Yeah but 50 years ago
Same old same old same old same old.
Keir Starmer has said he is proud of Labour’s history on women’s rights after JK Rowling said she would struggle to support the party because of its stance on transgender rights.
Starmer told reporters on Saturday that he was “very proud of the progress” of past Labour governments, which made a “material difference” to women’s lives.
Yes we know, and that’s not the issue. The issue is not past Labour but current Labour.
Writing in the Times on Saturday, Rowling, a former Labour member and donor, said she would struggle to vote for the party “as long as Labour remains dismissive and often offensive towards women fighting to retain the[ir] rights”. Asked for his response to Rowling’s comments, the Labour leader said: “I do respect her, but I would point out the long record that Labour has in government of passing really important legislation which has advanced the rights of women and made a material difference.”
Again: we know, but the issue is what Labour does now, and patting yourself on the back for what it did in the past is just changing the subject. If a married man starts punching his wife regularly she’s not going to be mollified by his reminding her of how nice he was to her ten years ago.
On trans rights, he said a Labour government would seek a “reset moment where we can bring the country together and ensure that all debate is done in a respectful way”.
Blah blah blah. That’s just filler. It means nothing.
On Saturday, when asked whether he would now apologise to Duffield, Starmer said: “I think it’s very important, in all political space, that we treat all views with respect and all people with dignity and that’s what I tried to do throughout this. I’m very proud of the progress that we’ve made as a Labour party in government in the past when it comes to women’s rights. I’m conscious that the battle for women’s rights is never over. We need to make further progress in this country.”
In other words no. We know. That’s the problem.
He says he wants to
He’s never treated women in the debate with any respect whatsoever, women’s views have been vilified and met with violence, and he’s never treated women as people entitled to any dignity. He says pretty words, but he does ugly deeds.
This reminds me of those times US Republicans claim to be better when it comes to race because Lincoln was a Republican.
So does that mean he’ll grow a spine and tell the TRAs to back off and stop with the rape threats? Will he instruct police to take such threats seriously instead of chasing ‘misgendering’ tweets? Will he look to his own fucking house?
Holms: That was where my mind went, too–the “Party of Lincoln” slogan being bandied about by a party that would dearly love to undo everything good that Lincoln did.
How is he going to do this? Trans activists have refused debate in any form as a basic tenet of their agenda. He’s ignored or belittled women’s concerns. Starmer can’t even apologise to someone in his own party for making simple statements of fact, which he now begrudgingly admits are correct. If he can’t make peace with Duffield, how the hell does he think he’s going to “reset” his whole country with regards to trans “rights”?
That’s a good question. Maybe he thinks he’s just going to issue an order.
Given his commitment to simplify and streamline self-ID, I’m guessing he’s going to impose some kind of “settlement” or “compromise” on women. There will be no “debate.” Women will not be consulted. Once he’s formed the government he’s got no reason to. Besides it would look bad for him to renege on his promise to trans-activists, however ill-advised and dangerous it was in the first place. Keeping that ugly promise lets him cross off an item on his laundry list of pledges. Never mind that it won’t cost him anything personally; it’s not his rights under attack. Of course they’re not his rights to give away, though this won’t stop him from doing just that, with the likes of Billy Bragg cheering him on. He’ll just wash his hands of the issue, and move on to more important matters. It will be job done, case closed, and SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP! to women. He can go on ignoring Rosie Duffield in hopes that she will give up or go away. Or both. He can safely resume professing his belief that some women have penises, and he can see to it that any further outrageous public utterances purporting to claim that only women have cervixes are persecuted under the terms of the Official Secrets Act.
Prosecuted? Not that persecuted doesn’t fit almost as well.