I'm slightly confused by the events the article is recalling but as far as I can tell (correct me if I'm wrong):
* Labour has indicated they would reform conservative guidelines that would not allow 'gender ideology' to be taught in schools.
* Starmer gives a bit of a non-answer when asked about it, saying that ideology in general shouldn't be taught in schools, but does indicate the guidance would be revised following consultation.
* Labour has stated that Starmer is aligned with previous statements that the guidelines may be reformed following the government consultation.
In context this seems different from the implication in the headline that Starmer specifically said he would ban 'gender ideology' from being taught in schools. Incidentally given The Times' readership I wouldn't be surprised if their framing is helpful to Starmer lol
Ideology structures one's reality, rather than being a distortion of a "real reality."
The Zizekian response to Starmer here would be that we are already eating from the trash can of gender ideology all the time (already teaching it in our schools).
I unironically think this is just Freud syndrome where a philosopher projects his own psychosis onto the general population.
No Zizek just because you're a brainwormed ideologue doesn't mean we all are.
Your assessment is wrong, or you're not really understanding what he is saying.
When he says "ideology" he doesn't mean it as it's used in the political sphere, as a discrete system of political beliefs, policies, as a system of political thought and organization etc. He means it much more broadly than that, just as a system of beliefs, ideas and assumptions about anything in any sphere. By his usage of it, even the most non-political person still lives through ideology. This shouldn't be that unfamiliar to you.
It's not that everyone is equally ideological, it's that there is no "reality" (as in existence within our societies), without ideology. Ideology "structures" your sense-making, your fundamental understanding of yourself and your surroundings. This is why changing one's political beliefs is often experienced as a violent internal conflict (that is usally only carried out on one's own accord). The self becomes bound up in all of these ideologies and changing that web of connections ends up rewriting the self at the centre as well.
So, some people *can* be more ideological than others primarily by not engaging in any form of self-critique, or ideological critique. Simply stating that you take up a position "in reality" or "beyond ideology" is actually very far from being non-ideological; and wouldn't you know, that was a favourite line of the early fascists like Mussolini.
Perhaps useful here is to understand that Zizek's theory of the self is anti-essential (whilst also not being materialist). The self is an empty nothing that is constantly being invented, reinvented and circumscribed by the subject. Insofar as one feels they have a true essential identity, it is experienced as the failure of all of those things to truly describe the self i.e. their lack. This is where the topology of the "parallax view" comes from.
The significance here being that while true reality does exist, it is inaccessible *as a totality* to any person, like the self.
Yeah but like 90% of this isn’t uniquely Zizek. It’s just a more Nihilistic take on the works of the post-structuralist.
Zizek is a fun pop-philosopher but like academically he is derivative as hell. I mean parts of Zizeks writing especially about media can sound stolen like word for word from the parts of Simulation and Simulacra about Disney World.
>Yeah but like 90% of this isn’t uniquely Zizek. It’s just a more Nihilistic take on the works of the post-structuralist.
It's fundamentally different from post structuralism not just in conclusions but also how he arrives at those conclusions. He has critiqued post-structuralism frequently. Saying it's the same stuff, just a more nihilistic take, is not understanding either position fully. Nihilism has nothing to do with anything here. Desire is central in Zizek's philosophy, not the case at all with post-structuralism, things are more externally located.
>Zizek is a fun pop-philosopher but like academically he is derivative as hell.
Not really, he is famous for a reason. The Sublime Object of Ideology was influential.
At any rate, I don't understand what any of this has to do with the initial prompt which was that Zizek is projecting that everyone is an ideologue onto society
Ok but then don't you think that becomes a wee bit motte and bailey?
There's an extremely false equivalence between "2+2=4" as an ideological statement and "Greater Italia, we were betrayed by the allies, mare nostrum!" as an ideological statement and I'm not gonna sit here and pretend there's not. To the point where for all practical purposes I think calling the former ideological is dishonest and makes the latter more legitimate.
Yes there actually is such a thing as education without political propaganda and the insistence that there isn't is just a nihilistic attempt by ideologues to go "well I mean if *all* education is gonna be ideological. It better be *my* ideology 😏"
Again your confusing "ideology" with "political ideology," this is not a motte and bailey you're just not understanding.
2+2=4 is not an ideological statement
The natural sciences deal in the content of true reality, in segments and statements they can exist on the page. It is also true the vast majority of the time that engagement with true reality through the natural sciences consists of pulling an observation and bringing it quickly back "into the fold" of ideology. Most scientific theories, as soon as they leave the natural sciences, become bound up in all kinds of ideology, or maybe even by the scientists themselves.
And guess how the sciences make a good effort to try and be free of ideology? By constantly engaging in self critique, self examination, attempting to root out biases from all directions all the time, and insisting on materiality with replicability as an essential proof, not by simply believing that science is outside of ideology. How much bad ideology swirled around in the sciences in the 19th century when they believed this lie!
Self examination is obviously more necessary in some fields than others. Mathematics has it the easiest, non-coincidentally numbers and equations *in themselves* don't really make up any significant part of the social sphere.
But then you just end up redescribing what everyone already knew but in more hostile terminology that implies sinister unconscious political intent behind everything.
>redescribing what everyone already knew
Not sure what you mean by this.
>in more hostile terminology
Nothing about it is hostile
>implies sinister unconscious political intent behind everything.
Firstly, how can something be simultaneously sinister and unconscious? Secondly, again you are not understanding the usage of ideology here, it *does not* here mean "political ideology," it means a set of ideas and beliefs about *anything.* The designation is more neutral. Business management practices would be ideology, aesthetic theories about art would be ideology, ideas in society about how to engage in dating and relationships would be ideology. Calling them that isn't an accusation of a hidden political project or intention, it is just designating them as socially constructed and developed: that they did not spring forth from the earth.
He said nothing should be taught in school in an ideological way and that he favours age appropriate guidance on transgender issues.
The official line from the spokesperson was : Nothing should be taught in an ideological way in schools,” the spokesman said. “Current RSHE [relationships, sex and health education] guidance requires under law that children are taught in an age-appropriate way the facts about ‘sex, sexuality, sexual health and gender identity’. Labour’s priority is the safety and wellbeing of every child.”
Introducing concepts to kids at an age where they're able to properly internalize them.
It fundamentally isn't that controversial - it's done as part of high quality sex-ed programs - but, of course, it leaves room for interpretation, and someone might decide that LGBTQ-topics are suddenly adult only.
> someone might decide that LGBTQ-topics are suddenly adult only.
The frustrating thing is that a VERY large part of the general population automatically considers any mention whatsoever of LGBTQ topics to be adult-only by default.
