On that LBC 'interview', Starmer seems to be concentrating more on what NOT to say that what he IS saying.
That isn't going to end well for him or Labour, and it shows perfectly how twisted and illogical this ideology is. And if you buy into it fully, you will twist yourself into logical and grammatical knots.
Exactly this; the whole premise is based on a lie. A really, really dumb lie. If you go along with the lie, you can only keep digging yourself deeper and deeper into the hole.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5ykpBEy95I ;0) Splutter, chortle, giggle.., I wish someone would make a video of Labour Politicians taking the places of Matt and David... ;0)
I'd like to see you branch into video - an endless loop of the several seconds of sputtering mouth noises that followed the question would be the perfect salute to this very decisive leader.
You could do a great one with The Rainbow Police, late for all call-outs due to not being able to tie their Rainbow Laces, or get their wigs to sit right...The possibilities with Transworld are HUGE! :0)
He falls apart like a dunked biscuit. How is he going to cope with the mighty righteous anger of the men and women he shat over in response to the bullies bawling
Fecking idiot;craven coward; misogynist. He cannot say he was not warned. This is an open goal for the Conservatives, even though THEY are the ones who are still presiding over men in women's prisons and hospitals, and the beliefs-taught-as-facts being shoved down our children's throats.
"Saying something obviously untrue, and making your subordinates repeat it with a straight face in their own voice, is a particularly startling display of power over them. It’s something that was endemic to totalitarianism. Arendt analyzed the huge lies and blatant reversals of language associated with the Holocaust. Havel documented the pervasive little lies, lies that everyone knew to be lies, of late Communism. And Orwell gave us the vivid “2+2=5.
Being made to repeat an obvious lie makes it clear that you’re powerless; it also makes you complicit. You’re morally compromised. Your ability to stand on your own moral two feet and resist or denounce is lost. Part of this is a general tool for making people part of immoral groups. One child makes a second abuse a third. The second then can’t think he’s any better than the first, the bully, and can’t inform. In a gang or the Mafia, your first kill makes you trustworthy, because you’re now dependent on the group to keep your secrets, and can’t credibly claim to be superior to them"
Jacob Levy from Authoritarianism and Post-Truth Politics.
"This is an open goal for the Conservatives, even though THEY are the ones who are still presiding over men in women's prisons and hospitals, and the beliefs-taught-as-facts being shoved down our children's throats."
Spot on. Was there ever such a 24ct gold-plated gift to any opposition than a Government that lets gender ideology run rampant through schools, NHS and damn near everything else?
And instead of grabbing it with both hands and winning votes from the vast majority of people who understand basic biology, Labour are even more simpering and pathetic than the Government. Now they've got a former Director of Public Prosecutions putting on the gender dunce hat and stammering his way through an answer to a question as dumb as "Can a woman have a penis?"
Exactly this ... all of it. There is nothing new here and fascists wearing rainbow slingbacks doesn't make them any less deadly. This is not the first time the world has seen this behaviour and Keir Starmer is not Zelensky, that's for sure
Chilling analysis of the current post-truth situation. When Starmer, who has previously chanted the mantra "Trans Women Are Women", refuses to answer the question "Can a woman have a penis" it cannot be because he is unaware that 98% of trans-identified males do not have Gender Recognition Certificates, nor gender reassignment surgery: and have no intention of getting such surgery.
He is simply unwilling to admit to a lie he KNOWS to be a lie.
TWAW gets votes: but it also loses other votes. Starmer has learnt nothing from Corbyn's fence-sitting over Brexit.
Starmer says he "wants discussion" while refusing to discuss the central issue, the biggest lie. He's in need of "a dictionary and a backbone" as prescribed by JKRowling.
Quite. The minute the general public realises most transwomen (who are 'women') have a penis (and many of them really rather enjoy the penis-plus-boobs combination) the whole thing is blown apart
This issue came up once with a 60 yr old i know (not well). He kept saying 'X (referring to his 21yr daughter) tells me' and then spouted the TRA lines. I really wanted to say "yeah, but what do YOU think". Same with Keir. Why, with all of your life experience, are you outsourcing your thoughts to graduates with none?
