/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>2393730
the apparent violation of trans rights concerns their exemption from the status of womanhood, no? so what is womanhood, so as to be accepted within it?

>>2393731
Pedantically, not really. What's really important to me is questions of power and the law. The rights of fishermen would be violated if
- in 2017 both major party leaders were vaguely committed to some form of simplfiying the process to get a permit to flyfish on public land, and public opinion was basically 50/50 on the matter.
- the press, speaking with one voice, launched a large anti-flyfishing campaign. while the american right seem fond of the issue, only in britain does the nominally center and center-left press join in.
- by 2022 both major party leaders were openly hostile to flyfishing.
- public celebrities announced their willingness to fund anti-flyfishing legal cases, and celebrities who spoke out against this were hounded back into line by the anti-flyfishing press
- the scottish government proposed new fishing permit legislation, and it was vetoed on the spurious grounds that it interfered with UK-wide issues. (plausible: they did this with bottle returns once the precedent was set) despite the fact that in 2010, the cameron government had facilitated similar changes to scottish fishing legislation.
- the supreme court found that actually, the fishing (advertising and promotion) act 2010 rendered the fishing permits act 2004 a dead letter, and it was no longer possible to obtain a permit to flyfish on public land.
- the law regarding fishing on private property is perfectly clear - you just need the owner's permission. nevertheless, the UK's fishing and meat council starts telling land owners that they're breaking the law if they let people engage in flyfishing on their land. this is simply not true, but when asked about some people allowing flyfishing, the PM tells them they'd better cut it out and follow the law. the law, again, says that this is perfectly legal: the fishing and meat council are lying. the PM is a lawyer and should know this.

It would certainly further arouse my suspicion if, for example, the home of "FishWell", a purportedly progressive and pro-fishing organization (which seems exclusively dedicated to anti-flyfishing campaigns and court cases) was clearly funded by American cranks who want all forms of hobby-fishing outlawed as contradictory to the bible, and shared an office with the taxpayers alliance, migration watch, and global warming denialists.

>>2393737
>trans rights have nothing to do with legal identity
complete bullshit, but lets continue
<anti-flyfishing
you havent specified the laws; thats your issue. what anti-trans laws have been pushed? what does it mean for power to be anti-trans? my perspective is that it includes the denial of one's self-preferred identity, but you deny this. what is anti-trans legislation then?

>>2393741
I have spelled out repeatedly for you how the supreme court rendered a piece of legislation a dead letter, just as effectively as if parliament had passed a law repealing it. This is law.

What does it mean for power to be anti-flyfishing, to be anti-left? That is an interesting question. It is hard to pin down: I would summarize, very vaguely, that it is an inconsistency in how the rules are created, implemented, and enforced, which always tilts in one direction. It's like a selective gravity: gravity for Corbyn, but not for Johnson, gravity for Sunak, but not for Starmer. You can infer its presence by how difficult a time they're having, compared to what you would expect if they were being subject to the same forces. To take a historical example: Jeremy Corbyn's Labour? Institutionally antisemitic. Johnson's Tories? Not institutionally islamophobic. Keir Starmer's Labour? (once Corbyn's Labour, and therefore, we'd assume, with at least some legacy of antisemitism?) Not institutionally antisemitic.
What is the rule that gets you this result? I tell you: it is to ignore the purported issue, of prejudice, and to look at the end-goal: Fuck Corbyn, help Johnson. Help Starmer.
("Fuck Johnson" happened, yeah, but that was with partygate, and the same principles generalize. Johnson going to a party during lockdown was a resigning issue. Sunak, who had to be helped over Truss? Well, he got away with being at the same party, didn't he? What is the rule that gets you this result?)

>>2393746
we need less yapping.
you mentioned the supreme court. this stated that womanhood is defined by biological sex, therefore denying trans women the identity of womanhood. the supreme court has a definition of womanhood; what would be your counter-definition?

>>2392732
You seem to be a cowardly libshit afraid of illiberalism

You say "worse" but Britain is already facilitating a genocide, is now killing babies up til birth and passed laws for Euthanasia.
We already are in fascism.

You're just upset that this new bout of illiberalism will require class conflict and youre too obsessed with your creature comforts like a "nichean last man" that you'll defend liberalism to the last

>>2393748
I will disappoint you and give my definition thus: The definition as it stood in law circa 2009.
This predates the EA2010 and with it, the sophistry of the court. The Gender Recognition Act 2004 remains in force, and as such:
>Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman).

To say the court just said "womanhood is biological sex" is to glibly simplify a judgement you do not understand. So far as womanhood in law circa 2009 might be considered merely "biological sex", a holder of a GRC is held to share that sex for all purposes. You may think this irrational - it matters not, it is the law, and it is the law that the court overturned through an interpretation of the Equality Act 2010 through frankly American feats of judicial activism and spurious interpretation. (Pissing all over parliamentary sovereignty while it did so, by-the-by.)

>>2393753
and what qualifies one for a gender cerificate? to my knowledge; it is granted where one "lives" as their acquired gender for a period of time - how then, is this determined?
>EA2010
so you would repeal the EA2010 to endure the precedence of the 2004 gender recognition act?

