UK Labour Women Mass Resignation

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Blue labour. What are they...

*1 wikipedia article later*

...ah. Socially conservative, fiscally liberal.

TRIGGERED

RED TORIES OUT etc.

Blue tory is the only good tory.

[Mike the Progressive]

To some extent, it gets annoying.

I mean OK, you're a male trapped in a females body or vice versa, cool.. But when you have people who dont identify as either male/female, or are male male but don't want to be referred to as a male without any intention of correcting their gender, it's just, ugh.

Idk. It's like people who refer to themselves as act-tors who in reality live in California working at denny's as a waiter while taking "drama" classes weekly.

At some point you got to realize, no, you're really not regardless of how much you want to be.

That's an understandable position to hold. I get that some gender-non-conforming people can be annoying, but that's true of the general populace - some people are annoying. It doesn't take much effort, though, to call someone by their preferred pronouns and, if they're being sincere, that small action might save them from a lot of unnecessary mental anguish.
Bit confused by your last point? Gender isn't 'real' (i.e. biological, unchangeable, absolute.) It's a societal construct like race or sexuality; therefore I would say you can literally be any gender you want. The only reason we assume there are two is that 99% of people fall into one of two biological categories, but sex and gender aren't the same thing so I'm not ultimately convinced we should keep this outdated system on the basis of that.

Sorry, meant sex. Not gender.

[Ifreann]

Why?

To some extent, it gets annoying.

I mean OK, you're a male trapped in a females body or vice versa, cool.. But when you have people who dont identify as either male/female, or are male male but don't want to be referred to as a male without any intention of correcting their gender, it's just, ugh.

Idk. It's like people who refer to themselves as act-tors who in reality live in California working at denny's as a waiter while taking "drama" classes weekly.

At some point you got to realize, no, you're really not regardless of how much you want to be.

So if someone calls themselves an actor, we can tell that they aren't really an actor by noting that they don't actually do any acting. Makes sense.

And if someone calls themselves agender, we can tell that they aren't really by....what? Just the fact that them saying so annoys you?

[Threlizdun]

Trans women are women, regardless on if the have transitioned or if they even desire to. Reducing women to their genitals is sexist and frankly gross as hell. TERFs promote violence against women who don't adhere to their standards of feminity. They aren't feminists, aren't radical, and have no place in the left.

You do know that claiming TERFs aren't real feminists is roughly like claiming that Senate Republicans aren't real Republicans, right?

Not really, because TERFs aren't advocating for the empowerment of women, just the empowerment of a certain subsection of women.

[Mike the Progressive]

To some extent, it gets annoying.

I mean OK, you're a male trapped in a females body or vice versa, cool.. But when you have people who dont identify as either male/female, or are male male but don't want to be referred to as a male without any intention of correcting their gender, it's just, ugh.

Idk. It's like people who refer to themselves as act-tors who in reality live in California working at denny's as a waiter while taking "drama" classes weekly.

At some point you got to realize, no, you're really not regardless of how much you want to be.

So if someone calls themselves an actor, we can tell that they aren't really an actor by noting that they don't actually do any acting. Makes sense.

And if someone calls themselves agender, we can tell that they aren't really by....what? Just the fact that them saying so annoys you?

Yes. Because there is no such thing as "agender." Or if there is, it's stupid.

[Grenartia]

So if someone calls themselves an actor, we can tell that they aren't really an actor by noting that they don't actually do any acting. Makes sense.

And if someone calls themselves agender, we can tell that they aren't really by....what? Just the fact that them saying so annoys you?

Yes. Because there is no such thing as "agender." Or if there is, it's stupid.

Why, praytell?

[Galloism]

You do know that claiming TERFs aren't real feminists is roughly like claiming that Senate Republicans aren't real Republicans, right?

Not really, because TERFs aren't advocating for the empowerment of women, just the empowerment of a certain subsection of women.

So?