Tom Stoppard in the Guardian, who is on our side, says he struggles with the younger generation in his family. He says these days he's worried about what to say or write!
Then no woman, or their wife, husband, sons, daughters, mother, father, friends, partners or colleagues might be 'comfortable' with voting for Labour at the next election then. I wonder if he is 'comfortable' with that. Keep niggling!
Maybe it's time to tell Labour that they clearly don't want the votes of ANYBODY who recognizes their own biological sex, whether woman or man. That is, the VAST MAJORITY of the electorate. And wish them good luck ever winning again with nothing but the "trans vote" (what is that, like, .001% of the population?), cuz they're sure gonna need it!
Unfortunately pro-trans public sentiment (informed and otherwise) is pretty large, according to YouGov.co.uk polling. There is a majority of votes in various groups including women / the young / Labour supporters: reducing by age and right wing inclinations. (I do miss the ability to post the detailed poll results right here…)
But loss of women Labour voters is going to matter most in marginal constituencies where majorities are smallest, and where general elections are won or lost.
As all but Tory voters are now rendered politically homeless by Labour, LibDems and Greens having all been captured, we really need a new Gender Critical party: or at least GC Independent candidates, to have anyone to vote for.
And now even tactical voting for “progressive’ parties is stymied by the trans / GC factor, the grim result one way or another is likely to be another Tory government.
This is what I've said in letters to Starmer and my MP. We're going full speed into a brick wall electorally. Every journalists in every interview is going to pose the question and the general public will see Labour as bonkers.
Yeah, and when the worm eventually turns... then what? How are they going to explain having been so horribly, utterly wrong? Who's ever going to trust them with governing power again? "Oh, sure, we demonstrated this ONGOING lack of good judgement (and good sense), and whenever it was pointed out to us, we just doubled down! VOTE FOR ME!" They'd better get on the right side here, and FAST, or it won't just be a matter of losing this or that election... it'll be a matter of whether the party can survive at all.
Thanks for telling me that. It might be the best way to approach my own Labour MP: who is is gay, male and very supportive of Trans rights, including TWAW affirmation. I'd given up on the idea as a lost cause.
I've been working on arguments to disprove the "trans" narrative-- not just on this or that specific point, but as a whole. Seems to me that's really what's called for, you know? Otherwise we just get drawn into an endless game of Whack-a-Mole (NOT to be confused with our own Moley, of course!-- never whack him! 🙂).
It's my perception that "gender" is the keystone here; remove that, and the entire trans-ediface comes crashing down. Which is very encouraging (imo), because it's also such an inherently weak point. The bare patch on Smaug's belly; the Death Star's exhaust port.
So, re: the latter metaphor, I'm designing torpedoes to fire into it and blow the Trans Death Star up.
Maybe this could be useful when talking to your MP? As backup for the pragmatic argument that hewing to the T agenda will lose them votes and possibly elections? Along with being bad for Labour strategically, it's also just bad as an IDEA, both in moral/ethical and rational terms?
What's your definition of "woman"? You go along with definition that Posie Parker commendably championed, i.e., "adult human female"?
How about your definition for "female"? Do you endorse or subscribe to the biological definition, the one that most reputable dictionaries quote, almost word for word?
"female: of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes."
Or do you go along with the anti-scientific claptrap, with the "risible absurdities" that is peddled by far too many feminists? That "each sex is defined by the presence of a developmental pathway to produce certain gamete types"? And without any necessity to have functional gonads?
By which "biological sex in humans is [supposedly] immutable"?
They can't both be right or equally useful as they lead to quite different and incompatible conclusions: immutable or quite "mutable", quite transitory. If I were a feminist then I would be rather "disconcerted" that so many of the supposed "leading lights" in the movement were peddling so much outright codswallop that is so flatly and starkly contradicted by brute facts, by standard biological definitions that have a great deal of currency.
No doubt a great deal of rot, and "risible absurdities" in "gender ideology". But it's rather clear that pretty much the same thing can be said about much of feminism.
Maybe tell her that you've just discovered your OWN identity, then-- the person that you've REALLY been, deep down, all these years... and it's not her mother. You aren't, and never will be. And, moreover, since this is your true, essential self... you NEVER WERE.