Well it can mean a range of things, we had a consultation out on the new sex and relationship education curriculum, which closed a few weeks ago.
They’ll have to see the results of that consultation to see what changes should be made before issuing the new guidance.
> "Nothing should be taught in an ideological way in schools,”
I hate this nonsense rejection of reality. Democracy is ideological. Equal rights is ideological. The idea that everyone deserves healthcare (the NHS) is ideological.
They're proposing a false neutrality that does not exist in education.
His answer was totally fine. He endorsed “Age-appropriate guidelines on sex/gender. Conservatives are against teaching that and call it gender ideology which sounds worse
‘Age-appropriate guidelines on sex and gender’ is one of those political non-statements that everyone can read their own interpretation into. A social conservative opinion in what is age-appropriate is obviously far different than what a progressive thinks.
The obvious example is a thing like having a gay couple in a children’s story that are treated no different than a straight couple. A liberal typically won’t see any issue with that but we’ve seen conservatives act like it’s hugely inappropriate
>political non-statements that everyone can read their own interpretation
That's pretty much all Kier needs to say to win this election, so I don't blame him.
So he said nothing and people here are praisig him because the alternative is literally openly transphobic.
We are allowed to ask more than the bare minimum of our representatives.
I swear some days I think people here would have considered Lincoln too radical in his campaign days, or that abolitionists were too demanding for wanting a clear stance on slavery from the candidates
The headline sounds like a huge negative the reality is neutral, Lincoln would have been an idiot to support the death penalty for slave owners even if that was perfectly reasonable by the standards of the time because he'd never have been elected.
Yes and considering starmers constant cozying up with the transphobes and TERFs both inside and outside the party, coupled with his refusal to recognised the rights of trans people in the past, *him giving a non committal non answer is bad, actually*.
Its my entire point. Let's for the love of god ask for an actual stance from the person that is soon to rule the entire kingdom and start expecting at least much as a decent position from him.
My god.
I've seen people in here argue that protestors should be thrown in jail for obstructing freedom of movement. You know, like the Student Executive Committee for Justice did at the Woolworth's counter. This subreddit somehow exists without a shred of introspection.
Why in the world would he ever say anything controversial? His party is about to win by the biggest landslide ever just by not being the current government, being noncommittal and avoiding hot topics is the best thing he can do electorally.
If you want more than the bare minimum then you need a better electoral system, one where minority parties get proportionally represented instead of this FPTP farce
"Whys hould he stand up for trans rights when he has a clear lead?"
After Starmer has explicitly refused to recognised trans right as human rights (or rights at all, look up the leadership contest when he was selected) I should hope people of a group that ostensibly favour trans rights would quite like to hear from him that he actually does stand *for* trans people, especially as he keep promoting TERFs within the party.
*ESPECIALLY* so when he has such an electoral lead.
My god man, do you actually want democratic leaders that promote liberal social stances, or is the economic policies the be all and all and the social questions should just be left unquestioned with a silent "well let's hope he is good on social issues, because I'm not gonna bother finding out"?
What are the pro-trans people going to do? Vote Sunak's tories with his even more transphobic rhetoric?
In a two party system just being barely better than the other guy on any issue is more than enough, being any more firm on your views would mean losing the median voter.
I'm not saying it's right, but that's how it is.
Lincoln was actually more moderate in his campaign days than when he was President. His stance on slavery, in particular, was that it shouldn't expand westward. You won't find him outright endorsing abolitionist ideas back then.
I’m mostly ignorant to UK politics so correct me where I’m wrong mapping my American trans discourse onto that itty bitty island.
Education is mostly a local political issue so the most we can really ask for is dismantling any openly bigoted national rules.
The UK’s education system is highly centralised compared to the US. There’s National curriculums, so everyone will read the same books, take the same exams etc — It is devolved though, so Scotland has their own curriculum for example
I mean, there’s 67 million people it’s not that small— still far more than any US state, for example California has 39 million people, and curriculum is different not just in different counties in CA, but different schools and teachers. It’s just that pretty much everything is centralised in the U.K., far more than many other countries.
If you want a serious answer of what people mean when they say 'gender ideology', they generally mean the concept that you can 'feel like' a different sex than the one you're born as, and everything downstream from that. So they would mean the idea of being transgender, non-binary etc.
It's not. I wasn't assigning a value judgement, I was just saying that that's what people mean when they talk about it. It's important to make sure that people are speaking the same language when they argue about things, otherwise they completely miss each other's points.
Because there is no such thing as "gender ideology" and they gave a generous definition. Which tbf is probably what a lot of people who have ever said that phrase out loud would probably say.
If we're steelmanning another side (and this is definitely a minority position that is more thought out than most have), lets say you have a girl who plays with action figures and other typical boys toys. Rather than just saying this is a tomboy, some people think there is an overzealous search/push to assign the transgender label to this kid, and this is what they would call gender ideology. Almost like the reverse of pushing gender roles.
It's almost 100% a buzzword though to signal you're not a fan of transgender kids lol
> Gender ideology is simply the philosophical view that self identification is all that matters for your gender and gender is separable from sex.
If we're talking philosophy/social theory, then this would be **a** gender ideology. Politically speaking, however, labeling this particular view as the one and only "gender ideology" means that it can be painted as a sinister attempt to reprogram people away from an allegedly un-ideological "true" view about gender and sex.
Usually, that's transitioning. Social transitioning, medical transitioning, etc.
Like, trying different pronouns or clothes isn't transitioning on its own. But there was a time, around the 50-70s, when trans people had to transition socially for something like a year before having the permission for HRT. It's kinda weird how people say the opposite and shouldn't socially transition before starting HRT/SRS, if that is even possible.
In Italian they call it "ideologia gender". Note that "gender" isn't a word in Italian, the term would be "genere", but they use the English word to make it sound more foreign and scary.
Isn’t it the idea that gender is not defined at birth and that it is quite malleable?
I think you’re purposely being obtuse for some reason? Is this the whole “define woke” thing again? I don’t think gaslighting people is a great rhetorical device lol
Ah, but you see, you have stepped into this conversation thinking that "ideology" means "a system of belief" when in reality it means "pejorative for the thing other people are saying I don't like"
why
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Whether self identification is valid is a philosophical position not scientific. It's a matter of whether you define your own identity or society does for you.
>a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
"Gender != Sex" isn't exactly a multitude of ideas nor ideals. It's literally one.
What do you think “in the same way” means?
