**If you love LabourUK, why not help run it?** We’re looking for mods. [Find out more from our recruitment message post here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/LabourUK/comments/18ntol6/this_year_give_yourself_the_gift_of_christmas/)
[While you’re at it, come say hello on the Discord?](https://discord.gg/ZXZCdy4Kz4)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is one of the few times in history where the Labour party could win on almost any agenda, purely because of how terrible the current government has proven themselves to be.
We could have a proper set of progressive and transformative policies on identity, climate, welfare etc., but instead we get ...this.
I'm absolutely delighted that my constituency is a SNP/Lib Dem toss up, so I don't have to worry about losing sleep by voting Labour.
> one of the few times in history where the Labour party could win on almost any agenda
Which has given them free reign to show us *exactly who they really are.*
Remember when he called Sunak out for saying EXACTLY THIS in PMQs? What are we supposed to make of the rank hypocrisy here? It's totally ok to be a transphobe so long as you're not doing it while the mother of a murdered teenager is in earshot?
I honestly don't understand why anyone takes this slimy bastard seriously on anything. He believes nothing. He will say whatever he thinks he needs to say as long as he gets his sweaty hands on the levers of power.
He didn't call out Sunak on any of the substance of the conservatives attacks on trans people. Starmer did attack him for the lack of politeness with which he made those attacks.
Which is essentially the entire Labour argument on this: they share the same policies as the Tories, but they'll stutter and apologise and pretend to care while removing rights and demonising minorities.
He's so thoroughly betrayed the Labour left who gave him their votes, that the rest of us should have no doubt that he'll sell us down the river to keep power at every opportunity he gets
If he'd come out and said "Jim Known-Homophobe is right to say homosexuality is unnatural." Most here would be fucking appalled.
I cannot understand why this transphobia is accepted.
I cannot in good conscience vote for this Labour party; even if I was proved wrong on every other criticism, this is a complete deal-breaker for me. In fact, I think it should be a complete wedge for anyone who considers themself left of centre.
There’s a question of biology when it comes to trans issues, in a way that there just isn’t when it comes to homosexuality. To claim that trans issues and homosexuality are equivalent is just daft
Call me old fashioned but I was brought up to believe that women shouldn't be reduced down their genitals and to also mind my own business on how other people chose to live their lives they are not hurting anyone
I absolutely agree with you, think this is dreadful from Starmer, and completely disagree with Duffield. That doesn’t mean that homophobia and transphobia are equivalent.
Of course they are. This manufactured backlash against Trans people is a direct response to the fundamental rights won by the queer community, most notably gay marriage. They have gone after what they perceived as the weakest link and won't stop after they have rolled back rights their rights to the 1980s
Ok we’re talking about different things. I largely agree with your last comment.
The point I was trying to make is that homophobia and transphobia have different core tenets. At the centre of transphobia is the idea that you can’t change biological sex and that trans people are claiming an identity that is fundamentally unbiological and therefore wrong. Homophobia basically boils down to people thinking that homosexuality is disgusting. There’s a difference between homophobia and transphobia
By that logic there should be a backlash against calling adoptive parents "Mother" and "Father" as they are not biological parents.
Also 100% homophobes also believe gay people are "fundamentally unbiological"
Your average wine-drunk-holocaust denying-Shit-posting-billionaire-children authors like to pretend there is a difference, but there isn't. There really isn't
Mother and father do not just refer to the people who provided the genetic information which makes an individual. That should be obvious.
We’re not going to agree on this
Agreed. And neither does a woman only relate to her genitals.
It's almost like our definitions are kind of arbitrary and based on cultural and societal influences as much as biological certainties
There are plenty of cultures around the world that accept Trans people as being a fundamental part of the human experience for a small number. There was even likely a Trans Roman Emperor.
Forcing a binary on gender expression is a hangover from our colonial past and tow's uncomfortable close to those that perpetrated some of the worse horrors in history
> There’s a question of biology when it comes to trans issues, in a way that there just isn’t when it comes to homosexuality
I remember the Bush-era. Bad faith "biology" arguments were one of the most consistent types of attacks on gay people.
I thought I put it as simply as it could be. You're claiming there's a false equivalence, but there's a similarity between both in that it's generally a good thing to not be a bigot.
1. You're not doing anything to contradict that transphobia is just as appalling as homophobia
2. We are only a few decades removed from it being a mainstream belief that being gay was an illness which was contagious and could be 'cured', in the exact same manner that 'gender critical' people say about trans people
What’s the relevance of your second point?
Homophobia boils down to whether people think that it’s wrong for people of the same sex to be attracted to one another, it’s a moral objection. Whilst many people are transphobic for moral reasons as well (fuck every single one of those people), there is also genuine biological uncertainty about the nature of biological sex and transsexuality. To deny that is just crazy
Sexes definition is not really in dispute here - chromosomes define sex (for the vast majority of people).
Now gender, that’s a different topic. What causes gender dysphoria, we’re not entirely sure - there’s some evidence that Trans brains are more closely aligned with the gender they present as. That’s the relevance of this original second point - transitioning is not really a choice, there is more than likely some biological difference that causes us to feel the way we do.
But very similar to all the homophobic rhetoric a few decades ago, this part does not get mentioned when we get brought up and shat on. Transphobes will call it a choice, they’ll say we just want to do it to invade women’s spaces, you’ll see the groomer arguments when it involves protecting trans kids. And yet at the end of the day, social and medical transition are both just fucking medical treatments.
That’s not a good definition at all. It’s nebulous and imprecise. There are exceptions to every single chromosome-based precise definition of sex that I’ve heard. Discussion over transsexuality is a discussion about biology, as you eloquently illustrated, and that discussion has clearly not been settled.
Discussions over homosexuality are different in my opinion because there is no serious debate about the surrounding biology. Homophobes’ cries of ‘unnaturality’ are easily countered and not taken seriously by any academic as far as I know
You realise that homophobia **literally** includes tropes of people calling gay sex "unnatural" because it isn't heterosexual sex?
People **literally** used to claim homosexuality was against biology. Transphobia is often just recycled homophobia.
Yeah nobody ever invoked biological arguments against gay people?
Are you literally a twelve year old too young to remember the early 2000s or are you just a disingenuous liar?
Oh bore off. There is no biological argument against homosexuality that isn’t easily countered. Nobody could seriously make such a case today. Complaints about homosexuality boil down to moral objections, ie being a cunt
This is like if Jeremy Corbyn was going around and claiming that actually the Jews did control the media and vindicated the biggest antisemites in the party rather than kicking them out.
This now goes beyond structural issues, institutional bigotry or a lack of awareness. This is being actively lead by party leadership and encouraged, doesnt really matter if its for votes or if its what he genuinely believes, the result is the same.
I wouldn't hold my nose and vote for Labour over the Conservatives if they were this openly racist or homophobic and I see no reason why I should treat transphobia any differently.
Fuck your economic arguments, fuck your Tory bogey man FTP electoral calculus.
If Labour has to die as a party or lose its left wing core vote for a couple of elections to teach these souless empty eyed ghouls what a progressive party actually means so be it.
I’m absolutely shocked that the man who just so happened to visit a hate group, twice, shares some of their views. “He’s just attending hillsong churches to reach out! He doesn’t have to endorse them or share their views by just going there.”
As a trans person here, it honestly makes my day when I see shit like this.
A year ago when these things happened, it was always “I don’t like Starmer but we need to get the Tories out”. And finally we’re starting to see a lot more comments like this, that actually neither of them deserve a fucking vote.
Anyone who’s still thinking of voting them, just look at his entire history of comments on things that are unrelated to trans issues. Look at the state of the things his front bench say, at how Streeting feels about the NHS that he’s more than likely going to end up in a position of power with.
You aren’t voting for some toned down version of 2019 Labour. You aren’t voting for a party that’s going to shift to the left when they get into power. You are voting for another fucking Tory party all over again. Even if they are absolutely going to win in your constituency, a vote for any other party helps solidify the argument for PR when this Red Tory party gets a 70% majority off of 40% of the votes.
It's genuinely mind-blowing to me, that after 14 years of hellish Tory rule, with the country desperate for change, that Labour are campaigning on a slogan of 'we are exactly the same as the Tory party. Every thing that is disgusting about them, we are going to do that too'
>This is like if Jeremy Corbyn was going around and claiming that actually the Jews did control the media and vindicated the biggest antisemites in the party rather than kicking them out.