So she needs to pay back all the money you ever spent on her. With interest. Her being a stranger, and all.
And never speak to you again. Just reminds you of that horrible LIE you were forced to live. Since she was the CAUSE of it.
And if she REALLY believes in this crackpot ideology, she damn well better respect your newfound identity. Self-ID and all that, yanno.
Well that’s lucky. Between us my daughter and I publish feminist works but I’m second wave and she’s some version that she thinks is true and kind and encompassing and I’m just a dinosaur and she just wishes I would get up to speed.
At first I celebrated the dissolving of gender differences but see in fact it has morphed into homophobia and hysterical gender stereotypes.
Which means approximately 2nd wave rediscovered, after an embarrassing 3rd wave Libfem / handmaiden interlude (which it sounds might have your daughter’s allegiance).
Starmer reminds me of Jo Swinson similarly beclowning herself on talk radio, by not being able to define a woman. This, prior to the 2019 General Election.
Amazingly enough she lost out.
At least Swinson had the 'excuse' that Libdems were being bribed..oops I mean accepted donations from Ferring Pharmaceutical (puberty blocker manufacturer).
What on earth is Starmer's excuse apart from having no spine and no balls?
He is so woefully weak. Shame, shame, shame. And a spoiled ballot for me in the locals (ALL parties are shite on a local level, so I am using it to note my displeasure as if it's a general election)
He is the embodiment of ‘a man who stands for nothing will fall for anything’. I have no idea what he thinks. I don’t think he does either. Aside from throwing women under the bus today he also criticised the royals for harking back to the past - someone who consciously had to accept an award from the Queen that gives him the title ‘sir’ is now moaning about anachronisms. You couldn’t make it up.
My God …just think Keir If you can’t define 'women' there will be no such thing as misogyny! and
just imagine if all women self ID’d as men there would be no sex attacks on women, as there wouldn't be any, oh no hold on " all adult female humans are women" (but not all women are adult female humans.) so only batting for transwomen not transmen
It seems the Labour Party have lost around 20% of their membership since Starmer became leader. I'm not claiming this loss is totally due to this sort of shit show he puts on, but this is definitely not helping them.
The Times of yesterday, Sunday 27th, reported it. July 2021 they were given a 'bleak' financial briefing - they had an unplanned deficit but they are expected to move out of it this year. £2 million on legal fees but blaming Corbyn.
Membership has fallen by more than 100,000 to just over 400,000. (But a mini-surge occasioned by BoJo's Covid parties).
Hee hee. How many of the 100k are women? No idea, doesn't say.
I think the heaviest losses have come from those under 25, the magic grandpa crowd. Financial trouble is legal costs and the likes of Unite cutting their donations because of their own problems.
On that LBC 'interview', Starmer seems to be concentrating more on what NOT to say that what he IS saying.
That isn't going to end well for him or Labour, and it shows perfectly how twisted and illogical this ideology is. And if you buy into it fully, you will twist yourself into logical and grammatical knots.
Exactly this; the whole premise is based on a lie. A really, really dumb lie. If you go along with the lie, you can only keep digging yourself deeper and deeper into the hole.
If he wants to involve everyone why close down any conversation about it? Just answer the question
Keir STAMMER amirite
Boom Tish!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5ykpBEy95I ;0) Splutter, chortle, giggle.., I wish someone would make a video of Labour Politicians taking the places of Matt and David... ;0)
So funny. Shame Matt turned out to be a twat
"I would vote for a fucking noisy kitchen drawer before voting for him" made me snort into my tea with suppressed laughter.
News just in - Fucking Noisy Kitchen Drawer Party have won the North Devon by election by a landslide. A very noisy, cutlery-filled landslide
*opens Photoshop*
I'd like to see you branch into video - an endless loop of the several seconds of sputtering mouth noises that followed the question would be the perfect salute to this very decisive leader.
That may be possible!
😃
Puh-leeeeeeeze!
You could do a great one with The Rainbow Police, late for all call-outs due to not being able to tie their Rainbow Laces, or get their wigs to sit right...The possibilities with Transworld are HUGE! :0)
Me too! Brilliant update!