I’m not claiming it is or isn’t an ideology. I’m pointing out that if someone wants to apply the term to “maybe gender isn’t fixed to biological sex” then it is reasonable to *also* apply it to “gender is fixed at birth to bio sex.”
The point isn’t to say it is or isn’t an ideology, but that someone *claiming* it to be is actually saying so from an opposing “ideology” without realizing their hypocrisy.
Being woke is being evidence based. 😎
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Can you describe gender ideology in a way that doesn't sound like a moral panic?
And what is unscientific about trans people existing? People denying their ready apparance doesn't seem very scientific.
>"My child was just taught in school that if they like playing with dolls then that means they're really a girl and need surgery to correct for it".
Is this policy in the UK?? Link?!?
**Rule III**: *Unconstructive engagement*
Do not post with the intent to provoke, mischaracterize, or troll other users rather than meaningfully contributing to the conversation. Don't disrupt serious discussions. Bad opinions are not automatically unconstructive.
---
If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
It looks like in this context it's a conservative buzzword, and Starmer is treating it as such by making a content free statement that he won't allow scary buzzword in schools.
Disappointing, since this legitimizes the right-wing pushing of eternally flexible non-issues that everyone can reinterpret to think it applies to them.
He said "I’m not in favour of ideology being taught in our schools on gender"
Starmer obviously intended it to be interpreted the way the Times is here. If you are supportive of trans rights it is not particularly difficult to give an answer that reflects that.
This isn't some kind of isolated incident. When JK Rowling said she was concerned with Labour's stance on trans rights, Wes Streeting said he was "absolutely devastated" and Rachel Reeves offered to meet with her to make clear Labour has a very clear commitment to "protecting single-sex spaces based on biological sex" which, obviously, means excluding trans people from services. Basically the same thing that Republicans are doing in the US. Wes Streeting has even said he regrets saying that trans women are women. The trans community is pretty much unanimously against Labour.
It's pretty obvious trans people are being sold down the river for right-wing votes, with the slimmest margin of plausible deniability intended for cis people who like to call themselves progressive and may still be interested in voting Labour.
> Nothing should be taught in an ideological way in schools,” the spokesman said. “Current RSHE [relationships, sex and health education] guidance requires under law that children are taught in an age-appropriate way the facts about ‘sex, sexuality, sexual health and gender identity’. Labour’s priority is the safety and wellbeing of every child.”
How exactly is this selling them down the river lol
They’re saying that teaching about LGBT topics isn’t ideological, it’s education, and isn’t presented to influence anyone.
I didn't say that quote from some anonymous Labour person was what involved selling trans people down the river.
"We’re really happy to talk to JK Rowling to give her assurances about [same-sex spaces]. For me those protections whether it is about prisons, refuges, changing spaces, that is really important to me, it is really important to the Labour Party that those single sex spaces based on biological sex are protected. And nothing in our plans goes contrary to that, nothing at all.”
This quote from Rachel Reeves on the other hand...
“The times”? Doesn’t this paper have a bit of a… questionable track record with manipulative editing?
The article is paywalled so I can’t read it, but I’d hold off on making judgments here. Did he actually say “I won’t allow gender ideology to be taught in schools” or did he say something else and the editors of the headline chose to phrase it like that? Based on the comments here it looks like it’s the latter, which is significant.
Here's the quote:
>“No, I’m not in favour of ideology being taught in our schools,” Starmer told reporters in Kettering. “That’s not on the agenda.”
>The Labour leader added that the party would wait for the publication of the government’s consultation on the sex and relationship education guidelines, which is continuing, but stressed he was in favour of “age-appropriate” teaching on transgender issues.
>“I do think teachers need guidance,” Starmer said. “I think we need to complete the consultation process and make sure that there is guidance that is age appropriate.” The consultation closes next month.
>No, I’m not in favour of ideology being taught in our schools
Literally everything taught that isnt either a hard science or mathematics is ideology
History? Ideology, geography? ideology, foreign languages? ideology
how can you be against ideology when it is philosophically IMPOSSIBLE to be non-ideological in subjective matters?
You're absolutely right, and that's how politicians get to be mealy mouthed on this subject until they do something that actually bites real life people in the ass.
Pinged LGBT ([subscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Subscribe%20to%20LGBT&message=subscribe%20LGBT) | [unsubscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20LGBT&message=unsubscribe%20LGBT) | [history](https://neoliber.al/user_pinger_2/history.html?group_name=LGBT&count=5))
[About & Group List](https://reddit.com/r/neoliberal/wiki/user_pinger_2) | [Unsubscribe from all groups](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20all%20groups&message=unsubscribe)
Everybody saying Starmer is in the right implicitly either agrees with you or is a transphobe trying to provide cover for Labour’s support for hatred, so I’m surprised to see the downvotes when everybody else in this thread is *so reluctantly* saying that Starmer needs to pander to JK Rowling in order to win over a shitbag electorate which evidently hates trans people more than they love themselves.
Imagine if anything like this was said about the antisemitism in the party under Corbyn, like if he met with open antisemites who have downplayed the Holocaust about the express topic of how he could gain their support over that antisemitism. Nobody here would tolerate that, let alone attack the people who condemn it, but Starmer actively pandering to extremists who have denied Nazi Germany’s atrocities against trans people is treated as just part of politics.
It's just political tribalism. Starmer is seen as the anti-Corbyn resistance so this subreddit thinks he can do no wrong and just shoves it under the bed or makes excuses when he engages in the rampant transphobia that infects British politics. I hope the trans people in here understand that their rights only matter to arr/neoliberal when it's politically convenient.
[Jeremy Corbyn on society](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ElgLAbvW0AE4X5R.jpg)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[Jeremy Corbyn on society](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ElgLAbvW0AE4X5R.jpg)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Here is something I still don’t understand. According to polling this is an issue barley anyone in the UK cares about. So why are the press and politicians talking about it non stop?
Pinged UK ([subscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Subscribe%20to%20UK&message=subscribe%20UK) | [unsubscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20UK&message=unsubscribe%20UK) | [history](https://neoliber.al/user_pinger_2/history.html?group_name=UK&count=5))
[About & Group List](https://reddit.com/r/neoliberal/wiki/user_pinger_2) | [Unsubscribe from all groups](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20all%20groups&message=unsubscribe)
**Rule II:** *Bigotry*
Bigotry of any kind will be sanctioned harshly.
---
If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
This guy gets worse every day on this issue (and others as well). Saving this for the next time when people ask why so many transgender people are leftist/communist/...
His trajectory has been so bizarre. I vividly remember him being atleast somewhat pro trans a few years back so I don't know if this is a genuine change of postion, grifting, or a Blair-esque strategy of not engaging in the culture war and just being progressive when you have the oppurtunity to in government.
