Starmer has been told
Maybe maybe just maybe trans ideology isn’t quite the red-hot vote-winner that its fans were thinking.
Labour must fix its stance on transgender issues to win the next election, Sir Keir Starmer has been told.
Senior figures within the party believe there is a need to clarify its policies on the issue and bring them closer in line with where the public is.
They’re alarmed by Nicola Sturgeon’s crashing and burning.
Figures within Labour believe their policies must not fall into a similar trap whereby “in trying to do good for a very small minority group, you inadvertently offend an awful lot of women who feel their place in society is being eliminated. You have to balance the needs of different groups”.
Stop right there. It’s not a matter of “offending.” It’s not a matter of women “feeling” you’re trashing our rights. It’s reality. It’s a matter of the blazingly obvious fact that enabling men to displace women violates women’s rights. Just shut up with this subjective deniable “offend-feel” shit. We’re not talking about our feeeeeelings, we’re talking about our rights.
Labour MPs are concerned that the party needs to “come up with an answer” to the trans question that “secures women’s rights”.
Labour MPs also need to get it through their heads that women are not some tiny minority it’s ok to trample for the sake of men who claim to be women.
I get the impression that Starmer has been trying to find a perfect compromise for ages now – you can almost see his blood pressure spiking when anyone asks him anything about it and he stammers and fudges because any direct answer will antagonize a faction of the party. Perhaps it’s finally dawning on him that he’s going to have to pick a side, and that Angry Twitter People don’t necessarily equate to voters.
So much wrong in this framing. As well as what Ophelia notes above, there are some other clangers. “Trying to do good for a very small minority group,” both sugarcoating what’s being done as “good,” and then minimizing it by characterizing the teeny tiny size of this group, which is being catered to at the expense of the female half the population. The small size of the group is no indication of its powerlessness or worthiness for consideration. Two other minorities even smaller than TiMs would be billionaires and left-handed, albino, arsonist-cannibals. Calling something a “need” doesn’t make it one. Not all groups deserve to have their perceived needs “balanced” with everyone, or anyone else’s. Some “needs” are inherently destructive.
“They only need a few billion more each, then they’ll be fine.”
“He only needs to burn one ore two buildings, and eat a couple of people a year, tops. Maybe just a leg now and then. He’s just one lonely, hungry guy. Where’s the harm in balancing his need for human flesh with your feelings about your legs? I mean really, you ‘ve got two; do you really need both of them?”
Also the effects on women are not “inadvertent.” You can’t “inadvertently” allow men to into women’s prisons, or “accidentally” include men in women’s sports, or “unintentionally” put men on women’s short lists. You can’t “iunwittingly” compel speech. These aren’t unfortunate side effects; the violation of these boundaries is the whole point. That is the supposed “good” being defended here. As Ophelia notes it’s bullshit minimalization to say it’s all about “feelings” and “offence.” On one hand, the feelings of TiMs are elevated and made paramount, while the rights and realities of women and girls are reduced to mere feelings. And, even if it was just a matter of “feelings,” there’s no reason to prioritize those of an admittedly “very small minority” of men over those of women.
Stermer and Labour are in more trouble than they realize if they can’t even frame the issue correctly. They’re so desperate to offer trans advocates as much as they can get away with, while giving women the absolute minimum. It’s a lose-lose for him and the party. Genderists will never be satisfied with less than everything. They will always want more. Women will not put up with table-scraps and being treated as an afterthought, being given consideration only because the party suddenly needs to do something to shut women up ASAP, not because it’s seen what a mistake trans appeasement was to begin with. It comes down to a simple question that I’ve heard no trans advocate answer: What rights do the rest of the population enjoy that trans identified people lack? Spell it out. Defend your position. Make it clear. Unless Labour realizes that the trans “rights” they’re so eager to fight for are not rights at all, they are lost. Until Labour stops being more afraid of offending the feelings of trans activists than they are of losing women’s votes, they are doomed.
Another problem with the framing is that we often DO help small groups at the expense of larger ones. Jews make up only about 2% of the population of the US, but it would be wrong to say that, since they are a small group, the wishes of the majority of the 98% that they not vote would be valid. It is often the smaller groups that need protection.
That just doesn’t happen to be true in this case. The women are by far the larger group, but they are in danger of losing rights. When we allow the admittedly small population of Jews to vote, it does not take away anyone else’s rights. Okay, so they may vote for someone you don’t like; that can’t be a basis for denying them their rights. And it does not remove your right to express your political opinion through your vote.
In this case, though, the rights being protected ARE NOT RIGHTS. They are privileges. None of the rest of us, minority or not, get to have the government enforce our desire for others to see us as we see ourselves. We are excluded from places that are meant for someone else. I have been unfairly excluded from the Top 40 just because I cannot sing and have never made a hit record. I am excluded from the jobs that require welding, because I do not know how to weld. I am excluded from law practice because I do not have a law degree, and have not passed the bar exam. Exclusion is sometimes necessary.
It really isn’t anything about the size of each respective group, but the impact. Giving a smaller group rights does not infringe on the rights of larger groups. Giving a smaller group privileges that do infringe on the rights of the larger groups – that’s a whole different thing.
In these cases, it could be possible to be welcomed and included into these exclusive domains by completing the necessary training, doing the required work, and meeting the expected performance standards. People do this all the time. Not everyone, but some. There is absolutely nothing that a man can do to become a women. They can’t get there from here. Ever. It’s not any lack of training, work, or failure to meet standards, it’s a material state of being. To accede to this demand for the impossible is the height of folly and contemptuous of women. To make the demand in the first place is utterly presumptuous and also contemptuous of women