Senate republicans don’t advocate for power of republicans either - just a certain subsection of republicans (known as donors). The notion that Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists are neither true radicals nor true feminists is laughable. The fact that you don’t like them, for very good reason mind you, doesn’t make them not true Scotsmen radical feminists.

It’s roughly akin to saying senate republicans aren’t true republicans.

[Vassenor]

Not really, because TERFs aren't advocating for the empowerment of women, just the empowerment of a certain subsection of women.

So?

Senate republicans don’t advocate for power of republicans either - just a certain subsection of republicans (known as donors). The notion that Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists are neither true radicals nor true feminists is laughable. The fact that you don’t like them, for very good reason mind you, doesn’t make them not true Scotsmen radical feminists.

It’s roughly akin to saying senate republicans aren’t true republicans.

So we're not allowed to distance ourselves from the toxic people? Because that sounds suspiciously like telling us we're not allowed to fix the things you complain about.

[Hirota]

So?

Senate republicans don’t advocate for power of republicans either - just a certain subsection of republicans (known as donors). The notion that Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists are neither true radicals nor true feminists is laughable. The fact that you don’t like them, for very good reason mind you, doesn’t make them not true Scotsmen radical feminists.

It’s roughly akin to saying senate republicans aren’t true republicans.

So we're not allowed to distance ourselves from the toxic people? Because that sounds suspiciously like telling us we're not allowed to fix the things you complain about.

Distancing is fine, but Threlizdun is talking about Excommunication.

[Hirota]

...

Most of your "reply" is inarticulate one or two word replies - if you post something more coherent then there might be something to discuss. Equally, some has already been answered (Tahar for example), so I'm going to skip all those and address the parts that have something interesting to address.

It's patronising for a number of reasons, not just because it asks the question why shortlist advocates consider women incapable of getting elected on their own merits.

Because elections aren't a meritocracy.

Are you sure? Elections (as an abstract principle) are supposed to be legitimising the power of those elected to lead. The people who vote will choose to do so on a variety of reasons, including who is best qualified for the job out of a pool of candidates. At least some of the electorate (often the "floating voter" - the ones who tend to make the actual difference in tightly contested seats) will decide who to vote for partially out of self-interest, and partially out of merit.
Alas (and my apologies for not being clear), I was actually referring to the practice of constituency associations electing their candidate for the position of MP - the mainstream party via AWSL's does impose women only shortlists for the constituency associations to choose from in a sizable proportion of constituencies. I call that undemocratic because this is a shortlist imposed upon the constituency associations .

It's regressive because it assumes women are infantile, unable to get to the top without help, yet we've had 2 women Prime Ministers - from the only mainstream party not to impose shortlists.

It doesn't, but whatever.
Yes. One party has had two women prime ministers. Good for them.
They have, however, even as far back as Thatcher, had a dearth of women supporters, candidates and staffers, and still do have a severe "old boys club" with limited female access to many top jobs, which I argue is substantially more meaningful and important than having one woman in the top job.
Diversity of thought, not tokenism, I thought you hated that shit?

I illustrate May and Thatcher as evidence that there is no evidence AWSL's does any better to accomplish equality at the top or upper levels of politics than plain old political Darwinism.

Any how many MP's are trans? From ethnic minorities? From other religions? What makes women so deserving of special protections and a leg up, more so than these other demographics? Do you have evidence that women need shortlists but the others do not?

And we're making strides on all three, please note that "women" also make up a large number of all of those categories?

That is an evasion. You've not answered the questions. Provide evidence how what "strides" have been made on all these demographics, and explain why you need all women shortlists, but apparently not shortlists for religion, ethnic minorities and trans?

Heck, you have socialist leanings, why are there no quota for lower income candidates? Are they more or less worthy of special protections than your average female Labour candidate?

It's not income that is the problem in politics, but financial interests and disconnect.

I'll rephrase the question - do you believe there is an under-representation in Parliament of MP's from lower-income backgrounds? And assuming you do,are they more or less worthy of special protections than your average female Labour candidate?