I hope it is the latter, but this man is a bit flip-floppy
He has made other comments. Not just the one referenced here.
And I've not been uncharitable have I? My man floundered *once* with the "What is a woman?" question and since then has gone full "Adult Human Female".
I suspect it is mostly rhetoric to ease the culture war noose the Conservatives want to tie him up in, especially with some of Bridget Phillipson and Wes Streetings comments, but it still is disappointing that this is the game social progressives may have to play.
>has gone full "Adult Human Female".
I guess this is meant to portray is negatively, but its just a non-answer that comes from quoting the dictionary. The answer is practically an insult to the dogwhistle question, calling it pointless and trivial by refusing to engage beyond a literal dictionary definition.
Clearly you don't agree given you said he "floundered" and the phrasing of "gone full" seems to portray it quite negatively. Even just the former is a point of disagreement.
He wasn't able to give a compelling or concise "media" answer for the question despite having the correct answer. That's what I meant by floundering. He was HOUNDED by the press for his "inability" to "define a woman".
He then proceeded to go for the easy route and give the dumb fuck "Adult Human Female" branch of replies to be less controversial rather than correct.
Hopefully this explains my take better.
A "media" answer doesn't matter when people don't care for the debate at large, hence why his dismissive answer that didn't engage with toxicity worked. Allbeit two-year-old [polling](https://yougov.co.uk/society/articles/43194-where-does-british-public-stand-transgender-rights-1) shows that two thirds just don't pay attention to trans debates at all, and that has been reflected in the Conservative failure to make the trans debate a wedge issue for Labour. And thats all that matters; the medis hounded Starmer, the Tories tried to make it a wedge issue, and in the end the public didn't care and was just as dismissive as Starmer's answer.
And thats why answers like "adult human female" and "99%" work. A literal dictionary definition and one that puts the tiny scale into the forefront are both as dismissive of the culture war as the public are. The only way "adult human female" is a "dumb fuck" answer is if - like the Tories and media - you wanted a divisive answer, Starmer refusing to give that is hardly the "easy route". In contrast its far harder to give an answer that cannot be exploited, but Starmer (and Daveys as well actually) both minimise the toxificiation of the debate.
It makes sense as a stance given Starmer has [previously spoken](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/apr/01/turning-trans-issues-into-a-toxic-divide-doesnt-help-says-keir-starmer) about the toxicity of the debate and has continued that [recently](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cndd65k06x8o), so he clearly has no care to engage with culture wars, let alone over a tiny proportion of the population. Refusing to engage isn't floundering, its refusing to give the Tories a wedge issue to exploit and preventing said exploitation harming trans people as even the [Home Office has noted](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/oct/05/record-rise-hate-crimes-transgender-people-reported-england-and-wales).
>And thats all that matters; the medis hounded Starmer, the Tories tried to make it a wedge issue, and in the end the public didn't care and was just as dismissive as Starmer.
Who are you arguing with? I even said as much, that this was likely an intentional choice on Starmer's part to minimize conflict on this issue same way Albanese did in his election in 22.
>An thats why answers like "adult human female" and "99%" works. A literal dictionary definition and one that puts the tiny scale into the forefront are both as dismissive of the culture war as the public are.
They work. I agree. I still don't know who you are arguing with this about.
>The only way "adult human female" is a "dumb fuck" answer is if - like the Tories and media - you wanted a divisive answer, Starmer refusing to give that is hardly the "easy route".
The answer is not "dumb fuck" because it doesn't work politically. The answer is dumbfuck because it doesn't care to engage with the truth claim or the substance of the question. But in the current media environment, you cannot engage with the question at all. The "What is a woman?" question is usually a cheap gotcha that doesn't care to engage with the substance of gender and trans identity by instead taking cheap shots over incongruence with dictionary definitions over discussions on the philosophy of identity where the very definition is the subject of the arguement.
>It makes sense as a stance given Starmer has previously spoken about the toxicity of the debate and has continued that recently, so he clearly has no care to engage with culture wars
Yup he has said as much. He and his Cabinet do seem clear there, and hence why my pseudo optimism over a potential for Blairite progressivism.
>Refusing to engage isn't floundering, its refusing to give the Tories a wedge issue to exploit.
His floundering didn't come from his refusal to engage. It came when he tried to give a good answer, but failed to give one that satisfied the rapturous media who hounded him for it. Hence looping back to him taking the "easy way out", irrespective of its political efficacy.
modern communists are, and yes, this includes the ccp youth league and the vietnamese youth commitee and the philippino communist organization and alike
modern communists are very pro trans, so are modern liberals, but to say that communists arent pro trans because the soviet union was conservative is like claiming that liberals are homophobic because they killed Alan Turing
The UK's communist party literally *just* put out a statement saying they oppose gender self-ID and want to change equality legislation to explicitly refer to biological sex, lmao.
I'm slightly confused by the events the article is recalling but as far as I can tell (correct me if I'm wrong): * Labour has indicated they would reform conservative guidelines that would not allow 'gender ideology' to be taught in schools. * Starmer gives a bit of a non-answer when asked about it, saying that ideology in general shouldn't be taught in schools, but does indicate the guidance would be revised following consultation. * Labour has stated that Starmer is aligned with previous statements that the guidelines may be reformed following the government consultation. In context this seems different from the implication in the headline that Starmer specifically said he would ban 'gender ideology' from being taught in schools. Incidentally given The Times' readership I wouldn't be surprised if their framing is helpful to Starmer lol
Zižek told me that everything is ideology?
Ideology structures one's reality, rather than being a distortion of a "real reality." The Zizekian response to Starmer here would be that we are already eating from the trash can of gender ideology all the time (already teaching it in our schools).
I unironically think this is just Freud syndrome where a philosopher projects his own psychosis onto the general population. No Zizek just because you're a brainwormed ideologue doesn't mean we all are.