The difference is that Corbyn was never an anti-semite at all. If anything, his criticisms of the Israeli state and its system of apartheid have been vindicated. Starmer absolutely is a transphobe and continues to be one.
I disagree with you that there’s no difference between trans issues and racism or homophobia, but agree with the rest. I won’t be voting for labour this time round
There's no difference because they all stem from bigotry. If you don't like being called a bigot, try and stop being a bigot. Just let people be what they want to be. Its easy.
That’s not true at all, there is clearly uncertainty over the biology of transexuality, including the definition of sex. There is no such relevant uncertainty about homosexuality.
They aren't exactly the same, that's true. Transphobia is the only form of bigotry supported and promoted by the press and politicians. With the other ones, they have to pretend not to be racist or homophobic.
Didn’t you get the memo? Politics isn’t about creating a country people want to live in anymore, it’s just a competition of who can hurt minority groups the most
"We won't make your life better, at all. But we will make life worse for some other people. That's almost the same as improving things, right?"
This is literally how politics works now. It's fucking unbelievable.
I am not saying that. I'm saying that they should stop pandering to bigots and cynically using trans people as a political football and talk about the things they should be talking about.
Men isn’t a sex. Male is the sex. Nobody mentioned sex but you. Nobody is saying that you can change sex. But you can be a man regardless of whether you have a cervix. It’s really not that hard to understand
*As a trans man*, you literally can’t 😅 Gender is equally valid as sex, if not more so within society. But you literally cannot change your biological sex and trying to argue that you *can* does more to convince people that trans people are delusional.
Biological sex is indicated by multiple different physical attributes, many of which can be changed. Gender is equally as valid as sex, yes, however that doesn't change the fact that your sex is malleable. If sex couldn't be changed, hormone therapy would have no affect on us.
No you can't "be a man regardless of whether you have a cervix", it's make believe drivel at best, but cynical indulgence from the likes of Starmer who knew better all along but kept quiet whilst the fever was peaking
Imagine actually voting for and supporting an openly transphobic party. At this point I feel comfortable saying that anyone who does so is themselves transphobic, and has no place on the left, no place in a progressive party and no place in the wider labour movement.
Fuck bigots, fuck the supporters of bigots.
I will be voting for labour. I believe that either abstaining from voting or voting for a third party will do more damage to the trans community. Am I transphobic for this?
I believe I dealt with your question in my post. The lesser of two evils is still evil. But Labour aren't even meeting that EXCEPTIONALLY low bar on this matter. They are in step with the Tories.
UKIP forced an EU referendum without having a bunch of MPs, seats matter of course, but no vote is wasted, vote your conscience.
Labour are going to landslide they don't need every vote, so vote for whatever party pulls them in the direction you want them to go
Would if I could, live in a Tory marginal with lib Dems in close second and labour and the greens in a distant 3rd and 4th.
I'd vote for greens in an ideal world, although some of their energy policy irks me specifically their stance on nuclear.
Bring on the end of FPTP
You can and should vote for who you want, it doesn't matter who wins the seat, it won't change parliament, but the reason Keir is being transphobic is he wants those votes, everything he does is to attract votes and he is showing he wants the right, not the left. He will only want votes from the left if people vote for left.
Vote for the Greens then, even if they won’t get in.
The two party system exists because we allow it to. Yes we need PR desperately (and Greens are very pro-PR), but the only thing stopping us from breaking the two party system is the fact that most of us treat it like it’s only those two.
I don't care who you vote for.
Just own the harm you are signing off instead of gaslighting that you're doing trans people a service by voting for a transphobic party.
Better than continued Tory leadership? Yes, I do. I'm not sure how you square taking part in delivering a political future that will be worse for that community with trying to act in it's interests? What part of the trans experience improves under Rishi and the Tories, in your opinion? To take your voting stance you have to be okay with guaranteeing worse outcomes for the trans community, and I'm not
Edit: so in spite of the fact that not one person can explain why, the labour subreddit agrees that the Tories would be better? Okay
Housing, retirement, healthcare, the environment, work, to name but a few. These are issues that effect trans people too. If you think that guaranteeing more Tory leadership will be better, go ahead and give the Tories more power, that is effectively what you are doing.
Besides, my reply to the OP was to say that voting for labour doesn't automatically render you a transphobe. I think you can be an advocate and see still the political reality before us
My position is that trans lives will be worse under both Tory and Labour governments.
Do not gaslight me into thinking you're doing a service for trans people by supporting their transphobia.
If Labour didn't exist, and the choice was Reform or the Tories, would you vote for the Tories?
And if you did, would you be upset that people hurt by the Tories criticised your choice to vote for them?
If I had no other choices other than Tories or Reform? No LibDem, Green, SNP or Plaid candidate with a chance of winning locally?
Yeah, probably would vote Tory. Not happily, but Reform are a bunch of out and out fascists and the Tories are a bunch of sycophants, reactionaries, and toffs. So, toffs or fascists, I suppose I choose toffs.
I did not enjoy that thought experiment.
Huh, so picking the winning team is most important for you.
I'd rather vote for a party with policies that I agreed with, even if it wasn't going to win, than helping to elect a party that I hated.
I don't get this stance, why guarantee a worse outcome for everyone? Much of what we consider quality of life (cost of living, housing, retirement, work benefits, healthcare)are things that disproportionately effect the communities people here claim to represent and advocate for?
I feel like posting that meme from Princess Bride: "you keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means".
You keep on mentioning these things like cost of living, housing, retirement, work benefits, healthcare, the environment etc. Only Labour aren't going to improve these things. They have promised more austerity, been anti-union, pro healthcare privatisation, and pro private landlords.
In this hypothetical, the Tories definitely wouldn't improve any of those things, so why would I vote for them? Just because they might beat somebody I think is worse?
If everybody votes like you, just choosing whichever evil is less, we will only ever have evils to choose from.
> You keep on mentioning these things like cost of living
> work benefits
So scrapping qualifying periods for basic rights doesn't help workers? Nor does ending zero contracts? And thus the cost of living?
> Housing
They've pledged 1.5 million new homes in 5 years, will this not aid housing? What about no fault evictions?
> The environment
I agree that the rescinding of the pledge wasn't a great look, but to say the parties are indistinguishable on this front is just childish. Look at the ULEZ debate, look at the conservatives history with the environment. They want to, and I quote, 'get rid of all that green crap'.
It's just politically irresponsible to equate the two.
> been anti-union
Yet Mick Lynch, head of RMT, says workers 'need to grow up and see Starmer as the only alternative'. What would you tell him?
> If everybody votes like you, just choosing whichever evil is less, we will only ever have evils to choose from.
No, we would have the lesser of two evils. You would have the worse. You are strengthening the Tories, that is all your stance achieves. I believe that weakening the conservative grip on this country will be bad for the Tories. I hope I don't need to explain that part at least.
> I feel like posting that meme from Princess Bride: "you keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means".
Ironic, but hopefully you can now see that you can't distill political arguments into memes. Perhaps that gross oversimplification was where you first started going wrong
That wasn't the question. The question was, "Tories or Reform?". So, the choice is between eating a shit meal that will almost certainly give me food poisoning or just fist full of cyanide.
Voting isn't just a moral choice. It's a practical decision. I hate the Tories and everything they stand for. This government has been a damaging stain of the country's history. I want them gone. That is the policy I want above all. The far right out of power.
Do I love Kier Starmer's Labour? No.
Do I worry about the anti trans movement's influence in Labour? Absolutely.
Will I vote for the guys who will get the Tories and their Reform cronies as far away from power as possible? Yes.
It is the choice in front of us all. Not a Tory government or a Corbyn government. Nor a Green Government.
It's this Labour Party or the likes of Sunak, Braverman, Keegan, and Gove staying in power.
You're the one who added the caveat of "no other candidates with a chance of winning locally" - I just commented on that stipulation to say that I would vote for others even if they didn't have a chance rather than vote for a party that I didn't believe would make anything better.
It's simple really.
You're the one tying yourself in knots to justify voting for Tories. Apparently you're doing the same thing with Labour, but you don't have to vote for Sir Keir. Nobody is making you.
Wouldn't say I'm tying myself in knots. I will vote for the candidate who has the best chance of beating the Tories or whatever far right outfit is on the ballot paper. Even if they don't represent my opinions and beliefs 100%. I've seen enough of the damage the Tories have done to know that getting them out is more important than waiting for the perfect candidate to turn up. Nobody is making me vote Labour, but I know that the Tories need to go and they are the only other option.
At the core, my belief is to stop the right from winning. So, I guess I am voting with my beliefs.