[Ifreann]

So if someone calls themselves an actor, we can tell that they aren't really an actor by noting that they don't actually do any acting. Makes sense.

And if someone calls themselves agender, we can tell that they aren't really by....what? Just the fact that them saying so annoys you?

Yes. Because there is no such thing as "agender." Or if there is, it's stupid.

I'm afraid I don't find your feelings to be very convincing.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

So if someone calls themselves an actor, we can tell that they aren't really an actor by noting that they don't actually do any acting. Makes sense.

And if someone calls themselves agender, we can tell that they aren't really by....what? Just the fact that them saying so annoys you?

Yes. Because there is no such thing as "agender." Or if there is, it's stupid.

I mean, "gender" is more or less, just an idea or a set of social norms, right? Gender's not biological, sex is, right? If so, one could feasibly be agender.

[Galloism]

So?

Senate republicans don’t advocate for power of republicans either - just a certain subsection of republicans (known as donors). The notion that Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists are neither true radicals nor true feminists is laughable. The fact that you don’t like them, for very good reason mind you, doesn’t make them not true Scotsmen radical feminists.

It’s roughly akin to saying senate republicans aren’t true republicans.

So we're not allowed to distance ourselves from the toxic people? Because that sounds suspiciously like telling us we're not allowed to fix the things you complain about.

Of course you can. But you can’t try to pull that people aren’t part of <group> when they clearly are. For instance, I can’t say that Stephen Paddock isn’t a true man because he committed a mass murder. He’s a man whether or not he committed a mass murder, by being a member of the human species identifying as such.

That would be a no true Scotsman fallacy.

Just like asserting TERFs aren’t true feminists - same thing.

It’s a way to try and deflect criticism of the group without actually addressing anything. It’s a way to NOT fix things while repeatedly asserting they aren’t broken.

The first step to “fixing” the influence TERFs have in feminism is to recognize they’re there and part of it. Denying that is just a method to scream not to look behind the curtain.

[Imperializt Russia]

And yet the King of the Netherlands rules "by the grace of God", the Chanchellor of Germany is a member of the CHRISTLICH Demokratische Union and the virgin Mary is formally Queen of Poland.

And how many of those countries are actually writing their laws based around religion?

Come on, even we have theology creeping in in our country.

Why?

To some extent, it gets annoying.

I mean OK, you're a male trapped in a females body or vice versa, cool.. But when you have people who dont identify as either male/female, or are male male but don't want to be referred to as a male without any intention of correcting their gender, it's just, ugh.

Idk. It's like people who refer to themselves as act-tors who in reality live in California working at denny's as a waiter while taking "drama" classes weekly.

At some point you got to realize, no, you're really not regardless of how much you want to be.

"correcting"

Are you not just conflating sex and gender? The non-binary gender expression is a problem because..?

[Hammer Britannia]

Where's the "I don't give a shit" option in the polls


Or does that count as others?

[Kvatchdom]

Not really, because TERFs aren't advocating for the empowerment of women, just the empowerment of a certain subsection of women.

So?

Senate republicans don’t advocate for power of republicans either - just a certain subsection of republicans (known as donors). The notion that Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists are neither true radicals nor true feminists is laughable. The fact that you don’t like them, for very good reason mind you, doesn’t make them not true Scotsmen radical feminists.

It’s roughly akin to saying senate republicans aren’t true republicans.

These people don't claim to be radical however. They are feminists, but terfs have been largely excluded from most feminist groupings because their ideas often go into conflict with most contemporary feminist ideas.

[Imperializt Russia]

So we're not allowed to distance ourselves from the toxic people? Because that sounds suspiciously like telling us we're not allowed to fix the things you complain about.

Of course you can. But you can’t try to pull that people aren’t part of <group> when they clearly are. For instance, I can’t say that Stephen Paddock isn’t a true man because he committed a mass murder. He’s a man whether or not he committed a mass murder, by being a member of the human species identifying as such.[.quote]
Not sure about your definition of manhood, but mine doesn't include mass murder.