Your assessment is wrong, or you're not really understanding what he is saying. When he says "ideology" he doesn't mean it as it's used in the political sphere, as a discrete system of political beliefs, policies, as a system of political thought and organization etc. He means it much more broadly than that, just as a system of beliefs, ideas and assumptions about anything in any sphere. By his usage of it, even the most non-political person still lives through ideology. This shouldn't be that unfamiliar to you. It's not that everyone is equally ideological, it's that there is no "reality" (as in existence within our societies), without ideology. Ideology "structures" your sense-making, your fundamental understanding of yourself and your surroundings. This is why changing one's political beliefs is often experienced as a violent internal conflict (that is usally only carried out on one's own accord). The self becomes bound up in all of these ideologies and changing that web of connections ends up rewriting the self at the centre as well. So, some people *can* be more ideological than others primarily by not engaging in any form of self-critique, or ideological critique. Simply stating that you take up a position "in reality" or "beyond ideology" is actually very far from being non-ideological; and wouldn't you know, that was a favourite line of the early fascists like Mussolini. Perhaps useful here is to understand that Zizek's theory of the self is anti-essential (whilst also not being materialist). The self is an empty nothing that is constantly being invented, reinvented and circumscribed by the subject. Insofar as one feels they have a true essential identity, it is experienced as the failure of all of those things to truly describe the self i.e. their lack. This is where the topology of the "parallax view" comes from. The significance here being that while true reality does exist, it is inaccessible *as a totality* to any person, like the self.
Yeah but like 90% of this isn’t uniquely Zizek. It’s just a more Nihilistic take on the works of the post-structuralist. Zizek is a fun pop-philosopher but like academically he is derivative as hell. I mean parts of Zizeks writing especially about media can sound stolen like word for word from the parts of Simulation and Simulacra about Disney World.
>Yeah but like 90% of this isn’t uniquely Zizek. It’s just a more Nihilistic take on the works of the post-structuralist. It's fundamentally different from post structuralism not just in conclusions but also how he arrives at those conclusions. He has critiqued post-structuralism frequently. Saying it's the same stuff, just a more nihilistic take, is not understanding either position fully. Nihilism has nothing to do with anything here. Desire is central in Zizek's philosophy, not the case at all with post-structuralism, things are more externally located. >Zizek is a fun pop-philosopher but like academically he is derivative as hell. Not really, he is famous for a reason. The Sublime Object of Ideology was influential. At any rate, I don't understand what any of this has to do with the initial prompt which was that Zizek is projecting that everyone is an ideologue onto society
Excellent comment!
Ok but then don't you think that becomes a wee bit motte and bailey? There's an extremely false equivalence between "2+2=4" as an ideological statement and "Greater Italia, we were betrayed by the allies, mare nostrum!" as an ideological statement and I'm not gonna sit here and pretend there's not. To the point where for all practical purposes I think calling the former ideological is dishonest and makes the latter more legitimate. Yes there actually is such a thing as education without political propaganda and the insistence that there isn't is just a nihilistic attempt by ideologues to go "well I mean if *all* education is gonna be ideological. It better be *my* ideology 😏"
Again your confusing "ideology" with "political ideology," this is not a motte and bailey you're just not understanding. 2+2=4 is not an ideological statement The natural sciences deal in the content of true reality, in segments and statements they can exist on the page. It is also true the vast majority of the time that engagement with true reality through the natural sciences consists of pulling an observation and bringing it quickly back "into the fold" of ideology. Most scientific theories, as soon as they leave the natural sciences, become bound up in all kinds of ideology, or maybe even by the scientists themselves. And guess how the sciences make a good effort to try and be free of ideology? By constantly engaging in self critique, self examination, attempting to root out biases from all directions all the time, and insisting on materiality with replicability as an essential proof, not by simply believing that science is outside of ideology. How much bad ideology swirled around in the sciences in the 19th century when they believed this lie! Self examination is obviously more necessary in some fields than others. Mathematics has it the easiest, non-coincidentally numbers and equations *in themselves* don't really make up any significant part of the social sphere.
But then you just end up redescribing what everyone already knew but in more hostile terminology that implies sinister unconscious political intent behind everything.
>redescribing what everyone already knew Not sure what you mean by this. >in more hostile terminology Nothing about it is hostile >implies sinister unconscious political intent behind everything. Firstly, how can something be simultaneously sinister and unconscious? Secondly, again you are not understanding the usage of ideology here, it *does not* here mean "political ideology," it means a set of ideas and beliefs about *anything.* The designation is more neutral. Business management practices would be ideology, aesthetic theories about art would be ideology, ideas in society about how to engage in dating and relationships would be ideology. Calling them that isn't an accusation of a hidden political project or intention, it is just designating them as socially constructed and developed: that they did not spring forth from the earth.
He said nothing should be taught in school in an ideological way and that he favours age appropriate guidance on transgender issues. The official line from the spokesperson was : Nothing should be taught in an ideological way in schools,” the spokesman said. “Current RSHE [relationships, sex and health education] guidance requires under law that children are taught in an age-appropriate way the facts about ‘sex, sexuality, sexual health and gender identity’. Labour’s priority is the safety and wellbeing of every child.”
Okay so what is "age appropriate guidance"?
Whatever the party in power decides
Introducing concepts to kids at an age where they're able to properly internalize them. It fundamentally isn't that controversial - it's done as part of high quality sex-ed programs - but, of course, it leaves room for interpretation, and someone might decide that LGBTQ-topics are suddenly adult only.
> someone might decide that LGBTQ-topics are suddenly adult only. The frustrating thing is that a VERY large part of the general population automatically considers any mention whatsoever of LGBTQ topics to be adult-only by default.
Those same people think LGBT topics shouldn’t be discussed at all, even if you’re an adult. It’s better to ignore them with that in mind
Well it can mean a range of things, we had a consultation out on the new sex and relationship education curriculum, which closed a few weeks ago. They’ll have to see the results of that consultation to see what changes should be made before issuing the new guidance.
> "Nothing should be taught in an ideological way in schools,” I hate this nonsense rejection of reality. Democracy is ideological. Equal rights is ideological. The idea that everyone deserves healthcare (the NHS) is ideological. They're proposing a false neutrality that does not exist in education.
And what, specifically, is ideological? I'm reminded of the bit about gamers seeing two genders, male and ideological.
His answer was totally fine. He endorsed “Age-appropriate guidelines on sex/gender. Conservatives are against teaching that and call it gender ideology which sounds worse
‘Age-appropriate guidelines on sex and gender’ is one of those political non-statements that everyone can read their own interpretation into. A social conservative opinion in what is age-appropriate is obviously far different than what a progressive thinks. The obvious example is a thing like having a gay couple in a children’s story that are treated no different than a straight couple. A liberal typically won’t see any issue with that but we’ve seen conservatives act like it’s hugely inappropriate
>political non-statements that everyone can read their own interpretation That's pretty much all Kier needs to say to win this election, so I don't blame him.
I thought Sunak was in charge of making sure Starmer wins the election?