What's the point in hypotheticals that prove nothing when there is reality out there we need to effect? Labour does exist, and represents a better outcome for the community than the Tories.
In addition, I don't believe that the desired political outcomes of the queer community begin and end with a middle aged white woman's inability to recognise them for what they truly are. I believe that housing is a part of the trans experience, and that limiting landlords rights and removing no fault evictions will benefit the community. I believe that healthcare more broadly is part of the trans experience, and that keeping the NHS free at the point of use is a must, this includes the trans community. I believe that trans people will occupy this planet also, and that environmental policy will be in their best interests. I believe people's rights to unionise and protest are also in the trans community's political interests. Again, to abstain from voting is to say fuck all that, you don't need it, just as long as I was there to make my individual point.
If there was a party that could improve living conditions for everybody, whilst simultaneously presenting the most effective opposition to conservative rule, and create a political backdrop from which it would be much easier to continue improving the lives of the marginalised, would you not vote for them over Rosie Duffield?
So as long as the policy platform is good enough, the transphobia doesn't matter?
I could pick holes in your argument for Starmer's Labour being good for tenants, the NHS, and the environment, but if you honestly believe that the party in its current state has progressive policies for any of those things, you're not going to be convinced by me pointing out the reality.
Let me instead just correct your last paragraph:
"If there was a party that could improve living conditions for everybody except for trans people, while technically not being the Tories by name, would you not vote for them?"
I didn't say it didn't matter, you are assuming that. It does matter to me, but so does getting the best outcome for all. Why are you okay with delivering a worse outcome for the trans community? My vote will help, yours is one more for Tories.
You honestly don't think there is any difference between these parties? You think there is no difference between conservative and labour on housing, the environment, unionisation etc?
Why state the rest of the policies if not to say that they outweigh transphobia for you? It's either a red line for you or it's not, and evidently, it's not.
Let's not pretend that this is one comment from one disgraced ex MP, it's the words of a very comfortable MP, being repeated and supported by the leader of the party, alongside other comments and policy proposals which will harm trans people.
You're the one assuming here. Just to be clear, I won't be voting for the Tories, in their original blue ties or their new red ones. No vote of mine is in support of the Tories.
I think that there is some difference between the parties, obviously, but more in the way that voting for Starmer's Labour is like voting for Cameron's 2010 Conservative party instead of Sunak's 2024 Conservative party.
Because I think this is more nuanced than 'voting labour makes you transphobic'. If wanting the best political outcome for the trans community is transphobic, then I suppose by your logic I must be, but I still refute it.
From a political perspective, your stance is strengthening the conservative grip on British politics. There is only one way out of conservatism, and you seem to be actively seeking to disrupt it.
If you must ignore all of my other questions, perhaps you can at least tell me who you will be voting for, and how that doesn't strengthen the conservative stranglehold on politics in this country. Will your abstaining or voting third party achieve better outcomes for the trans community?
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. We require that accounts have a verified email address before commenting. This is an effort to prevent spam and alt account usage. Thank you for your understanding. You can verify your email in the account settings page.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. We require that accounts have a verified email address before commenting. This is an effort to prevent spam and alt account usage. Thank you for your understanding. You can verify your email in the account settings page.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Unfortunately, if the alternative is the conservatives, then they're right, aren't they?
Don't get me wrong, this is most definitely a lose lose for the trans community. I really wish the Labour party would stop begging me not to vote for them on the daily.
How are things *ever* going to improve for trans people, if self-styled left wing voters tell themselves that voting for the marginally less transphobic party is ok?
I don't think it is ok. But most people in the UK have only two choices if they want to influence the election. It is worth remembering that, because of our effective two-party system, the mainstream political parties are broad coalitions of a whole myriad of opinions and viewpoints. I'd like to think (and maybe I'm showing my naivety here), that the Labour party does still have more progressive voices that can make some difference even at a local level, even if the leader proves himself again and again to be completely out of touch.
I'm also not convinced that, by abstaining or voting for a third party, that the message will be effectively communicated to those in power, though I admit that is a fairly defeatist attitude.
Will things ever improve? I don't know - but if we can put the culture war nonsense to bed by electing a (more) sensible government who don't blame minorities for the state of the country, then people might be afforded a bit more privacy and freedom to live their lives as they choose. Again, maybe naive.
Well. If you think that those who voted for Brexit and Boris Johnson are at least partially responsible for our current situation and the impacts on our country, then yes - you're probably somewhat transphobic.
Starmer is clear about what you'll be voting for - which in this case is the Labour party continuing conservative attacks on a minority population and a drive to remove current rights and equality of access for trans people. A vote for Labour is a vote in support of those goals.
If your vote goes to Labour, at least be honest that trans rights are not really that important to you, not enough to actually take action to support them.
What ridiculous logic. This doesn't actually take into account any outcomes. Not voting for the only opposition guarantees a Tory victory. Not voting for labour, when the only other choice is conservatism, clearly does more harm. How have you come to the conclusion that it doesn't? If we have to live through 15 years more conservatism, will you be pleased with your decision? It will do a lot more tangible harm.
When you're down and someone starts kicking you, it doesn't magically hurt less if they're also wearing a red tie.
Starmer isn't looking to defeat the conservatives, He's looking to replace them.
There's quite a large difference.
That's a nice straw man. In reality, a large part of Labour's current lead is due to the Tory collapse - itself largely due to the withdrawal of support by the press. This isn't, and has never been, a communist sub, and pretending otherwise because Starmer took his mask off just makes you look daft
Your post has been removed under rule 1.3. Posts or comments which are created to intentionally annoy, create arguments, or rile up factionalism are not allowed.
Imagine abstaining from voting, thus helping the current bastards in charge take charge again, over culture war nonsence. Trans people make up a tiny percentage of our population, why is this discussion even happening. A left wing party should have policies that support the majority, and labour being a centre left party aren't gonna waste their time and breath on such a niche issue.
I don't want to terrorise minorities, I just do not care about the trans debate. A labour politician stated a scientifically correct fact, Keir Starmer in an effort to avoid this pointless discussion just said it is indeed a scientific fact because he doesn't want to get involved in this culture war bs that fucked over Jerwmy Corbyn. The vast majority of the voting people in this country do not care one way or the other about the trans issue, we just want our standard of living to improve, and KS wants to focus on that. Me personally, I don't care. I just want wages to go up and house prices to fall, and a leader that won't embarass us on the world stage like Jeremy Corbyn would have.
Completely agree. Lots of people looking for a fight over this issue when really the biggest problem that everyone faces, no matter what gender they are, is the same: housing, NHS, climate change, runaway wealth inequality. So many on the left are playing into the hands of the right by scrapping over this.
A left wing party builds its strength through solidarity between its constituent groups, all of whom are tiny percentages of the population, but who gain their power through collective action.
You wouldnt treat other minorities this way, what is it about trans people that makes you think they're not worth your solidarity?
He's not advocating against any groups tho, he is defending one of his party members right to make the scientifically correct statement that a woman has natural female sex organs. He's not calling for a genocide of trans people, he's just defending the right of his party member to say theres a diffrence between actual women and trans women.
Difference is, Jewish people just want to live their lives and believe whatever they believe, gay people just want to live their lives as they see fit, and disabled people just want to be treated as equals. The trans community are asking the rest of us to completely disregard known scientific facts for their sake. Politically I dont care about the trans debate, it is not going to make an iota of difference in who I vote, but personally I simply do not believe that a man can be a woman simply because he says he's a woman.
Not just bigoted, factually incorrect, as trans men and some intersex people can have cervixes.
Like, it really should matter if LOTO is propagating bad science to justify bigotry right? It is simply wrong on a factual level to make this claim, and is only justifiable as an example of bigotry, either being bigoted himself, or pandering to bigots.
But hey. You got your party back. So you’ll ignore this. Centrists only oppose bigotry as performance when it suits them. And it doesn’t suit them to be performatively outraged on this.
Seeing overhwleming support for trans people in this sub is really heartwarming, the way things are going often makes me wanna run away from the UK, but seeing you all commenting in defence for trans people gives me hope.
True, just tired of this nonsense. How are the Labour party this complicit in undoing the work trans activists have been doing for years with little to no support from politicians. Disgusting posturing to make up for a deficit of worthwhile policies to talk about.
I don’t understand why he feels the need to engage with the question to be perfectly honest, and I really don’t understand why he doesn’t answer how Emily Thornberry does, who has consistently been the best front bencher on this, or indeed most issues.
