NilSatisOptimum
Player Valuation: £70m
13 years last time a Labour leader polled so well against a PM.
Current Affairs The Labour Party
- Thread starter Number_25
- Start date
- Status
What about trans men? I think it's a lot less common to transition that way, but they are a thing. I have no idea what sort of reassignment surgery is available either.
The trouble that the Left has here is that there isn't a way to answer the question quickly that doesn't leave yourself open to attack by a group of activists for something. There are sensible ways to answer it that involve the importance of context (medical or biological vs social issues) and also whether potential transphobic comments come from a place of ignorance as opposed to being purposefully hurtful.
Trying to muddle through all that in the face of an interviewer looking for a gotcha moment doesn't come across too well either.
You've just answered your own question - they are trans men. They are still women.
Same as trans woman is still a man, because genetically you're either XX/XY and sex underpins the meaning of those words. That's why you have the modifier 'trans' on that description in the first place.
There is a way to answer that question - just say women have cervixes, trans women are trans women and don't have cervixes. It's called honesty.
You're convinced of this I can see, but you do understand how contentious your opinion is? You haven't advanced the debate there, or come close to resolving it.
It's not an opinion. It's science. Women = adult human female. Female = biologically able to produce ova. Only women have a functioning cervix. If you have a Y chromosome, you are male. DSDs do not eradicate that fact - you can be XXXXXXY, doesn't matter, male.
I believe the actual transition aspect of being a trans person shouldn't be erased. I find this delusion to say 'trans women are women', full stop, end of story, to be actually transphobic, as it's denying trans people exist.
It's your opinion that biological definitions are the only relevant part of the debate That's the contentious bit.
It's also nice to know you've got the inside scoop on what's actually transphobic, and what trans people should be offended by. Have you let them know?
It's also nice to know you've got the inside scoop on what's actually transphobic, and what trans people should be offended by. Have you let them know?
It's not contentious if I'm describing with actual fact why something is what it is. It's not a 'debate' if people just say 'yeah but no' to it - I could say I'm a woman right now, doesn't make it remotely true or form some other 'relevant' debate; it'd just be a falsehood.
People have lost the ability to say "no sorry you're wrong" because feelings can't be hurt. That's what the 'debate' comes down to - but no, they're wrong. Trans women aren't women; they are trans women. That an objectively factual statement.
This doesn't surprise me - him fighting the left in Labour will be very popular, and over the time period of that poll he was setting up these battles and people would have responded well. Combine that with a deep dissatisfaction with Johnson and that's the net result.
That said, he should be doing better than that. Much better. The problem is when there's no immediate crisis the Tories bounce ahead easily, because Labour have done nothing to challenge them as a party of opposition under Starmer yet. Even Corbyn was more effective in that regard. Starmer needs the Labour left in his rear view mirror and become laser focused on highlighting just how bad this Tory government is, because it really is bad.
Black Belt Jones
Player Valuation: £25m
Thought when they were elected that the complementarity of Starmer and Rayner was obvious, and could be very effective. The defensive stopper working with the creative playmaker to run the middle of the park.
Hasn't really worked out like that - don't know if one is more to blame than the other but they seem miles apart and unable to work effectively with one another. Have the impression Rayner is very content to get her head down when Starmer has taken a beating with the media and commentariat, she has his back when it suits her - but don't know if that is fair.
Hasn't really worked out like that - don't know if one is more to blame than the other but they seem miles apart and unable to work effectively with one another. Have the impression Rayner is very content to get her head down when Starmer has taken a beating with the media and commentariat, she has his back when it suits her - but don't know if that is fair.
The way the Labour deputy position works is prone to this though unfortunately. Was the same with Tom Watson and Corbyn.
Just elect a leader and let them choose their team IMO. Otherwise you'll always have a deputy trying to position themselves for the top job and largely unaccountable to the leadership for their behaviour.
All that said, don't get the furore about Rayner calling Johnson 'scum' - she gave valid reasons as to why it is. Seems the shock is just that a politician didn't sugarcoat their words for the first time in recorded history.
It's telling that the media is more upset with Rayner calling him scum, rather than the objectively scummy things Johnson has done.
Regarding strict biology, fair enough. And there are certainly areas where that would be the most, or even only relevant consideration.
But if you can't see that it's about more than that, then I think we can leave it there. It doesn't seem you have the ability to grasp the issue and we don't need to go round in circles with you insisting that you've settled the matter by restating the same irrelevant facts over and over.
It's a good job you know what actual transphobia is though, I hope it's nothing like insisting that biological men can't be women, or that would be awkward!
Baines' left foot
Player Valuation: £90m
I really liked Starmer when he first arrived on the scene, but I've been unimpressed since his initial few months.
I'm susprised to see Labour seem to be catching up with the Tories, but it's positive nonetheless.
For me it's anyone but Tories. I'm sick of protest votes and being forced to live with austerity and looting the country because a Labour leader only ticks 7 out of your 10 boxes when the Tories tick none of them. I just wish everyone who hates the Tories would get behind Labour as it's by far our best chance of getting rid of the Conservative Party.
I'm susprised to see Labour seem to be catching up with the Tories, but it's positive nonetheless.
For me it's anyone but Tories. I'm sick of protest votes and being forced to live with austerity and looting the country because a Labour leader only ticks 7 out of your 10 boxes when the Tories tick none of them. I just wish everyone who hates the Tories would get behind Labour as it's by far our best chance of getting rid of the Conservative Party.
NilSatisOptimum
Player Valuation: £70m
At best people enjoy tribal politics at worst people are not what they say they about their politics.
I'm increasingly moving towards the latter. Compromise needs to be found.
Think it's fair to suggest that Starmer is lacking the panache of policy for media to chew over thus creating a black hole, that Rayner to tred. Now in particular now people recognising that COVID can't be blamed for everything no matter how Stepford Tory wish it was the case. Still time, ongoing Conference now!
- Status