So he said nothing and people here are praisig him because the alternative is literally openly transphobic. We are allowed to ask more than the bare minimum of our representatives. I swear some days I think people here would have considered Lincoln too radical in his campaign days, or that abolitionists were too demanding for wanting a clear stance on slavery from the candidates
The headline sounds like a huge negative the reality is neutral, Lincoln would have been an idiot to support the death penalty for slave owners even if that was perfectly reasonable by the standards of the time because he'd never have been elected.
Yes and considering starmers constant cozying up with the transphobes and TERFs both inside and outside the party, coupled with his refusal to recognised the rights of trans people in the past, *him giving a non committal non answer is bad, actually*. Its my entire point. Let's for the love of god ask for an actual stance from the person that is soon to rule the entire kingdom and start expecting at least much as a decent position from him. My god.
I've seen people in here argue that protestors should be thrown in jail for obstructing freedom of movement. You know, like the Student Executive Committee for Justice did at the Woolworth's counter. This subreddit somehow exists without a shred of introspection.
Why in the world would he ever say anything controversial? His party is about to win by the biggest landslide ever just by not being the current government, being noncommittal and avoiding hot topics is the best thing he can do electorally. If you want more than the bare minimum then you need a better electoral system, one where minority parties get proportionally represented instead of this FPTP farce
"Whys hould he stand up for trans rights when he has a clear lead?" After Starmer has explicitly refused to recognised trans right as human rights (or rights at all, look up the leadership contest when he was selected) I should hope people of a group that ostensibly favour trans rights would quite like to hear from him that he actually does stand *for* trans people, especially as he keep promoting TERFs within the party. *ESPECIALLY* so when he has such an electoral lead. My god man, do you actually want democratic leaders that promote liberal social stances, or is the economic policies the be all and all and the social questions should just be left unquestioned with a silent "well let's hope he is good on social issues, because I'm not gonna bother finding out"?
What are the pro-trans people going to do? Vote Sunak's tories with his even more transphobic rhetoric? In a two party system just being barely better than the other guy on any issue is more than enough, being any more firm on your views would mean losing the median voter. I'm not saying it's right, but that's how it is.
Are we going to get a better electoral system by voting for a party which supports FPTP?
Probably not
Lincoln was actually more moderate in his campaign days than when he was President. His stance on slavery, in particular, was that it shouldn't expand westward. You won't find him outright endorsing abolitionist ideas back then.
I’m mostly ignorant to UK politics so correct me where I’m wrong mapping my American trans discourse onto that itty bitty island. Education is mostly a local political issue so the most we can really ask for is dismantling any openly bigoted national rules.
The UK’s education system is highly centralised compared to the US. There’s National curriculums, so everyone will read the same books, take the same exams etc — It is devolved though, so Scotland has their own curriculum for example
Ty makes sense with to have one education system for such a small place.
I mean, there’s 67 million people it’s not that small— still far more than any US state, for example California has 39 million people, and curriculum is different not just in different counties in CA, but different schools and teachers. It’s just that pretty much everything is centralised in the U.K., far more than many other countries.
What the hell is gender ideology
If you want a serious answer of what people mean when they say 'gender ideology', they generally mean the concept that you can 'feel like' a different sex than the one you're born as, and everything downstream from that. So they would mean the idea of being transgender, non-binary etc.
None of that shit sounds crazy to me lol
It's not. I wasn't assigning a value judgement, I was just saying that that's what people mean when they talk about it. It's important to make sure that people are speaking the same language when they argue about things, otherwise they completely miss each other's points.
good point
Because there is no such thing as "gender ideology" and they gave a generous definition. Which tbf is probably what a lot of people who have ever said that phrase out loud would probably say. If we're steelmanning another side (and this is definitely a minority position that is more thought out than most have), lets say you have a girl who plays with action figures and other typical boys toys. Rather than just saying this is a tomboy, some people think there is an overzealous search/push to assign the transgender label to this kid, and this is what they would call gender ideology. Almost like the reverse of pushing gender roles. It's almost 100% a buzzword though to signal you're not a fan of transgender kids lol
Gender ideology is simply the philosophical view that self identification is all that matters for your gender and gender is separable from sex.
> Gender ideology is simply the philosophical view that self identification is all that matters for your gender and gender is separable from sex. If we're talking philosophy/social theory, then this would be **a** gender ideology. Politically speaking, however, labeling this particular view as the one and only "gender ideology" means that it can be painted as a sinister attempt to reprogram people away from an allegedly un-ideological "true" view about gender and sex.
Yeah people can transition
Or simply change their identification.
Usually, that's transitioning. Social transitioning, medical transitioning, etc. Like, trying different pronouns or clothes isn't transitioning on its own. But there was a time, around the 50-70s, when trans people had to transition socially for something like a year before having the permission for HRT. It's kinda weird how people say the opposite and shouldn't socially transition before starting HRT/SRS, if that is even possible.
some would put the idea people can be Gender non conforming under “Gender ideology”
>What the hell is gender ideology That's an easy one! Ideology, on any subject, is a point of view that differs from mine.
In Italian they call it "ideologia gender". Note that "gender" isn't a word in Italian, the term would be "genere", but they use the English word to make it sound more foreign and scary.
Not a thing. This is a non statement.
Isn’t it the idea that gender is not defined at birth and that it is quite malleable? I think you’re purposely being obtuse for some reason? Is this the whole “define woke” thing again? I don’t think gaslighting people is a great rhetorical device lol
>Isn’t it the idea that gender is not defined at birth and that it is quite malleable? Is that an ideology?
Ah, but you see, you have stepped into this conversation thinking that "ideology" means "a system of belief" when in reality it means "pejorative for the thing other people are saying I don't like"
Yes
What's the difference between an ideology and a scientific consensus?
Vibes
[удалено]
why *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Whether self identification is valid is a philosophical position not scientific. It's a matter of whether you define your own identity or society does for you.
It only is if you use words according to the dictionary (I try to, sometimes fail)
>a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy. "Gender != Sex" isn't exactly a multitude of ideas nor ideals. It's literally one.
In the same way that the idea that gender is defined at birth and is not malleable is gender ideology, yes.
What do you think an ideology is again?
What do you think “in the same way” means? I’m not claiming it is or isn’t an ideology. I’m pointing out that if someone wants to apply the term to “maybe gender isn’t fixed to biological sex” then it is reasonable to *also* apply it to “gender is fixed at birth to bio sex.” The point isn’t to say it is or isn’t an ideology, but that someone *claiming* it to be is actually saying so from an opposing “ideology” without realizing their hypocrisy.
Being woke is being evidence based. 😎 *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
It's conservatives imagining things and *everyone else*. So unless you're asserting everyone is an imbicile... I think you may have outed yourself.