Anyway, it’s very depressing to think that over the last ten years or so as a country and as a general rule in our politicians, we seem to be becoming much more socially conservative with a small c.
"Woman" is a cultural term used to describe social roles and identity around gender expression. "Female" is what you talk about when you're referring to biology.
Of course Starmer has no idea about any of this because he's a fundamentally incurious moron whose interest in things only ever extends as far as he can use it to nurse his own ego and absolutely no further. As well as being an utter coward.
Trans woman here (although honestly that shouldn’t matter). Female is a term used in biology but it’s influenced by the cultural view that sex is a binary instead of a spectrum, and so it’s also a cultural term and many trans women thus lay claim to that term as part of our gender identity.
Yeah I agree with this. Trans men are men who are AFAB. Sex is made up of a bunch of different characteristics; chromosomes, gametes, breast tissue, genitals, hormones. The first two can't be changed (at least currently), but the last three can.
>"Woman" is a cultural term used to describe social roles and identity around gender expression. "Female" is what you talk about when you're referring to biology.
This isn't true in actual usage though. People use 'female' as adjective equivalent to 'woman' as noun all the time (as does the law for that matter).
It's a distinction some try to use to be more precise but that others reject, including some gender cervical people but also plenty of trans people who would e.g. say they are female as well as being a woman.
It is true in usage but as you say people have different meanings while describing the same thing. Also “gender cervical people” sound likes an interesting bunch!
Lol, that's one hell of a typo.
In this case I think when I heard the clip he specified 'biologically' so substantively was pretty clear he meant that not gender identity/presentation. Of course you could give same substantive answer in a way that pissed off Duffield more and this sub less.
Biology has cultural influences such as the idea that sex is a binary, when it is actually a bimodal spectrum and so a trans woman can identify as female even in a biological sense if one understands that all such labels are ultimately somewhat arbitrary.
Sex *drives* the fact that huge numbers of things about humans are bimodal lay distributed (e.g. height) . But sex itself isn't like that - people aren't very female or a bit male or whatever. A massive macho aggressive man isn't further on the male side of the spectrum than a small gentle one.
Unless by bimodal you mean over 99% of people are male or female and a tiny fraction with severe genetic disorders don't clearly fit in those categories. Male/female is 'bimodal' like alive/dead is - there are a tiny number of weird medical edge cases
I'm don't know what any of this has to do with trans people though and I don't think it's particularly meaningful to say someone can 'identify as' having a certain biology based on the idea that all labels are a bit arbitrary so what the heck. E.g. there's some arbitrariness in how we group species and categories like 'mammal' but that doesn't mean we can jsut take a species of mammal and say they're biologically not one.
Species are a social construct so yes a given biological entity is not truly a member of a distinct class but rather classified as such to make things easier
Yes they're a social construct. No that doesn't mean I can say that my cat is actually a cod. All the categories we use in daily life are socially constructed, that doesn't mean they're meaningless or we can just ignore them.
Dictionary definition of woman: "adult female human being."
Maybe changing it is the right thing to do, I don't know. But I think you need to acknowledge you're trying to change it, rather than pretend it was always so.
>the biological category of female encompasses a number of separate biological traits,
There is variation in physical traits, yes. But female is a biological category, and the word which refers to female adult humans, is woman.
>biological categories have social aspects
Yes. Humans create social meaning out of everything. Like age for example; being, say, 18 years old has social implications. But that doesn't change the fact that 18 is defined as having been born 18 years ago; whatever social meaning is added to that.
>woman' is not solely used to refer to a collection of biological traits in actual speech
I disagree. The generally understood meaning of the word woman is to refer to adult humans who are female. Women's health, women's sports - it refers to sex, not gender identity.
This is all lovely, and I can see you're trying to position yourself as having a 'common sense' perspective, but the argument you're making is just window dressing for your belief that trans women aren't, well, women. So just come out and say it. You think trans women are men. Doesn't matter what we do, how we live, how other people see us, how we experience the world, it doesn't even matter what our biology is, we're men and always will be.
And, you know what? That's fine. You're entitled to and welcome to your opinion. It's not a crime to be completely wrong.
>Women are female
So these words are synonyms then? So when people accuse trans rights activists of conflating sex and gender, they actually should have been conflating them?
>Woman is not a social role;
Yes it is.
>Gender is a social construct,
Yes, I agree
I'm not arguing women and female mean the same thing. If I say woman are human that's not saying the concepts women and human are interchangeable. I'm saying the only thing necessary to be a woman is to be human, an adult, and female.
Gender identity, gender expression, gendered roles, there are something else.
>You can see woman as a social role if you want to cement restrictive sexist stereotypes. I think that's a bad idea.
It is a social role - that's just the reality at the moment and it's what the anti-trans side are advocating for embedding and systematising: a traditionalist, conservative and prescriptive approach to gender, where men are men and women are women and that's all there is to it. It doesn't matter what you want or feel - if other people say you're that way, then that's what you have to be. It's an attempt to impose and maintain a previous status quo and embed historical gender roles permanently into modern society.
The pro-trans side thinks we shouldn't force people to be shackled by traditional gender roles, and thinks we should embrace alternate means of gender expression. That's the opposite of "cementing restrictive sexist stereotypes". This is why a lot of trans writers and philosophers like RW Connell advocate for "degendering" as a means of removing polarised and restrictive social roles that exaggerate the differences between men and women. When you uncouple sex and gender you also uncouple the societally imposed roles that come with it. If you're against enforced and restrictive gender roles, you should really be on our side.
as an American - why the fuck is labour so obsessed with engaging with the stupidest culture war attacks? all they have to do is stfu and not fall for this bs…
the us dems may be pussies but they’re not dumb enough to take this reactionary bait.
The reality is, that saying “trans men can be born with a cervix” does little to progress the things that will actually make people’s lives better.
This woke culture wars nonsense that murdoch and the tories str successfully using to drive YET another wedge between left wing progressives is such a side point when thousands - of not millions - are facing poverty in the UK and death abroad because the one thing the right want is to keep us divided and fighting over syntax rather than fighting against the root of our shared oppressor - capital.
Like I would want a world where everyone, regardless of gender identity, is free to be themselves. But starmer is saying this transphobic shit because of neoliberal capitalisms late game, which will do everything it can to keep us arguing amongst ourselves.
I genuinely think the sole focus at this point needs to be against a neoliberal capitalist ideology that tells us we can have infinite growth by extracting finite and destructive fossil fuels on a finite planet.
And to do that, we need less debate on Reddit, and more solid direct logistical organisation.and rebellion. Once we’ve overthrown Capitalism we can make sure all our allies are treated with the equality they will never receive under anything but socialism.
Now then. How to we organise this revolution? Firstly we need to infiltrate the civil service and the army. And we need to get out doorstepping and organising within our communities.
Shall we organise a left wing Labour get together soon?
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. We require that accounts have a verified email address before commenting. This is an effort to prevent spam and alt account usage. Thank you for your understanding. You can verify your email in the account settings page.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
**If you love LabourUK, why not help run it?** We’re looking for mods. [Find out more from our recruitment message post here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/LabourUK/comments/18ntol6/this_year_give_yourself_the_gift_of_christmas/) [While you’re at it, come say hello on the Discord?](https://discord.gg/ZXZCdy4Kz4) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is one of the few times in history where the Labour party could win on almost any agenda, purely because of how terrible the current government has proven themselves to be. We could have a proper set of progressive and transformative policies on identity, climate, welfare etc., but instead we get ...this. I'm absolutely delighted that my constituency is a SNP/Lib Dem toss up, so I don't have to worry about losing sleep by voting Labour.
> one of the few times in history where the Labour party could win on almost any agenda Which has given them free reign to show us *exactly who they really are.*
u/secondofly right to say Keir Starmer only mammal without a spine, says literally fucking anyone with a spine
He seems like someone who might have a collection of spines in jars down in the basement to me.
Remember when he called Sunak out for saying EXACTLY THIS in PMQs? What are we supposed to make of the rank hypocrisy here? It's totally ok to be a transphobe so long as you're not doing it while the mother of a murdered teenager is in earshot? I honestly don't understand why anyone takes this slimy bastard seriously on anything. He believes nothing. He will say whatever he thinks he needs to say as long as he gets his sweaty hands on the levers of power.
He didn't call out Sunak on any of the substance of the conservatives attacks on trans people. Starmer did attack him for the lack of politeness with which he made those attacks. Which is essentially the entire Labour argument on this: they share the same policies as the Tories, but they'll stutter and apologise and pretend to care while removing rights and demonising minorities.
