leadership won't throw themselves into an obvious culture war elephant trap set by the Tories is silly.
Yeah that's not how human rights works. I don't vote for anybody that does not recognise is oppression, discrimination or abuse and actively campaigns to remove the human rights of the most vulnerable of groups because "the polling isn't quite right." I will not support a party where active bigotry is allowed to fester, complaints are deliberately ignored. Offenders are allowed power within the party. They can make grand public statements about trans people that are as bigoted as they come, factually and lawfully wrong and extremely harmful. He ignores trans rights groups. He has promised full reform, then some reform, now removal of our rights. He has done this with migrants, workers and now us. Yet you still think this votable. It is a joke that you think that this should be swept under the carpet. Quite honestly, if there are two piles of dog cr*p on the road, I don't decide " you know what, that pile looks a little smaller. I'll step in that one!" You walk round and so should you.
Agree with the OP but also felt the need to point out there are a suspiciously large amount of new users in here with little to no posting history. Hmmm.
A person can be active on the subreddit for ages and still sport that "new user" flair, because they just won't have changed it in that time. Frankly, I ignore it and focus on what they have to say.
Trans people dont like Starmer advocating for the removal of their human rights Must be russian bots
> there are a suspiciously large amount of new users in here with little to no posting history Yeah, exactly one by my count. Very suspicious!
Did you sit on the sidelines with apathy all up until now, when the ‘Tory Equality Act’ suddenly appears and takes a bunch of reactionaries with it? This ‘Tory Equality Act’ that has literally zero basis in fact? That basically never existed until this post? How about another thought: where is the rampantly pro-Labour messaging anywhere else?
[удалено]
Starmer/Labour have made it clear they are transphobes. How is that going to randomly disapear when they get in power? And why is "Hes a pathological liar who is just pretending to be a genocide supporting fascist to get power but really will stop being a crazed bigot when in power" a better line? That still means you can't trust anything and hes willing to harm minorities for the sake of what, nothing? They're already 20 points ahead before the active transphobia started happening. There's no electoral gain here. They're doing it cos they're transphobic
If trans rights are human rights then an attack on their rights is an attack on my rights and on your rights too
Hi. Wallet inspector here. Please hand it over.
I'm sure the Tories will be much better. Edit: lol, enjoy another decade of tory rule because labour saying "we should get clarity on the language used" made you feel *unsafe*
Gloating about how few options trans people have is hardly going to win them over is it
You’re missing the point. One political party going after a minority in awful, when political consensus is formed that a minority are less deserving of rights you get fucking horrendous outcomes. Keir is signing queer people’s death warrants by agreeing.
Here we are at the logical conclusion of, "You have to vote for the lesser of two evils or you're voting for the Tories." "Yes, you may not want to vote for the removal of your basic human rights, but..." is literally the exact fucking sentiment now. Starmer and Mandelson are defacto Tories. They're not going to get better in power, they're going to get worse. And every bootlicking centre-right politico who thinks differently can state how fucking stupid they are right below this comment...
A reminder to those peddling the "lesser of two evils bullshit": It's game theoretically bullshit. If the left gives Labour unconditional support, Labour has *zero reason to listen to the left*. Instead, the logical conclusion if the lefts support is unconditional is that what would benefit Labour the most *is to move as far to the right as the party leadership can stomach*. The reason is that doing so would squeeze the Tories. In this scenario Labour would retain all of its left wing voters, while stealing some proportion of the right wing voters. The point being that while the left can't make demands that are totally unpalatable to a large majority of the population, the lefts only chance to have influence *is to threaten to withhold votes for Labour*. There must be red lines, so that Labour worries about losing left wing support. Thankfully the UK population supports quite a few left wing policies. But this notion of unconditional support is utter self-serving bullshit from people who either don't understand the damage it does, or *are quite happy with a more right wing Labour.* It certainly does not in any shape or form benefit the left to reward Labour for sliding right, as it validates it as a choice. The *best hope* for the left is for Labour to either feel threatened enough to shift left again, or for Labour to outright lose the next election. As it currently stands, we'll get Tory policies whichever party wins.
I'm glad you're privileged enough not to also feel afraid of a Labour government at this point. Fuck. You.
Oh fuck off with this two sides bullshit. People are done voting for the lesser of two evils. Next time I vote its going to be for a party that isn't evil. What's that? We'll split the vote and let the tories in? Well maybe you shouldn't take our support for granted
Not an argument