[удалено]
What unscientific ideology are "the libs" forcing on the public, exactly?
Gender ideology, apparently, whatever that is. I'm still not clear.
Can you describe gender ideology in a way that doesn't sound like a moral panic? And what is unscientific about trans people existing? People denying their ready apparance doesn't seem very scientific.
[удалено]
>"My child was just taught in school that if they like playing with dolls then that means they're really a girl and need surgery to correct for it". Is this policy in the UK?? Link?!?
**Rule III**: *Unconstructive engagement* Do not post with the intent to provoke, mischaracterize, or troll other users rather than meaningfully contributing to the conversation. Don't disrupt serious discussions. Bad opinions are not automatically unconstructive. --- If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
It's everything I don't like
It looks like in this context it's a conservative buzzword, and Starmer is treating it as such by making a content free statement that he won't allow scary buzzword in schools. Disappointing, since this legitimizes the right-wing pushing of eternally flexible non-issues that everyone can reinterpret to think it applies to them.
Das auto, der mutter, die kummerspeck never quite understood this
He said "I’m not in favour of ideology being taught in our schools on gender" Starmer obviously intended it to be interpreted the way the Times is here. If you are supportive of trans rights it is not particularly difficult to give an answer that reflects that. This isn't some kind of isolated incident. When JK Rowling said she was concerned with Labour's stance on trans rights, Wes Streeting said he was "absolutely devastated" and Rachel Reeves offered to meet with her to make clear Labour has a very clear commitment to "protecting single-sex spaces based on biological sex" which, obviously, means excluding trans people from services. Basically the same thing that Republicans are doing in the US. Wes Streeting has even said he regrets saying that trans women are women. The trans community is pretty much unanimously against Labour. It's pretty obvious trans people are being sold down the river for right-wing votes, with the slimmest margin of plausible deniability intended for cis people who like to call themselves progressive and may still be interested in voting Labour.
> Nothing should be taught in an ideological way in schools,” the spokesman said. “Current RSHE [relationships, sex and health education] guidance requires under law that children are taught in an age-appropriate way the facts about ‘sex, sexuality, sexual health and gender identity’. Labour’s priority is the safety and wellbeing of every child.” How exactly is this selling them down the river lol They’re saying that teaching about LGBT topics isn’t ideological, it’s education, and isn’t presented to influence anyone.
I didn't say that quote from some anonymous Labour person was what involved selling trans people down the river. "We’re really happy to talk to JK Rowling to give her assurances about [same-sex spaces]. For me those protections whether it is about prisons, refuges, changing spaces, that is really important to me, it is really important to the Labour Party that those single sex spaces based on biological sex are protected. And nothing in our plans goes contrary to that, nothing at all.” This quote from Rachel Reeves on the other hand...
As a factual matter, is gender stuff actually being taught in schools? Like, what's the status quo on this?
Someone update the Starmerism political compass
if only the libdems had a better chance
Starmer pls
Leh sigh
!ping MAMADAS I thought that the "ideología de género" Boogeyman was a thing of our underdeveloped world.
Pinged MAMADAS ([subscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Subscribe%20to%20MAMADAS&message=subscribe%20MAMADAS) | [unsubscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20MAMADAS&message=unsubscribe%20MAMADAS) | [history](https://neoliber.al/user_pinger_2/history.html?group_name=MAMADAS&count=5)) [About & Group List](https://reddit.com/r/neoliberal/wiki/user_pinger_2) | [Unsubscribe from all groups](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20all%20groups&message=unsubscribe)
“The times”? Doesn’t this paper have a bit of a… questionable track record with manipulative editing? The article is paywalled so I can’t read it, but I’d hold off on making judgments here. Did he actually say “I won’t allow gender ideology to be taught in schools” or did he say something else and the editors of the headline chose to phrase it like that? Based on the comments here it looks like it’s the latter, which is significant.
Here's the quote: >“No, I’m not in favour of ideology being taught in our schools,” Starmer told reporters in Kettering. “That’s not on the agenda.” >The Labour leader added that the party would wait for the publication of the government’s consultation on the sex and relationship education guidelines, which is continuing, but stressed he was in favour of “age-appropriate” teaching on transgender issues. >“I do think teachers need guidance,” Starmer said. “I think we need to complete the consultation process and make sure that there is guidance that is age appropriate.” The consultation closes next month.
What was the question he was responding to? Did he bring up the word “ideology” all on his own or was it in the wording of the question?
>No, I’m not in favour of ideology being taught in our schools Literally everything taught that isnt either a hard science or mathematics is ideology History? Ideology, geography? ideology, foreign languages? ideology how can you be against ideology when it is philosophically IMPOSSIBLE to be non-ideological in subjective matters?
That's not how most people use the word.
But it is the correct definition tho
That's irrelevant here
You're absolutely right, and that's how politicians get to be mealy mouthed on this subject until they do something that actually bites real life people in the ass.
!ping LGBT
well their name is stupid, so, dummy
Pinged LGBT ([subscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Subscribe%20to%20LGBT&message=subscribe%20LGBT) | [unsubscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20LGBT&message=unsubscribe%20LGBT) | [history](https://neoliber.al/user_pinger_2/history.html?group_name=LGBT&count=5)) [About & Group List](https://reddit.com/r/neoliberal/wiki/user_pinger_2) | [Unsubscribe from all groups](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20all%20groups&message=unsubscribe)
Starmer is a mealy-mouthed coward, and TERF Island deserves him
Everybody saying Starmer is in the right implicitly either agrees with you or is a transphobe trying to provide cover for Labour’s support for hatred, so I’m surprised to see the downvotes when everybody else in this thread is *so reluctantly* saying that Starmer needs to pander to JK Rowling in order to win over a shitbag electorate which evidently hates trans people more than they love themselves. Imagine if anything like this was said about the antisemitism in the party under Corbyn, like if he met with open antisemites who have downplayed the Holocaust about the express topic of how he could gain their support over that antisemitism. Nobody here would tolerate that, let alone attack the people who condemn it, but Starmer actively pandering to extremists who have denied Nazi Germany’s atrocities against trans people is treated as just part of politics.
It's just political tribalism. Starmer is seen as the anti-Corbyn resistance so this subreddit thinks he can do no wrong and just shoves it under the bed or makes excuses when he engages in the rampant transphobia that infects British politics. I hope the trans people in here understand that their rights only matter to arr/neoliberal when it's politically convenient.
It’s like that for a fare number of minorities here. Black and brown people go through similar bouts of fair weather or conditional support
believe me I've noticed
I absolutely noticed it. Very dissapointing.