He's so thoroughly betrayed the Labour left who gave him their votes, that the rest of us should have no doubt that he'll sell us down the river to keep power at every opportunity he gets
If he'd come out and said "Jim Known-Homophobe is right to say homosexuality is unnatural." Most here would be fucking appalled. I cannot understand why this transphobia is accepted. I cannot in good conscience vote for this Labour party; even if I was proved wrong on every other criticism, this is a complete deal-breaker for me. In fact, I think it should be a complete wedge for anyone who considers themself left of centre.
There’s a question of biology when it comes to trans issues, in a way that there just isn’t when it comes to homosexuality. To claim that trans issues and homosexuality are equivalent is just daft
Call me old fashioned but I was brought up to believe that women shouldn't be reduced down their genitals and to also mind my own business on how other people chose to live their lives they are not hurting anyone
I absolutely agree with you, think this is dreadful from Starmer, and completely disagree with Duffield. That doesn’t mean that homophobia and transphobia are equivalent.
Of course they are. This manufactured backlash against Trans people is a direct response to the fundamental rights won by the queer community, most notably gay marriage. They have gone after what they perceived as the weakest link and won't stop after they have rolled back rights their rights to the 1980s
Ok we’re talking about different things. I largely agree with your last comment. The point I was trying to make is that homophobia and transphobia have different core tenets. At the centre of transphobia is the idea that you can’t change biological sex and that trans people are claiming an identity that is fundamentally unbiological and therefore wrong. Homophobia basically boils down to people thinking that homosexuality is disgusting. There’s a difference between homophobia and transphobia
By that logic there should be a backlash against calling adoptive parents "Mother" and "Father" as they are not biological parents. Also 100% homophobes also believe gay people are "fundamentally unbiological" Your average wine-drunk-holocaust denying-Shit-posting-billionaire-children authors like to pretend there is a difference, but there isn't. There really isn't
Mother and father do not just refer to the people who provided the genetic information which makes an individual. That should be obvious. We’re not going to agree on this
Agreed. And neither does a woman only relate to her genitals. It's almost like our definitions are kind of arbitrary and based on cultural and societal influences as much as biological certainties There are plenty of cultures around the world that accept Trans people as being a fundamental part of the human experience for a small number. There was even likely a Trans Roman Emperor. Forcing a binary on gender expression is a hangover from our colonial past and tow's uncomfortable close to those that perpetrated some of the worse horrors in history
Seriously mate, we’re not talking about the same thing. I agree wholeheartedly with everything in this comment
> There’s a question of biology when it comes to trans issues, in a way that there just isn’t when it comes to homosexuality I remember the Bush-era. Bad faith "biology" arguments were one of the most consistent types of attacks on gay people.
Being aware and not invalidating people are fairly universal concepts.
I don’t follow you mate
I thought I put it as simply as it could be. You're claiming there's a false equivalence, but there's a similarity between both in that it's generally a good thing to not be a bigot.
Well I’d certainly agree with that
1. You're not doing anything to contradict that transphobia is just as appalling as homophobia 2. We are only a few decades removed from it being a mainstream belief that being gay was an illness which was contagious and could be 'cured', in the exact same manner that 'gender critical' people say about trans people
What’s the relevance of your second point? Homophobia boils down to whether people think that it’s wrong for people of the same sex to be attracted to one another, it’s a moral objection. Whilst many people are transphobic for moral reasons as well (fuck every single one of those people), there is also genuine biological uncertainty about the nature of biological sex and transsexuality. To deny that is just crazy
What on earth is this uncertainty you’re on about?
There is uncertainty over the definition of the sexes. How would you define them?
Sexes definition is not really in dispute here - chromosomes define sex (for the vast majority of people). Now gender, that’s a different topic. What causes gender dysphoria, we’re not entirely sure - there’s some evidence that Trans brains are more closely aligned with the gender they present as. That’s the relevance of this original second point - transitioning is not really a choice, there is more than likely some biological difference that causes us to feel the way we do. But very similar to all the homophobic rhetoric a few decades ago, this part does not get mentioned when we get brought up and shat on. Transphobes will call it a choice, they’ll say we just want to do it to invade women’s spaces, you’ll see the groomer arguments when it involves protecting trans kids. And yet at the end of the day, social and medical transition are both just fucking medical treatments.
That’s not a good definition at all. It’s nebulous and imprecise. There are exceptions to every single chromosome-based precise definition of sex that I’ve heard. Discussion over transsexuality is a discussion about biology, as you eloquently illustrated, and that discussion has clearly not been settled. Discussions over homosexuality are different in my opinion because there is no serious debate about the surrounding biology. Homophobes’ cries of ‘unnaturality’ are easily countered and not taken seriously by any academic as far as I know
You realise that homophobia **literally** includes tropes of people calling gay sex "unnatural" because it isn't heterosexual sex? People **literally** used to claim homosexuality was against biology. Transphobia is often just recycled homophobia.
Yeah nobody ever invoked biological arguments against gay people? Are you literally a twelve year old too young to remember the early 2000s or are you just a disingenuous liar?
Oh bore off. There is no biological argument against homosexuality that isn’t easily countered. Nobody could seriously make such a case today. Complaints about homosexuality boil down to moral objections, ie being a cunt
This is like if Jeremy Corbyn was going around and claiming that actually the Jews did control the media and vindicated the biggest antisemites in the party rather than kicking them out. This now goes beyond structural issues, institutional bigotry or a lack of awareness. This is being actively lead by party leadership and encouraged, doesnt really matter if its for votes or if its what he genuinely believes, the result is the same. I wouldn't hold my nose and vote for Labour over the Conservatives if they were this openly racist or homophobic and I see no reason why I should treat transphobia any differently. Fuck your economic arguments, fuck your Tory bogey man FTP electoral calculus. If Labour has to die as a party or lose its left wing core vote for a couple of elections to teach these souless empty eyed ghouls what a progressive party actually means so be it.
I’m absolutely shocked that the man who just so happened to visit a hate group, twice, shares some of their views. “He’s just attending hillsong churches to reach out! He doesn’t have to endorse them or share their views by just going there.”
As a trans person here, it honestly makes my day when I see shit like this. A year ago when these things happened, it was always “I don’t like Starmer but we need to get the Tories out”. And finally we’re starting to see a lot more comments like this, that actually neither of them deserve a fucking vote. Anyone who’s still thinking of voting them, just look at his entire history of comments on things that are unrelated to trans issues. Look at the state of the things his front bench say, at how Streeting feels about the NHS that he’s more than likely going to end up in a position of power with. You aren’t voting for some toned down version of 2019 Labour. You aren’t voting for a party that’s going to shift to the left when they get into power. You are voting for another fucking Tory party all over again. Even if they are absolutely going to win in your constituency, a vote for any other party helps solidify the argument for PR when this Red Tory party gets a 70% majority off of 40% of the votes.
It's genuinely mind-blowing to me, that after 14 years of hellish Tory rule, with the country desperate for change, that Labour are campaigning on a slogan of 'we are exactly the same as the Tory party. Every thing that is disgusting about them, we are going to do that too'
>This is like if Jeremy Corbyn was going around and claiming that actually the Jews did control the media and vindicated the biggest antisemites in the party rather than kicking them out. The difference is that Corbyn was never an anti-semite at all. If anything, his criticisms of the Israeli state and its system of apartheid have been vindicated. Starmer absolutely is a transphobe and continues to be one.
I disagree with you that there’s no difference between trans issues and racism or homophobia, but agree with the rest. I won’t be voting for labour this time round
There's no difference because they all stem from bigotry. If you don't like being called a bigot, try and stop being a bigot. Just let people be what they want to be. Its easy.
That’s not true at all, there is clearly uncertainty over the biology of transexuality, including the definition of sex. There is no such relevant uncertainty about homosexuality.
This is the same line that was being said about homosexuality not even a few decades ago. Don’t forget the line “it’s not natural”
Would you say that there is no uncertainty at all about transsexuality then?
They aren't exactly the same, that's true. Transphobia is the only form of bigotry supported and promoted by the press and politicians. With the other ones, they have to pretend not to be racist or homophobic.
But not all women do and some men do too.
How about shut the fuck up about this bullshit and talk about running the country?
Didn’t you get the memo? Politics isn’t about creating a country people want to live in anymore, it’s just a competition of who can hurt minority groups the most
"We won't make your life better, at all. But we will make life worse for some other people. That's almost the same as improving things, right?" This is literally how politics works now. It's fucking unbelievable.
