Spot the irony.
https://twitter.com/RKDasgupta/status/1144355197717831685
A man lost the LGBT Officer post because – oh no – a straight man stood against him.
Much dismay.
https://twitter.com/Lewis_ALee/status/1144521775776063488
Can’t believe this. What on Earth is going on. Ridiculous and appalling. https://t.co/ZZlpMBS709
— Chris Elmore MP (@CPJElmore) June 28, 2019
And yet…who is the Labour Students national women’s officer again? Oh yes, “Lily” Madigan, who identifies as a woman but is not literally a woman. It’s terribly wrong for a straight man to be elected a local LGBT Officer but it’s fabulous for a boy to be elected national student women’s officer. It’s bad to shove gay men aside but it’s good to shove women aside.
Why is that, again?
Comments
11 responses to “Which foot is the shoe on?”
Maybe the “str8 white man” was a TERF, trying to prove a point about the wrong people getting the positions? Probably not.
Ah well, dream on …
Is it wrong that this gave me a genuine belly-laugh?
Has any commentary on this, be it news article or social media post, mentioned the name of the person who won? It seems to be a mystery.
I love the dishonesty of the first sentence.
First, he did not lose the post because he didn’t hold it to begin with. He lost an election for the post. Second, he did not lose because a straight man stood against him, he lost because his opponent received the most votes. Of course, the truth – that two men stood as candidates for the role of LGBT Officer and one of them won – just doesn’t sound ‘victimy’ enough.
The rest is no better, just a hodgepodge of vagueness.
[1] What statement? His campaign statement? His acceptance statement? His Linkedin personal statement?
[2] What homophobic content? Who shared it? Was the act of clapping homophobic?
[3] Define ‘mass’. How many walked out in disgust as opposed to leaving because the election was over and result announced?
[4] Fucking blatant, self-pitying cry for sympathy.
[5] I suppose he wants the party to overturn the election result in his favour before the inevitable Twitter shit-storm, which will of couse be fuelled by that very tweet.
Whatever happened to the concept of being gracious in triumph and in defeat? Nowadays it appears to be either gloat in victory and sulk-rage in defeat.
More from Dasgupta:
A straight white man was voted by a straight majority GC to be a LGBT Officer. Tell me how the Labour Party is still the party for equality and social justice? Tell me why I shouldn’t tear up my card right now. Tell me why this CLP is still not under special measures
[YNNB]Wow. Special measures. That sound sintense. Not Stalinist at all. Definitely sore loser behaviour.
As we left we were booed and asked to f*** off by several people? Who were they?
[YNNB] I imagine anyone who mighthave suspected you might have called for “special measures” in the face of losing this vote might have done that.
Finally the person who stood against me who doesn’t for once say how he self identifies in his statement or in his speech.
[YNNB] So is withholding one’s pronouns a crime? What if he’d decided to identify as a women, would that have made it okay? if not, why not? What would be the difference between one str8 dude and another declaring themselves to be a women? How can you tell which is a “real” woman?
What happened last night was the culmination of 2 years of chipping away at our democracy by a group of people who were only keen on self glorification rather than true liberation politics. From a fantastic black chair Charlene 2 years ago we now have 0 black representation.SHAME
[YNNB] Like not accepting an election’s results is democratic? That only those who are orthodox can occupy the position you ran for?
He does retweet someone else who at least has some sense of the “shoes: we’re talking about:
People are replying saying we deserve this because trans women can stand for women’s officer positions. How many different kinds of disgusting do you have to be to see this and think “what a good opportunity to attack trans people”?
[YNNB] Reaping/sowing does come to mind…
Maybe we should start calling it “victim claiming”.
YNnB @5: nothing overly sinister about “special measures”. It’s a term used by Ofsted (the schools inspectorate): if a school doesn’t reach minimum educational standards, it’s put into special measures. This involves intervention in the running of the school (often by replacing the head teacher) in order to raise the standards. I mean, yes, applying that concept to a CLP in this context is still a bit iffy, but I don’t think it reaches Stalinesque proportions.
Thanks or the clarification, Graham Douglas.
I’m hoping this might be a tiny turning point in all this, where more people say “Hang on a minute, what are you on about?” with regards to the erosion of women’s protections at the behest of men claiming to be women.
Labour seems to be finding new and innovative ways to devour itself. It is remarkable how dismissive they are of women’s concerns, simply brushing aside the comparison to the Madigan situation. Between this and the Williamson fiasco, they seem determined to give BoJo a long run in #10.
How can he be sure the candidate was ‘str8?’ Perhaps he had a pink rabbit’s foot in his pocket.
How can he be sure the candidate was a man? Maybe the candidate is a non-disclosed trans woman.
Rohit Dasgupta pinned his Airing of Grievances to the top of his Twitter page, and his pinned thread includes the winner’s campaign statement at the end:
I transcribed the winner’s campaign statement in full, with my bolding added in the body:
My bolding shows 5 times the winner said “I will” do specific things for local LGBTQ+ party members and voters. But compare that to what Ophelia posted above, from the Airing of Grievances:
The phrase “Liars for Jesus” comes to mind as one more way that transgender identitarianism is like religious fundamentalism.