[Jeremy Corbyn on society](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ElgLAbvW0AE4X5R.jpg) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He keeps getting asked questions that force him to engage in the culture wars.
[Jeremy Corbyn on society](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ElgLAbvW0AE4X5R.jpg) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
!ping UK
Here is something I still don’t understand. According to polling this is an issue barley anyone in the UK cares about. So why are the press and politicians talking about it non stop?
Pinged UK ([subscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Subscribe%20to%20UK&message=subscribe%20UK) | [unsubscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20UK&message=unsubscribe%20UK) | [history](https://neoliber.al/user_pinger_2/history.html?group_name=UK&count=5)) [About & Group List](https://reddit.com/r/neoliberal/wiki/user_pinger_2) | [Unsubscribe from all groups](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20all%20groups&message=unsubscribe)
[удалено]
[удалено]
**Rule II:** *Bigotry* Bigotry of any kind will be sanctioned harshly. --- If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
This guy gets worse every day on this issue (and others as well). Saving this for the next time when people ask why so many transgender people are leftist/communist/...
Read past the headline
Tbh this headline is intentionally inflammatory
That is true and honestly I wouldn't have posted it to begin with without an explainer in the comments
Can't due to paywall.
Then why comment if you haven’t read the article?
His trajectory has been so bizarre. I vividly remember him being atleast somewhat pro trans a few years back so I don't know if this is a genuine change of postion, grifting, or a Blair-esque strategy of not engaging in the culture war and just being progressive when you have the oppurtunity to in government. I hope it is the latter, but this man is a bit flip-floppy
Read past the headline. Please.
He has made other comments. Not just the one referenced here. And I've not been uncharitable have I? My man floundered *once* with the "What is a woman?" question and since then has gone full "Adult Human Female". I suspect it is mostly rhetoric to ease the culture war noose the Conservatives want to tie him up in, especially with some of Bridget Phillipson and Wes Streetings comments, but it still is disappointing that this is the game social progressives may have to play.
>has gone full "Adult Human Female". I guess this is meant to portray is negatively, but its just a non-answer that comes from quoting the dictionary. The answer is practically an insult to the dogwhistle question, calling it pointless and trivial by refusing to engage beyond a literal dictionary definition.
I agree? Are you concurring or objecting lol?
Clearly you don't agree given you said he "floundered" and the phrasing of "gone full" seems to portray it quite negatively. Even just the former is a point of disagreement.
He wasn't able to give a compelling or concise "media" answer for the question despite having the correct answer. That's what I meant by floundering. He was HOUNDED by the press for his "inability" to "define a woman". He then proceeded to go for the easy route and give the dumb fuck "Adult Human Female" branch of replies to be less controversial rather than correct. Hopefully this explains my take better.
A "media" answer doesn't matter when people don't care for the debate at large, hence why his dismissive answer that didn't engage with toxicity worked. Allbeit two-year-old [polling](https://yougov.co.uk/society/articles/43194-where-does-british-public-stand-transgender-rights-1) shows that two thirds just don't pay attention to trans debates at all, and that has been reflected in the Conservative failure to make the trans debate a wedge issue for Labour. And thats all that matters; the medis hounded Starmer, the Tories tried to make it a wedge issue, and in the end the public didn't care and was just as dismissive as Starmer's answer. And thats why answers like "adult human female" and "99%" work. A literal dictionary definition and one that puts the tiny scale into the forefront are both as dismissive of the culture war as the public are. The only way "adult human female" is a "dumb fuck" answer is if - like the Tories and media - you wanted a divisive answer, Starmer refusing to give that is hardly the "easy route". In contrast its far harder to give an answer that cannot be exploited, but Starmer (and Daveys as well actually) both minimise the toxificiation of the debate. It makes sense as a stance given Starmer has [previously spoken](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/apr/01/turning-trans-issues-into-a-toxic-divide-doesnt-help-says-keir-starmer) about the toxicity of the debate and has continued that [recently](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cndd65k06x8o), so he clearly has no care to engage with culture wars, let alone over a tiny proportion of the population. Refusing to engage isn't floundering, its refusing to give the Tories a wedge issue to exploit and preventing said exploitation harming trans people as even the [Home Office has noted](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/oct/05/record-rise-hate-crimes-transgender-people-reported-england-and-wales).
>And thats all that matters; the medis hounded Starmer, the Tories tried to make it a wedge issue, and in the end the public didn't care and was just as dismissive as Starmer. Who are you arguing with? I even said as much, that this was likely an intentional choice on Starmer's part to minimize conflict on this issue same way Albanese did in his election in 22. >An thats why answers like "adult human female" and "99%" works. A literal dictionary definition and one that puts the tiny scale into the forefront are both as dismissive of the culture war as the public are. They work. I agree. I still don't know who you are arguing with this about. >The only way "adult human female" is a "dumb fuck" answer is if - like the Tories and media - you wanted a divisive answer, Starmer refusing to give that is hardly the "easy route". The answer is not "dumb fuck" because it doesn't work politically. The answer is dumbfuck because it doesn't care to engage with the truth claim or the substance of the question. But in the current media environment, you cannot engage with the question at all. The "What is a woman?" question is usually a cheap gotcha that doesn't care to engage with the substance of gender and trans identity by instead taking cheap shots over incongruence with dictionary definitions over discussions on the philosophy of identity where the very definition is the subject of the arguement. >It makes sense as a stance given Starmer has previously spoken about the toxicity of the debate and has continued that recently, so he clearly has no care to engage with culture wars Yup he has said as much. He and his Cabinet do seem clear there, and hence why my pseudo optimism over a potential for Blairite progressivism. >Refusing to engage isn't floundering, its refusing to give the Tories a wedge issue to exploit. His floundering didn't come from his refusal to engage. It came when he tried to give a good answer, but failed to give one that satisfied the rapturous media who hounded him for it. Hence looping back to him taking the "easy way out", irrespective of its political efficacy.
I think they're concurring and misread your reply. I also had to read it twice before realizing you meant it positively.
You can see further that our points don't align, so that wasn't the case.
Yes the communists are famously pro-trans…
modern communists are, and yes, this includes the ccp youth league and the vietnamese youth commitee and the philippino communist organization and alike modern communists are very pro trans, so are modern liberals, but to say that communists arent pro trans because the soviet union was conservative is like claiming that liberals are homophobic because they killed Alan Turing
The UK's communist party literally *just* put out a statement saying they oppose gender self-ID and want to change equality legislation to explicitly refer to biological sex, lmao.
Oops, must not be Real Communism™
This headline is so manipulative.