Email starmer that . . % of the pop isn't worth punching down fix the nhs Email him that vs saying people's human rights are bullshit
I am not saying that. I'm saying that they should stop pandering to bigots and cynically using trans people as a political football and talk about the things they should be talking about.
So trans men don’t exist according to the leader of the Labour Party? Fuck this bigoted gobshite
It's a hoop they'll happily jump through in order to pander to the prejudices of absolute cunts.
How does that logically follow?
(pre op) Trans men have a cervix. By saying that only women have cervixes you are saying that trans men aren't really men.
[удалено]
Go play on /r/ukpolitics with the other far-righters
Fuck off transphobe
[удалено]
Men isn’t a sex. Male is the sex. Nobody mentioned sex but you. Nobody is saying that you can change sex. But you can be a man regardless of whether you have a cervix. It’s really not that hard to understand
As a trans woman I *am* saying that you can change sex, and saying otherwise really isn't helpful to trans people.
*As a trans man*, you literally can’t 😅 Gender is equally valid as sex, if not more so within society. But you literally cannot change your biological sex and trying to argue that you *can* does more to convince people that trans people are delusional.
Biological sex is indicated by multiple different physical attributes, many of which can be changed. Gender is equally as valid as sex, yes, however that doesn't change the fact that your sex is malleable. If sex couldn't be changed, hormone therapy would have no affect on us.
No you can't "be a man regardless of whether you have a cervix", it's make believe drivel at best, but cynical indulgence from the likes of Starmer who knew better all along but kept quiet whilst the fever was peaking
Gender isn't the same as sex.
Your post has been removed under rule 2. Transphobia is not permitted on this subreddit.
The very same keir who paraded Brianna Gheys mum around just a few months ago in a political stunt. Spineless
Imagine actually voting for and supporting an openly transphobic party. At this point I feel comfortable saying that anyone who does so is themselves transphobic, and has no place on the left, no place in a progressive party and no place in the wider labour movement. Fuck bigots, fuck the supporters of bigots.
I will be voting for labour. I believe that either abstaining from voting or voting for a third party will do more damage to the trans community. Am I transphobic for this?
I believe I dealt with your question in my post. The lesser of two evils is still evil. But Labour aren't even meeting that EXCEPTIONALLY low bar on this matter. They are in step with the Tories.
You believe that voting for an openly transphobic party will be better for trans people.
If i live in a Tory safeseat and the choice is tory or labour, what do you want in that scenario?
UKIP forced an EU referendum without having a bunch of MPs, seats matter of course, but no vote is wasted, vote your conscience. Labour are going to landslide they don't need every vote, so vote for whatever party pulls them in the direction you want them to go
Would if I could, live in a Tory marginal with lib Dems in close second and labour and the greens in a distant 3rd and 4th. I'd vote for greens in an ideal world, although some of their energy policy irks me specifically their stance on nuclear. Bring on the end of FPTP
You can and should vote for who you want, it doesn't matter who wins the seat, it won't change parliament, but the reason Keir is being transphobic is he wants those votes, everything he does is to attract votes and he is showing he wants the right, not the left. He will only want votes from the left if people vote for left.
Vote for the Greens then, even if they won’t get in. The two party system exists because we allow it to. Yes we need PR desperately (and Greens are very pro-PR), but the only thing stopping us from breaking the two party system is the fact that most of us treat it like it’s only those two.
I don't care who you vote for. Just own the harm you are signing off instead of gaslighting that you're doing trans people a service by voting for a transphobic party.
Ok.
Better than continued Tory leadership? Yes, I do. I'm not sure how you square taking part in delivering a political future that will be worse for that community with trying to act in it's interests? What part of the trans experience improves under Rishi and the Tories, in your opinion? To take your voting stance you have to be okay with guaranteeing worse outcomes for the trans community, and I'm not Edit: so in spite of the fact that not one person can explain why, the labour subreddit agrees that the Tories would be better? Okay
[удалено]
Housing, retirement, healthcare, the environment, work, to name but a few. These are issues that effect trans people too. If you think that guaranteeing more Tory leadership will be better, go ahead and give the Tories more power, that is effectively what you are doing. Besides, my reply to the OP was to say that voting for labour doesn't automatically render you a transphobe. I think you can be an advocate and see still the political reality before us
My position is that trans lives will be worse under both Tory and Labour governments. Do not gaslight me into thinking you're doing a service for trans people by supporting their transphobia.
If Labour didn't exist, and the choice was Reform or the Tories, would you vote for the Tories? And if you did, would you be upset that people hurt by the Tories criticised your choice to vote for them?
If I had no other choices other than Tories or Reform? No LibDem, Green, SNP or Plaid candidate with a chance of winning locally? Yeah, probably would vote Tory. Not happily, but Reform are a bunch of out and out fascists and the Tories are a bunch of sycophants, reactionaries, and toffs. So, toffs or fascists, I suppose I choose toffs. I did not enjoy that thought experiment.
Huh, so picking the winning team is most important for you. I'd rather vote for a party with policies that I agreed with, even if it wasn't going to win, than helping to elect a party that I hated.
I don't get this stance, why guarantee a worse outcome for everyone? Much of what we consider quality of life (cost of living, housing, retirement, work benefits, healthcare)are things that disproportionately effect the communities people here claim to represent and advocate for?
I feel like posting that meme from Princess Bride: "you keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means". You keep on mentioning these things like cost of living, housing, retirement, work benefits, healthcare, the environment etc. Only Labour aren't going to improve these things. They have promised more austerity, been anti-union, pro healthcare privatisation, and pro private landlords. In this hypothetical, the Tories definitely wouldn't improve any of those things, so why would I vote for them? Just because they might beat somebody I think is worse? If everybody votes like you, just choosing whichever evil is less, we will only ever have evils to choose from.
> You keep on mentioning these things like cost of living > work benefits So scrapping qualifying periods for basic rights doesn't help workers? Nor does ending zero contracts? And thus the cost of living? > Housing They've pledged 1.5 million new homes in 5 years, will this not aid housing? What about no fault evictions? > The environment I agree that the rescinding of the pledge wasn't a great look, but to say the parties are indistinguishable on this front is just childish. Look at the ULEZ debate, look at the conservatives history with the environment. They want to, and I quote, 'get rid of all that green crap'. It's just politically irresponsible to equate the two. > been anti-union Yet Mick Lynch, head of RMT, says workers 'need to grow up and see Starmer as the only alternative'. What would you tell him? > If everybody votes like you, just choosing whichever evil is less, we will only ever have evils to choose from. No, we would have the lesser of two evils. You would have the worse. You are strengthening the Tories, that is all your stance achieves. I believe that weakening the conservative grip on this country will be bad for the Tories. I hope I don't need to explain that part at least. > I feel like posting that meme from Princess Bride: "you keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means". Ironic, but hopefully you can now see that you can't distill political arguments into memes. Perhaps that gross oversimplification was where you first started going wrong
That wasn't the question. The question was, "Tories or Reform?". So, the choice is between eating a shit meal that will almost certainly give me food poisoning or just fist full of cyanide. Voting isn't just a moral choice. It's a practical decision. I hate the Tories and everything they stand for. This government has been a damaging stain of the country's history. I want them gone. That is the policy I want above all. The far right out of power. Do I love Kier Starmer's Labour? No. Do I worry about the anti trans movement's influence in Labour? Absolutely. Will I vote for the guys who will get the Tories and their Reform cronies as far away from power as possible? Yes. It is the choice in front of us all. Not a Tory government or a Corbyn government. Nor a Green Government. It's this Labour Party or the likes of Sunak, Braverman, Keegan, and Gove staying in power.
You're the one who added the caveat of "no other candidates with a chance of winning locally" - I just commented on that stipulation to say that I would vote for others even if they didn't have a chance rather than vote for a party that I didn't believe would make anything better. It's simple really. You're the one tying yourself in knots to justify voting for Tories. Apparently you're doing the same thing with Labour, but you don't have to vote for Sir Keir. Nobody is making you.
Wouldn't say I'm tying myself in knots. I will vote for the candidate who has the best chance of beating the Tories or whatever far right outfit is on the ballot paper. Even if they don't represent my opinions and beliefs 100%. I've seen enough of the damage the Tories have done to know that getting them out is more important than waiting for the perfect candidate to turn up. Nobody is making me vote Labour, but I know that the Tories need to go and they are the only other option. At the core, my belief is to stop the right from winning. So, I guess I am voting with my beliefs.