This is rather close to asserting the Nazis were socialists or that the DPRK is a democratic state.
"But it's in their name, so it must be true!"

Most feminists would seem deeply in agreement that by refusing and openly attacking trans identity, TERFs are inherently undermining any feminist principle they may otherwise hold.

[Democratic Empire of Romania]

Men considering themselves women are still men. No. You must be a woman in reality, not just to consider yourself one. That goes the same for women pretending to be men.

[Vassenor]

Men considering themselves women are still men. No. You must be a woman in reality, not just to consider yourself one. That goes the same for women pretending to be men.

And how do you determine "man" and "woman"?

[Ors Might]

Of course you can. But you can’t try to pull that people aren’t part of <group> when they clearly are. For instance, I can’t say that Stephen Paddock isn’t a true man because he committed a mass murder. He’s a man whether or not he committed a mass murder, by being a member of the human species identifying as such.[.quote]
Not sure about your definition of manhood, but mine doesn't include mass murder.

This is rather close to asserting the Nazis were socialists or that the DPRK is a democratic state.
"But it's in their name, so it must be true!"

Most feminists would seem deeply in agreement that by refusing and openly attacking trans identity, TERFs are inherently undermining any feminist principle they may otherwise hold.

That’s a matter of perspective. I want to preface this by saying that I find TERFs to be repulsive in general. But I still consider them feminists. Could you consider them shitty feminists? Yes, as they’re excluding a group of women that faces serious discrimination world wide. But their understanding of feminist doctrine is consistent, in that they’re defining female in a completely biological way. Frankly, feminism doesn’t exclude or implicitly include that mindset. It’s just not inherently incompatible with trans-exclusivity.

[Chestaan]

Of course you can. But you can’t try to pull that people aren’t part of <group> when they clearly are. For instance, I can’t say that Stephen Paddock isn’t a true man because he committed a mass murder. He’s a man whether or not he committed a mass murder, by being a member of the human species identifying as such.[.quote]
Not sure about your definition of manhood, but mine doesn't include mass murder.

This is rather close to asserting the Nazis were socialists or that the DPRK is a democratic state.
"But it's in their name, so it must be true!"

Most feminists would seem deeply in agreement that by refusing and openly attacking trans identity, TERFs are inherently undermining any feminist principle they may otherwise hold.

Its more like saying that Stalinists and other tankies are socialists. As a socialist, I recognise that they are, but I understand that everything must be done by other non-Stalinist socialists to destroy such a horrible brand of socialism. If nothing else, TERFs and Stalinists are bad PR for their umbrella movements.

[Galloism]

I think this is a correct fix of the quoted post. Please let me know if it's not.

Of course you can. But you can’t try to pull that people aren’t part of <group> when they clearly are. For instance, I can’t say that Stephen Paddock isn’t a true man because he committed a mass murder. He’s a man whether or not he committed a mass murder, by being a member of the human species identifying as such.

Not sure about your definition of manhood, but mine doesn't include mass murder.

Great, so we can definitely say there were no mass murders committed by men. That will in no way contradict anything whatsoever.

This is rather close to asserting the Nazis were socialists or that the DPRK is a democratic state.
"But it's in their name, so it must be true!"

Most feminists would seem deeply in agreement that by refusing and openly attacking trans identity, TERFs are inherently undermining any feminist principle they may otherwise hold.

Here's the thing: you can only do so if you are utterly and completely hypocritical and denying reality of what feminism is. Feminism is a movement to increase the rights and powers of women. Nothing more, nothing less. That's not inherently good or bad mind you, but it is what it is, and let's not pretend that this is in any way contradictory to the goals of TERFs. They just define "women" differently. That doesn't contradict the ideology.

Gloria Steinem used to be a TERF, but has since repudiated that belief. No one would argue that she wasn't a feminist at that time, and she is quite possibly one of the biggest feminists known on our side of the pond. She also famously argued that women supporting Bernie Sanders only did so because that's where the boys were.