He falls apart like a dunked biscuit. How is he going to cope with the mighty righteous anger of the men and women he shat over in response to the bullies bawling
Fecking idiot;craven coward; misogynist. He cannot say he was not warned. This is an open goal for the Conservatives, even though THEY are the ones who are still presiding over men in women's prisons and hospitals, and the beliefs-taught-as-facts being shoved down our children's throats.
"Saying something obviously untrue, and making your subordinates repeat it with a straight face in their own voice, is a particularly startling display of power over them. It’s something that was endemic to totalitarianism. Arendt analyzed the huge lies and blatant reversals of language associated with the Holocaust. Havel documented the pervasive little lies, lies that everyone knew to be lies, of late Communism. And Orwell gave us the vivid “2+2=5.
Being made to repeat an obvious lie makes it clear that you’re powerless; it also makes you complicit. You’re morally compromised. Your ability to stand on your own moral two feet and resist or denounce is lost. Part of this is a general tool for making people part of immoral groups. One child makes a second abuse a third. The second then can’t think he’s any better than the first, the bully, and can’t inform. In a gang or the Mafia, your first kill makes you trustworthy, because you’re now dependent on the group to keep your secrets, and can’t credibly claim to be superior to them"
Jacob Levy from Authoritarianism and Post-Truth Politics.
"This is an open goal for the Conservatives, even though THEY are the ones who are still presiding over men in women's prisons and hospitals, and the beliefs-taught-as-facts being shoved down our children's throats."
Spot on. Was there ever such a 24ct gold-plated gift to any opposition than a Government that lets gender ideology run rampant through schools, NHS and damn near everything else?
And instead of grabbing it with both hands and winning votes from the vast majority of people who understand basic biology, Labour are even more simpering and pathetic than the Government. Now they've got a former Director of Public Prosecutions putting on the gender dunce hat and stammering his way through an answer to a question as dumb as "Can a woman have a penis?"
It is frightening how dumb and cowardly Keir Starmer looked ...
Exactly this ... all of it. There is nothing new here and fascists wearing rainbow slingbacks doesn't make them any less deadly. This is not the first time the world has seen this behaviour and Keir Starmer is not Zelensky, that's for sure
Chilling analysis of the current post-truth situation. When Starmer, who has previously chanted the mantra "Trans Women Are Women", refuses to answer the question "Can a woman have a penis" it cannot be because he is unaware that 98% of trans-identified males do not have Gender Recognition Certificates, nor gender reassignment surgery: and have no intention of getting such surgery.
He is simply unwilling to admit to a lie he KNOWS to be a lie.
TWAW gets votes: but it also loses other votes. Starmer has learnt nothing from Corbyn's fence-sitting over Brexit.
Starmer says he "wants discussion" while refusing to discuss the central issue, the biggest lie. He's in need of "a dictionary and a backbone" as prescribed by JKRowling.
Quite. The minute the general public realises most transwomen (who are 'women') have a penis (and many of them really rather enjoy the penis-plus-boobs combination) the whole thing is blown apart
This issue came up once with a 60 yr old i know (not well). He kept saying 'X (referring to his 21yr daughter) tells me' and then spouted the TRA lines. I really wanted to say "yeah, but what do YOU think". Same with Keir. Why, with all of your life experience, are you outsourcing your thoughts to graduates with none?
Tom Stoppard in the Guardian, who is on our side, says he struggles with the younger generation in his family. He says these days he's worried about what to say or write!
The head of my local Labour party wrote me that he was " not comfortable with the term actual women".But I keep on niggling them.
Oh he can just FUCK OFF. How fucking dare they? Man tells woman he is not 'comfortable. Fuck Off. Sorry.
Does it make them feel .. unsafe ?
I love that 😂😂😂😂😂
Then no woman, or their wife, husband, sons, daughters, mother, father, friends, partners or colleagues might be 'comfortable' with voting for Labour at the next election then. I wonder if he is 'comfortable' with that. Keep niggling!
Maybe it's time to tell Labour that they clearly don't want the votes of ANYBODY who recognizes their own biological sex, whether woman or man. That is, the VAST MAJORITY of the electorate. And wish them good luck ever winning again with nothing but the "trans vote" (what is that, like, .001% of the population?), cuz they're sure gonna need it!
