Threats
Another woman bullied out of attending:
Elected in April 2020, Starmer will be hoping his initial year and a half leading his party will be enough to ensure a standing ovation.
One person who won’t be in that audience however is the MP for Canterbury Rosie Duffield. A poster girl for Labour’s surprise successes in the 2017 election, Duffield has attracted both praise and opprobrium for her views on transgender issues. Back in August last year, LGBT+ Labour demanded Starmer ‘take action’ against Duffield after she wrote on Twitter that ‘only women have a cervix.’
How does one go about “taking action” against an MP who states an anatomical fact? And why does one attempt such a thing? Why does anyone think it’s desirable and progressive to take revenge on a woman who says men don’t have a cervix?
More rows have followed since, with a member of Duffield’s staff resigning over what they called her ‘openly transphobic’ views and LGBT+ Labour criticising her Twitter activity. For her part, Duffield has insisted that she continues to support
totrans rights and believes that ‘people have the right to live with dignity and be treated with respect in an equal and inclusive society.’
Why isn’t that enough? Why is there a requirement to buy into the absolute nonsense of the Gender Dogma?
Steerpike understands that Duffield will be missing her own party’s conference over concerns about the threat to her personal security. It comes just a day after the MP complained on Twitter about the ‘mostly male aggression and verbal abuse’ which ‘has resulted in changes to my personal safety and security arrangements.’
Like missing her own party’s conference. Very progressive.
Back when sceptic circles were talking more about the muslim reactions to cartoon depictions of their prophet Mohammad, there were plenty of lefties who wanted to take the path of appeasing their offended religious feelings. There was a lot of “It’s a cultural taboo, doing this is antagonising to them!” and similar. I would present these people with a hypothetical: let’s substitute ‘drawing pictures of Mohammad’ with other innocuous things, and see if the approach of appeasing them still seems reasonable.
Imagine if there was a religious freakout every time someone withdrew money from an ATM. Or tied their shoelaces in public. Or blew their nose into a hanky. Or… etc. etc.. We would immediately see the problem with the approach of appeasement: these activities are all mundane, and a religious person can be as offended as they like, they do not get to shut them down. We have the right to do these things even if a religion asks its followers to withhold themselves from doing them.
And now there is a new religion in town, have all new freakouts over totally innocuous things which do not warrant any reaction at all. Someone stated an anatomical fact – fire her! And again, a sizeable portion of the left is taking the path of appeasement.