Janice Raymond is definitely a TERF, and no one would argue she isn't a feminist.

In fact, trans activists are not infrequently labelled as MRAs and antifeminists for opposing TERF ideology. Fascinating article from HuffPo of all places:

Whenever a trans individual such as myself is critical of TERF ideology, we are labelled “misogynists” or “Men’s Rights Activists”, which is an interesting tactic and one that seems to actually make people question the TERF ethos more than swing the undecided towards their viewpoint. Merely by taking a stand against them, I and others like myself have been subjected to threats against our personal safety, been bombarded with spam, pornography, and signed up to various mailing lists in an attempt to silence our voices. Yet many transgender individuals are brave enough to continue pointing out where TERFs are wrong, in the hope that, at least for the transgender community, we can be treated as the men and women we truly are.

"Other"ing is a tactic used very often to try and convince your friends and allies to hate someone else. TERFs friends and allies is feminist movement at large. Inconsistent allies? Sure. But they are feminists in every sense of the term.

[Galloism]

So?

Senate republicans don’t advocate for power of republicans either - just a certain subsection of republicans (known as donors). The notion that Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists are neither true radicals nor true feminists is laughable. The fact that you don’t like them, for very good reason mind you, doesn’t make them not true Scotsmen radical feminists.

It’s roughly akin to saying senate republicans aren’t true republicans.

These people don't claim to be radical however. They are feminists, but terfs have been largely excluded from most feminist groupings because their ideas often go into conflict with most contemporary feminist ideas.

Uh, less than you would think.

Michfest was still extremely popular among feminists up through 2015 when they had their final gathering. They were trans exclusionary.

[Threlizdun]

Not really, because TERFs aren't advocating for the empowerment of women, just the empowerment of a certain subsection of women.

So?

Senate republicans don’t advocate for power of republicans either - just a certain subsection of republicans (known as donors). The notion that Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists are neither true radicals nor true feminists is laughable. The fact that you don’t like them, for very good reason mind you, doesn’t make them not true Scotsmen radical feminists.

It’s roughly akin to saying senate republicans aren’t true republicans.

Except feminism is literally defined by the struggle for the empowerment of women, all women. Someone who only cares about the empowerment of one group of women (cis women, white women, heterosexual women, rich women, etc.), has abandoned the fundamental premise of feminism. It is important for social movements to critique those who we cannot expect to have our back, especially when they are actively engaging in violence against members of our community. If someone tells me that they are a feminist, yet they deny my very femininity and ally with conservative sexists against me, then I'm going to call them a liar. The word becomes meaningless when diluted to mere self-interest of your own group to the exclusion of all other women and nonbinary people.

[Galloism]

So?

Senate republicans don’t advocate for power of republicans either - just a certain subsection of republicans (known as donors). The notion that Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists are neither true radicals nor true feminists is laughable. The fact that you don’t like them, for very good reason mind you, doesn’t make them not true Scotsmen radical feminists.

It’s roughly akin to saying senate republicans aren’t true republicans.

Except feminism is literally defined by the struggle for the empowerment of women, all women.

Show me where feminism is defined as the struggle for the empowerment of ALL women, including trans women, in official universal definition accepted by all persons. Go.

Someone who only cares about the empowerment of one group of women (cis women, white women, heterosexual women, rich women, etc.), has abandoned the fundamental premise of feminism.

In that case, feminism probably doesn't exist in any meaningful sense.

It is important for social movements to critique those who we cannot expect to have our back, especially when they are actively engaging in violence against members of our community. If someone tells me that they are a feminist, yet they deny my very femininity and ally with conservative sexists against me, then I'm going to call them a liar. The word becomes meaningless when diluted to mere self-interest of your own group to the exclusion of all other women and nonbinary people.

It's absolutely fine to critique them. I encourage it. What I will not let you do is pretend they are not part of the movement when in every meaningful way they are. That's a way to deflect criticism, not allow it.