Unfortunately pro-trans public sentiment (informed and otherwise) is pretty large, according to YouGov.co.uk polling. There is a majority of votes in various groups including women / the young / Labour supporters: reducing by age and right wing inclinations. (I do miss the ability to post the detailed poll results right here…)
But loss of women Labour voters is going to matter most in marginal constituencies where majorities are smallest, and where general elections are won or lost.
As all but Tory voters are now rendered politically homeless by Labour, LibDems and Greens having all been captured, we really need a new Gender Critical party: or at least GC Independent candidates, to have anyone to vote for.
And now even tactical voting for “progressive’ parties is stymied by the trans / GC factor, the grim result one way or another is likely to be another Tory government.
This is what I've said in letters to Starmer and my MP. We're going full speed into a brick wall electorally. Every journalists in every interview is going to pose the question and the general public will see Labour as bonkers.
Yeah, and when the worm eventually turns... then what? How are they going to explain having been so horribly, utterly wrong? Who's ever going to trust them with governing power again? "Oh, sure, we demonstrated this ONGOING lack of good judgement (and good sense), and whenever it was pointed out to us, we just doubled down! VOTE FOR ME!" They'd better get on the right side here, and FAST, or it won't just be a matter of losing this or that election... it'll be a matter of whether the party can survive at all.
I think it's too late. Women, and then latterly men, have been trying to get them to listen FOR YEARS. FOOLS.
Thanks for telling me that. It might be the best way to approach my own Labour MP: who is is gay, male and very supportive of Trans rights, including TWAW affirmation. I'd given up on the idea as a lost cause.
I've been working on arguments to disprove the "trans" narrative-- not just on this or that specific point, but as a whole. Seems to me that's really what's called for, you know? Otherwise we just get drawn into an endless game of Whack-a-Mole (NOT to be confused with our own Moley, of course!-- never whack him! 🙂).
It's my perception that "gender" is the keystone here; remove that, and the entire trans-ediface comes crashing down. Which is very encouraging (imo), because it's also such an inherently weak point. The bare patch on Smaug's belly; the Death Star's exhaust port.
So, re: the latter metaphor, I'm designing torpedoes to fire into it and blow the Trans Death Star up.
Maybe this could be useful when talking to your MP? As backup for the pragmatic argument that hewing to the T agenda will lose them votes and possibly elections? Along with being bad for Labour strategically, it's also just bad as an IDEA, both in moral/ethical and rational terms?
I still can't get over the ego it takes for a man to think his definition of womanhood supersedes that of women.
Full disclosure, I used to think mansplaining wasn't even a thing. But that was before I was introduced to the gender train wreck 😉
Oh, but many women are handmaidens who will support the man in his definition of womanhood. It is still shocking to me, but it is really true.
Good Reason,
"definition of womanhood"
What's your definition of "woman"? You go along with definition that Posie Parker commendably championed, i.e., "adult human female"?
How about your definition for "female"? Do you endorse or subscribe to the biological definition, the one that most reputable dictionaries quote, almost word for word?
"female: of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes."
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/female
Or do you go along with the anti-scientific claptrap, with the "risible absurdities" that is peddled by far too many feminists? That "each sex is defined by the presence of a developmental pathway to produce certain gamete types"? And without any necessity to have functional gonads?
https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5029&context=lcp
By which "biological sex in humans is [supposedly] immutable"?
They can't both be right or equally useful as they lead to quite different and incompatible conclusions: immutable or quite "mutable", quite transitory. If I were a feminist then I would be rather "disconcerted" that so many of the supposed "leading lights" in the movement were peddling so much outright codswallop that is so flatly and starkly contradicted by brute facts, by standard biological definitions that have a great deal of currency.
No doubt a great deal of rot, and "risible absurdities" in "gender ideology". But it's rather clear that pretty much the same thing can be said about much of feminism.
A luxury belief enjoyed by the middle-class.
Best summarisation yet 👌
Fire those under 30? My daughter's 45 this year and thinks I have dementia because I can't believe TWAW! Seems all ages have caught the infection....
