Exclude all those bitches
Oh good, more women getoutery.
His appointment is the first of its kind in British history. No other mayor has hired an LGBT adviser to help tackle problems facing the community — despite the Labour party itself having an LGBT advisory panel. But yesterday, it was announced that Carl Austin-Behan would serve as the first LGBT adviser to Andy Burnham, the directly elected Labour mayor of Greater Manchester.
Hmmmm. Wait. He’s a guy. How can he tackle (all) the problems facing Ls? Which “community” is “the community” here? Gay men remain men, and lesbians remain women, and having men speak for women isn’t always an ideal arrangement.
Just hours before Burnham unveiled this new role, which comes with its own panel of LGBT specialists and an annual grant, Austin-Behan spoke out against Labour activists who oppose transgender rights.
In an interview with BuzzFeed News, Austin-Behan — who in 2016 also became Britain’s first out gay lord mayor — said party members who campaign against trans women being fully accepted as women should no longer be allowed in the party.
The former Labour councillor said the party should take a “zero tolerance” stance on anti-trans activists, following hundreds of its members reportedly campaigning against the inclusion of trans women in women-only shortlists.
So Austin-Behan is fine with it if women-only shortlists are made up entirely of trans women? So he doesn’t see that as at all and in any way unfair to women? But then he doesn’t have to, does he, because it doesn’t affect him. He’s not forced to think clearly about it because it won’t deprive him of any potential opportunities. He’s a man, and men don’t need men-only shortlists, because men are already the majority by a wide margin. If women-only shortlists fill up with trans women that’s no skin off his ass because he’s not eligible either way.
“It goes against the values of what the Labour party is,” said Austin-Behan. “Because it’s about equality, diversity, and inclusion and the only way you’re going to tackle that is if we’re all on board.”
But what about inclusion for women? Just women? Boring old women who aren’t trans anything but are just women?
“I think there needs to be a lot of questions about their integrity,” he said of those found to be signing petitions or otherwise publicly opposing trans rights. “I completely disagree with the whole thing — the [opposition to] shortlists that it has to be what you were at birth. That’s utter rubbish. If people are trans women, then they are women.”
Easy for him to say.
Asked if trans-exclusionary Labour members should be able to remain in the party, Austin-Behan said: “No… Not at all, in the same way if someone doesn’t give the same respect to a lesbian or a gay man or anyone who is bisexual then I disagree with that and action needs to be taken.”
What is “respect” in that sentence? What does it mean? For that matter what is “exclusionary”? Women-only shortlists are “exclusionary” by definition, so what is his point?
Trans rights are “human rights” he said, adding “everyone should be treated as they wish to be treated” and as such people need to be better informed about the issues…
That’s another one of those fatuous generalizations that make no sense once you analyse them. Should Donald Trump be treated as a stable genius just because he insist he is one? Should I be treated as a neurosurgeon if I decide to start saying I am one? Should Paul Ryan be treated as a responsible ethical Speaker of the House just because he has a strong jaw? Everyone should be treated fairly; that doesn’t translate to everyone should expect the entire world to accept truth-claims about identities no matter what.
Actually, I think there’s a problem with the whole thing…yes, the exclusion of women. But all of it…if you don’t agree with Austin-Behan, you shouldn’t be allowed to remain in the party? If you have a difference of opinion, you shouldn’t be allowed to remain, or discuss it? Let’s solidify an orthodoxy here, and that orthodoxy says that LGBT trumps all other things. No matter what your views on all other parts of the Labour Party, if you have a difference of opinion, even a nuance that doesn’t seek to deprive anyone of their rights but only debate dogma, you must not be allowed to remain in the party. In short, it is all about LGBT?
Wow. We’ve gone way over the cliff, haven’t we? Is it time for the coyote to put up the help sign?
Yes, that too.
Guys can do everything, and do it better than women. Including, apparently, being women.
Well, no single person can be expected to ‘represent’ the entire, ever-expanding, alphabet of gender/sexual minorities. That’s just begging for tokenism.
And…are there ANY trans-men seeking to ‘include out’ any male representation?
It looks to me like trans-men are mostly being used to exclude (or “include out” – nice phrase) women. Because ovaries. Because mammaries. Because…well, because women, right?
Yes, but specifically also because women are the subordinated and under-represented group; women are to men as blacks are to whites, poor are to rich, powerless are to powerful. Women are the class who need special efforts to overcome all the habits and long-established practices and blind spots etc etc etc that cash out as fewer women on the payroll, fewer women at the top of the payroll, fewer women in board rooms, fewer women in office. That’s why all-women shortlists are needed, and it’s why it’s such a treat for lefty men suddenly to be able to attack women and every form of all-women shortlist with rage and venom.
Trans men are no use at all for that kind of thing, you see. Trans men are basically beside the point.
Plus, trans men grew up learning what girls always do learn: that male people will attack them if they speak up or disobey in any way. Trans women grow up learning what boys always do learn: they are supposed to bully women who annoy them.