The Guardian is very cautious about how it talks about Rosie Duffield – cautious in one way and incautious in another, that is. Mindful of one audience and bluntly indifferent to another.

Rosie Duffield has called for Keir Starmer to meet her and other female Labour MPs to discuss the party’s policy on transgender issues, confirming she will not attend Labour’s annual conference over worries she could face abuse because of her views on the subject.

She says he says he wants to do the meeting, but…somehow it hasn’t happened yet. I suspect it will go on somehow not happening.

Then the Guardian gets cold feet.

The Canterbury MP has become a focal point for criticism from some LGBT groups in Labour for actions such as liking a tweet that said “individuals with a cervix” should instead be referred to as “women”.

Actions? Actions?? Liking a tweet is “action”? This is what I mean by “cautious” – this creepy sniffing out of ludicrous trivia in order to “balance” reporting on threats and abuse. Liking a tweet really isn’t much of an “action.”

In July, Labour LGBT groups called for the party to investigate her after she liked a tweet from a gay US rapper which complained about trans groups appropriating the word “queer” and described them as “mostly heterosexuals cosplaying [costume playing] as the opposite sex and as gay”.

There again – liking a tweet. Does it not occur to anyone that just liking a tweet is not really strong evidence of anything? That it’s outright absurd as evidence that an MP should be “investigated”?

Asked if she accepted that liking the latter tweet could have inflamed the debate, Duffield defended her decision, saying the tweet author, whom she knew via social media, was “incredibly distressed and insulted” about what he felt was the appropriation of gay culture, adding: “I think he has a valid right to talk about it without being cancelled.”

All this because she liked a tweet.

11 Responses to “Like-policing”