Has she read Helen Joyce? Pretty clear and once you know you can’t then unknow 😬
I wouldn't dare! She already thinks I'm passive aggressive enough "constantly posting anti-trans propaganda" on Facebook!
Good for you, don’t stop
Yes, I've been unfriended by my daughter for the same :(
They have done an absolute number on young women and girls. Brainwashed. So sorry - this must be very stressful
Yes. And she is a lawyer who did a post-grad thesis on rape as a weapon of war. She is a feminist. But not with this. I don't get it.
Maybe tell her that you've just discovered your OWN identity, then-- the person that you've REALLY been, deep down, all these years... and it's not her mother. You aren't, and never will be. And, moreover, since this is your true, essential self... you NEVER WERE.
So she needs to pay back all the money you ever spent on her. With interest. Her being a stranger, and all.
And never speak to you again. Just reminds you of that horrible LIE you were forced to live. Since she was the CAUSE of it.
And if she REALLY believes in this crackpot ideology, she damn well better respect your newfound identity. Self-ID and all that, yanno.
Same here it is the one thing we are not allowed to talk about.
I have 3 very feminist daughters and two of them are on here. I don’t think my blood pressure could handle anything less!
Well that’s lucky. Between us my daughter and I publish feminist works but I’m second wave and she’s some version that she thinks is true and kind and encompassing and I’m just a dinosaur and she just wishes I would get up to speed.
At first I celebrated the dissolving of gender differences but see in fact it has morphed into homophobia and hysterical gender stereotypes.
I know speechless. So speechless we are.
An update: you are now FOURTH wave.
Which means approximately 2nd wave rediscovered, after an embarrassing 3rd wave Libfem / handmaiden interlude (which it sounds might have your daughter’s allegiance).
See https://4W.pub
Starmer reminds me of Jo Swinson similarly beclowning herself on talk radio, by not being able to define a woman. This, prior to the 2019 General Election.
Amazingly enough she lost out.
At least Swinson had the 'excuse' that Libdems were being bribed..oops I mean accepted donations from Ferring Pharmaceutical (puberty blocker manufacturer).
What on earth is Starmer's excuse apart from having no spine and no balls?
He is so woefully weak. Shame, shame, shame. And a spoiled ballot for me in the locals (ALL parties are shite on a local level, so I am using it to note my displeasure as if it's a general election)
He is the embodiment of ‘a man who stands for nothing will fall for anything’. I have no idea what he thinks. I don’t think he does either. Aside from throwing women under the bus today he also criticised the royals for harking back to the past - someone who consciously had to accept an award from the Queen that gives him the title ‘sir’ is now moaning about anachronisms. You couldn’t make it up.
Graham.
Once again, spot fuckin' on.
Noisy kitchen drawer gets my vote
Anyone know when the grown ups are coming back
I quite liked dunked biscuit someone said above 😂
My God …just think Keir If you can’t define 'women' there will be no such thing as misogyny! and
just imagine if all women self ID’d as men there would be no sex attacks on women, as there wouldn't be any, oh no hold on " all adult female humans are women" (but not all women are adult female humans.) so only batting for transwomen not transmen
What a brave new world. Well done Keir.
What a weasel. .
It seems the Labour Party have lost around 20% of their membership since Starmer became leader. I'm not claiming this loss is totally due to this sort of shit show he puts on, but this is definitely not helping them.
He will destroy / is destroying / has destroyed the labour party. At least, the Labour Party I used to know. I won't be voting for it now.
The Times of yesterday, Sunday 27th, reported it. July 2021 they were given a 'bleak' financial briefing - they had an unplanned deficit but they are expected to move out of it this year. £2 million on legal fees but blaming Corbyn.
Membership has fallen by more than 100,000 to just over 400,000. (But a mini-surge occasioned by BoJo's Covid parties).
Hee hee. How many of the 100k are women? No idea, doesn't say.
I think the heaviest losses have come from those under 25, the magic grandpa crowd. Financial trouble is legal costs and the likes of Unite cutting their donations because of their own problems.
I read in the Times that about a quarter of members have left but there was a small resurgence after the Covid party at No 10 scandal.