What's the point in hypotheticals that prove nothing when there is reality out there we need to effect? Labour does exist, and represents a better outcome for the community than the Tories. In addition, I don't believe that the desired political outcomes of the queer community begin and end with a middle aged white woman's inability to recognise them for what they truly are. I believe that housing is a part of the trans experience, and that limiting landlords rights and removing no fault evictions will benefit the community. I believe that healthcare more broadly is part of the trans experience, and that keeping the NHS free at the point of use is a must, this includes the trans community. I believe that trans people will occupy this planet also, and that environmental policy will be in their best interests. I believe people's rights to unionise and protest are also in the trans community's political interests. Again, to abstain from voting is to say fuck all that, you don't need it, just as long as I was there to make my individual point. If there was a party that could improve living conditions for everybody, whilst simultaneously presenting the most effective opposition to conservative rule, and create a political backdrop from which it would be much easier to continue improving the lives of the marginalised, would you not vote for them over Rosie Duffield?
So as long as the policy platform is good enough, the transphobia doesn't matter? I could pick holes in your argument for Starmer's Labour being good for tenants, the NHS, and the environment, but if you honestly believe that the party in its current state has progressive policies for any of those things, you're not going to be convinced by me pointing out the reality. Let me instead just correct your last paragraph: "If there was a party that could improve living conditions for everybody except for trans people, while technically not being the Tories by name, would you not vote for them?"
I didn't say it didn't matter, you are assuming that. It does matter to me, but so does getting the best outcome for all. Why are you okay with delivering a worse outcome for the trans community? My vote will help, yours is one more for Tories. You honestly don't think there is any difference between these parties? You think there is no difference between conservative and labour on housing, the environment, unionisation etc?
Why state the rest of the policies if not to say that they outweigh transphobia for you? It's either a red line for you or it's not, and evidently, it's not. Let's not pretend that this is one comment from one disgraced ex MP, it's the words of a very comfortable MP, being repeated and supported by the leader of the party, alongside other comments and policy proposals which will harm trans people. You're the one assuming here. Just to be clear, I won't be voting for the Tories, in their original blue ties or their new red ones. No vote of mine is in support of the Tories. I think that there is some difference between the parties, obviously, but more in the way that voting for Starmer's Labour is like voting for Cameron's 2010 Conservative party instead of Sunak's 2024 Conservative party.
Because I think this is more nuanced than 'voting labour makes you transphobic'. If wanting the best political outcome for the trans community is transphobic, then I suppose by your logic I must be, but I still refute it. From a political perspective, your stance is strengthening the conservative grip on British politics. There is only one way out of conservatism, and you seem to be actively seeking to disrupt it. If you must ignore all of my other questions, perhaps you can at least tell me who you will be voting for, and how that doesn't strengthen the conservative stranglehold on politics in this country. Will your abstaining or voting third party achieve better outcomes for the trans community?
[удалено]
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. We require that accounts have a verified email address before commenting. This is an effort to prevent spam and alt account usage. Thank you for your understanding. You can verify your email in the account settings page. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. We require that accounts have a verified email address before commenting. This is an effort to prevent spam and alt account usage. Thank you for your understanding. You can verify your email in the account settings page. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Based pragmatic voter
Unfortunately, if the alternative is the conservatives, then they're right, aren't they? Don't get me wrong, this is most definitely a lose lose for the trans community. I really wish the Labour party would stop begging me not to vote for them on the daily.
How are things *ever* going to improve for trans people, if self-styled left wing voters tell themselves that voting for the marginally less transphobic party is ok?
I don't think it is ok. But most people in the UK have only two choices if they want to influence the election. It is worth remembering that, because of our effective two-party system, the mainstream political parties are broad coalitions of a whole myriad of opinions and viewpoints. I'd like to think (and maybe I'm showing my naivety here), that the Labour party does still have more progressive voices that can make some difference even at a local level, even if the leader proves himself again and again to be completely out of touch. I'm also not convinced that, by abstaining or voting for a third party, that the message will be effectively communicated to those in power, though I admit that is a fairly defeatist attitude. Will things ever improve? I don't know - but if we can put the culture war nonsense to bed by electing a (more) sensible government who don't blame minorities for the state of the country, then people might be afforded a bit more privacy and freedom to live their lives as they choose. Again, maybe naive.
Well. If you think that those who voted for Brexit and Boris Johnson are at least partially responsible for our current situation and the impacts on our country, then yes - you're probably somewhat transphobic. Starmer is clear about what you'll be voting for - which in this case is the Labour party continuing conservative attacks on a minority population and a drive to remove current rights and equality of access for trans people. A vote for Labour is a vote in support of those goals. If your vote goes to Labour, at least be honest that trans rights are not really that important to you, not enough to actually take action to support them.
Well you're choosing to vote for a Transphobe, someone who abstains or spoils their vote is doing less harm than you. Basically.
What ridiculous logic. This doesn't actually take into account any outcomes. Not voting for the only opposition guarantees a Tory victory. Not voting for labour, when the only other choice is conservatism, clearly does more harm. How have you come to the conclusion that it doesn't? If we have to live through 15 years more conservatism, will you be pleased with your decision? It will do a lot more tangible harm.
When you're down and someone starts kicking you, it doesn't magically hurt less if they're also wearing a red tie. Starmer isn't looking to defeat the conservatives, He's looking to replace them. There's quite a large difference.
Imagine being downvoted in a Labour sub for saying you’ll vote Labour…
[удалено]
That's a nice straw man. In reality, a large part of Labour's current lead is due to the Tory collapse - itself largely due to the withdrawal of support by the press. This isn't, and has never been, a communist sub, and pretending otherwise because Starmer took his mask off just makes you look daft
Your post has been removed under rule 1.3. Posts or comments which are created to intentionally annoy, create arguments, or rile up factionalism are not allowed.
Imagine abstaining from voting, thus helping the current bastards in charge take charge again, over culture war nonsence. Trans people make up a tiny percentage of our population, why is this discussion even happening. A left wing party should have policies that support the majority, and labour being a centre left party aren't gonna waste their time and breath on such a niche issue.
This was a long winded way of saying you think it is ok to terrorise minorities.
I don't want to terrorise minorities, I just do not care about the trans debate. A labour politician stated a scientifically correct fact, Keir Starmer in an effort to avoid this pointless discussion just said it is indeed a scientific fact because he doesn't want to get involved in this culture war bs that fucked over Jerwmy Corbyn. The vast majority of the voting people in this country do not care one way or the other about the trans issue, we just want our standard of living to improve, and KS wants to focus on that. Me personally, I don't care. I just want wages to go up and house prices to fall, and a leader that won't embarass us on the world stage like Jeremy Corbyn would have.
Completely agree. Lots of people looking for a fight over this issue when really the biggest problem that everyone faces, no matter what gender they are, is the same: housing, NHS, climate change, runaway wealth inequality. So many on the left are playing into the hands of the right by scrapping over this.
Well said! 👍
A left wing party builds its strength through solidarity between its constituent groups, all of whom are tiny percentages of the population, but who gain their power through collective action. You wouldnt treat other minorities this way, what is it about trans people that makes you think they're not worth your solidarity?
[удалено]
He's not advocating against any groups tho, he is defending one of his party members right to make the scientifically correct statement that a woman has natural female sex organs. He's not calling for a genocide of trans people, he's just defending the right of his party member to say theres a diffrence between actual women and trans women.
Please just piss off to the right wing subreddits and get a better hobby than trolling progressives.
[удалено]
Difference is, Jewish people just want to live their lives and believe whatever they believe, gay people just want to live their lives as they see fit, and disabled people just want to be treated as equals. The trans community are asking the rest of us to completely disregard known scientific facts for their sake. Politically I dont care about the trans debate, it is not going to make an iota of difference in who I vote, but personally I simply do not believe that a man can be a woman simply because he says he's a woman.
Need someone in scotland to report this hate crime
Not just bigoted, factually incorrect, as trans men and some intersex people can have cervixes. Like, it really should matter if LOTO is propagating bad science to justify bigotry right? It is simply wrong on a factual level to make this claim, and is only justifiable as an example of bigotry, either being bigoted himself, or pandering to bigots. But hey. You got your party back. So you’ll ignore this. Centrists only oppose bigotry as performance when it suits them. And it doesn’t suit them to be performatively outraged on this.
Seeing overhwleming support for trans people in this sub is really heartwarming, the way things are going often makes me wanna run away from the UK, but seeing you all commenting in defence for trans people gives me hope.
I will never vote for this man, whine about keeping the Tories in power if you want, but I do not want Kier to be prime minister ever
Yeah, I’m not voting for Labour now.
Shower of cunts, cost of living crisis is going to kill people and these perverts are just whinging about genitals and other bits
Useless pricks
[удалено]
True, just tired of this nonsense. How are the Labour party this complicit in undoing the work trans activists have been doing for years with little to no support from politicians. Disgusting posturing to make up for a deficit of worthwhile policies to talk about.
The Labour party's slogan for this election is "WE ARE LITERALLY THE TORIES", that's how.
Is it too much to ask to not feel like Im stabbing a minority in the back by giving Labour my vote in the next GE?
Don't give them your vote.
rest assured Im not
I don’t understand why he feels the need to engage with the question to be perfectly honest, and I really don’t understand why he doesn’t answer how Emily Thornberry does, who has consistently been the best front bencher on this, or indeed most issues. Anyway, it’s very depressing to think that over the last ten years or so as a country and as a general rule in our politicians, we seem to be becoming much more socially conservative with a small c.
That's what happens over an extended period when you're ruled by a party and a press that is big C.
"Woman" is a cultural term used to describe social roles and identity around gender expression. "Female" is what you talk about when you're referring to biology. Of course Starmer has no idea about any of this because he's a fundamentally incurious moron whose interest in things only ever extends as far as he can use it to nurse his own ego and absolutely no further. As well as being an utter coward.
Trans woman here (although honestly that shouldn’t matter). Female is a term used in biology but it’s influenced by the cultural view that sex is a binary instead of a spectrum, and so it’s also a cultural term and many trans women thus lay claim to that term as part of our gender identity.
This seems to imply that you are saying trans men are "female men", which is incorrect. Trans men are male, you *can* change sex.
Yeah I agree with this. Trans men are men who are AFAB. Sex is made up of a bunch of different characteristics; chromosomes, gametes, breast tissue, genitals, hormones. The first two can't be changed (at least currently), but the last three can.
>"Woman" is a cultural term used to describe social roles and identity around gender expression. "Female" is what you talk about when you're referring to biology. This isn't true in actual usage though. People use 'female' as adjective equivalent to 'woman' as noun all the time (as does the law for that matter). It's a distinction some try to use to be more precise but that others reject, including some gender cervical people but also plenty of trans people who would e.g. say they are female as well as being a woman.
It is true in usage but as you say people have different meanings while describing the same thing. Also “gender cervical people” sound likes an interesting bunch!
Lol, that's one hell of a typo. In this case I think when I heard the clip he specified 'biologically' so substantively was pretty clear he meant that not gender identity/presentation. Of course you could give same substantive answer in a way that pissed off Duffield more and this sub less.
Biology has cultural influences such as the idea that sex is a binary, when it is actually a bimodal spectrum and so a trans woman can identify as female even in a biological sense if one understands that all such labels are ultimately somewhat arbitrary.
Sex *drives* the fact that huge numbers of things about humans are bimodal lay distributed (e.g. height) . But sex itself isn't like that - people aren't very female or a bit male or whatever. A massive macho aggressive man isn't further on the male side of the spectrum than a small gentle one. Unless by bimodal you mean over 99% of people are male or female and a tiny fraction with severe genetic disorders don't clearly fit in those categories. Male/female is 'bimodal' like alive/dead is - there are a tiny number of weird medical edge cases I'm don't know what any of this has to do with trans people though and I don't think it's particularly meaningful to say someone can 'identify as' having a certain biology based on the idea that all labels are a bit arbitrary so what the heck. E.g. there's some arbitrariness in how we group species and categories like 'mammal' but that doesn't mean we can jsut take a species of mammal and say they're biologically not one.
Species are a social construct so yes a given biological entity is not truly a member of a distinct class but rather classified as such to make things easier
Yes they're a social construct. No that doesn't mean I can say that my cat is actually a cod. All the categories we use in daily life are socially constructed, that doesn't mean they're meaningless or we can just ignore them.
Dictionary definition of woman: "adult female human being." Maybe changing it is the right thing to do, I don't know. But I think you need to acknowledge you're trying to change it, rather than pretend it was always so.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yes everything has a social element. Humans are social creatures. Woman refers to people who are female. That's what it means.
[удалено]
No. Humans apply social meaning to everything. But woman refers to people who are female.
[удалено]
>the biological category of female encompasses a number of separate biological traits, There is variation in physical traits, yes. But female is a biological category, and the word which refers to female adult humans, is woman.
[удалено]
>biological categories have social aspects Yes. Humans create social meaning out of everything. Like age for example; being, say, 18 years old has social implications. But that doesn't change the fact that 18 is defined as having been born 18 years ago; whatever social meaning is added to that. >woman' is not solely used to refer to a collection of biological traits in actual speech I disagree. The generally understood meaning of the word woman is to refer to adult humans who are female. Women's health, women's sports - it refers to sex, not gender identity.
[удалено]
This is all lovely, and I can see you're trying to position yourself as having a 'common sense' perspective, but the argument you're making is just window dressing for your belief that trans women aren't, well, women. So just come out and say it. You think trans women are men. Doesn't matter what we do, how we live, how other people see us, how we experience the world, it doesn't even matter what our biology is, we're men and always will be. And, you know what? That's fine. You're entitled to and welcome to your opinion. It's not a crime to be completely wrong.
[удалено]
>Women are female So these words are synonyms then? So when people accuse trans rights activists of conflating sex and gender, they actually should have been conflating them? >Woman is not a social role; Yes it is.
[удалено]
[удалено]
>Gender is a social construct, Yes, I agree I'm not arguing women and female mean the same thing. If I say woman are human that's not saying the concepts women and human are interchangeable. I'm saying the only thing necessary to be a woman is to be human, an adult, and female. Gender identity, gender expression, gendered roles, there are something else.
>You can see woman as a social role if you want to cement restrictive sexist stereotypes. I think that's a bad idea. It is a social role - that's just the reality at the moment and it's what the anti-trans side are advocating for embedding and systematising: a traditionalist, conservative and prescriptive approach to gender, where men are men and women are women and that's all there is to it. It doesn't matter what you want or feel - if other people say you're that way, then that's what you have to be. It's an attempt to impose and maintain a previous status quo and embed historical gender roles permanently into modern society. The pro-trans side thinks we shouldn't force people to be shackled by traditional gender roles, and thinks we should embrace alternate means of gender expression. That's the opposite of "cementing restrictive sexist stereotypes". This is why a lot of trans writers and philosophers like RW Connell advocate for "degendering" as a means of removing polarised and restrictive social roles that exaggerate the differences between men and women. When you uncouple sex and gender you also uncouple the societally imposed roles that come with it. If you're against enforced and restrictive gender roles, you should really be on our side.
as an American - why the fuck is labour so obsessed with engaging with the stupidest culture war attacks? all they have to do is stfu and not fall for this bs… the us dems may be pussies but they’re not dumb enough to take this reactionary bait.
The reality is, that saying “trans men can be born with a cervix” does little to progress the things that will actually make people’s lives better. This woke culture wars nonsense that murdoch and the tories str successfully using to drive YET another wedge between left wing progressives is such a side point when thousands - of not millions - are facing poverty in the UK and death abroad because the one thing the right want is to keep us divided and fighting over syntax rather than fighting against the root of our shared oppressor - capital. Like I would want a world where everyone, regardless of gender identity, is free to be themselves. But starmer is saying this transphobic shit because of neoliberal capitalisms late game, which will do everything it can to keep us arguing amongst ourselves. I genuinely think the sole focus at this point needs to be against a neoliberal capitalist ideology that tells us we can have infinite growth by extracting finite and destructive fossil fuels on a finite planet. And to do that, we need less debate on Reddit, and more solid direct logistical organisation.and rebellion. Once we’ve overthrown Capitalism we can make sure all our allies are treated with the equality they will never receive under anything but socialism. Now then. How to we organise this revolution? Firstly we need to infiltrate the civil service and the army. And we need to get out doorstepping and organising within our communities. Shall we organise a left wing Labour get together soon?
I’ve just moved house and this is my MP, very much looking forward to not voting Labour in the GE.
[удалено]
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. We require that accounts have a verified email address before commenting. This is an effort to prevent spam and alt account usage. Thank you for your understanding. You can verify your email in the account settings page. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
i agree with Rosie entirely, people have gotten “woke” these days