>>2393754
Go read the legislation for yourself if you care. What am I, your law lecturer?
What I would do is irrelevant. You could give me complete legislative power and it wouldn't matter - with an executive and a court system in the same hands as today, not one of my edicts would be implemented.
The court's judgement on the contents of the EA2010 is fanciful, it owes more to wishful thinking than to the actual text or intent of the legislation.

>>2393758
i was right about the GRC:
>Under current UK law, trans people applying for a Gender Recognition Certificate should provide: the completed form their original birth certificate their deed poll “Proof” that you’ve “lived in your acquired gender” for 2 years (this takes the form of your passport, driving licence, bills, payslips, other correspondence). 2 medical reports, one of which has to be a medical practitioner from the “approved list”. Please note that you may have to pay a fee for each medical report. A fee of £5
https://transactual.org.uk/the-gender-recognition-act-2004/
under "evidence" of the act, it states that you need a formal diagnosis of gender dysphoria:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/3
>it doesnt matter what i would do
rhen stop complaining, because a complaint suggests an alternative solution. your selective cynicism is quite irritating.
>the interpretation of the EA2010 is unfounded
then sue them.

>>2393761
I'm not at all selective in my cynicism. If you want me to put it as simply as possible: British public life is completely, utterly, irredeemably corrupt and false. If you attempt to understand anything as the normal operation of a functioning society, you will fail because nothing about this is normal. Why did the PM go from a landslide victory to the plausible elimination of his party as a going concern at the next election? Why has this happened twice?

Ask yourself, plainly and simply: Do you think it is plausible that when they passed the EA2010, they were thinking "For the purposes of this act, the line "for all purposes" in the GRA 2004 will not apply, but we won't write that into the EA2010 itself because it's just so obvious that "for all purposes" doesn't really mean "for all purposes" here"? Does that seem, to you, a plausible idea? Does it seem plausible to you that it took a full 14 years for this ever-so-plausible interpretation to come up?
If it does not seem plausible to you, do you really believe the system that made this error would right itself were you to sue? Or is it a category error to speak of "error" at all - the purpose of the supreme court being not to do what the law says, but to deliver the outcome desired by those in power.

>>2393766
>British public life is completely, utterly, irredeemably corrupt and false
touch grass
>the purpose of the supreme court being not to do what the law says, but to deliver the outcome desired by those in power
so we arrive back at the original proposition. what are "trans rights", exactly? my position is that trans rights only amount to legal confirmation in one's self-identity. to have a gender identity entails both assignment and acquirement, which impress normative standards upon definitions. to have identity, therefore, is to at least have the terms of a definition in place. in the GRA 2004, this amounts to a "transsexual" notion of being legally sexed as the acquired gender (defining gender and sex in synonymity, no?) if we separate between gender and sex, the precedent is problematised therefore, yet we still grant the condition of transgender identity. what then, is this condition, as it should be legally recognised? you claim that we should simply pertain to the GRA 2004, and so gender identity should be termed by official diagnosis - one's legality should be in the judgement of health officials?

>>2393772
You are talking about what should happen, I am talking about how power actually operates, how it has actually operated. I can take my model of British society and apply it to explain why the UK went through 5 prime ministers in 5 years, how a party wins less support than it got when it was wiped out in 2019, yet now dominates parliament. I can take it and explain Orgreave, Bloody Sunday, Hillsborough, to our unquestioning support of Israel or to why Peter Mandelson is our fucking Ambassador to the USA despite (perhaps thanks to!) being on Epstein's list.

Where does your line of questioning lead? From first principles: "Oh. Well none of that should have happened." Or perhaps not: perhaps you would put to me, on dry principle, that one shouldn't be disbarred from employment just because their name appeared in a little book? Is it really such a bad outcome? Maybe the system is working just fine, and I'm crazy to think that this is a deeply anomalous series of events even by the standards of bourgeois democracy, all papered over with some astoundingly incompetent consent manufacturing.

>>2393775
all this yapping to avoid the question "what is a woman?"
the GRA2004 and EA2010 both define gender and sex as the same thing - a GRC then permits one to identify as the opposite gender/sex. there is no difference in law, youre right, because its operating as it should. the only difference is in the rhetoric, not precedent. if you have a GRC, then you can surely go into a ladies toilets.

>>2393781
"What is a woman" is a boring question. I don't care. A miserable pile of secrets. "How does Britain work, and why does it - and it alone - work like this?" Now that's an interesting question. One that has failed to generate any interesting discussion, true, but it's an interesting question.

A GRC does no such thing, which is precisely why the court's decision is transparent nonsense. The court found that you are not a woman for EA2010 purposes even if you have a GRC, despite the legislation that created the GRC specifying that it makes you a woman for all purposes, and despite the EA2010 not explicitly stating, anywhere, that you were supposed to disregard that provision when interpreting it. The court made it up.
To bring up bathrooms merely confirms you've not paid attention to a single thing I've said. If you accept what institutions say, you are wrong: They cannot go into the ladies toilets. The interim EHRC guidance (which tells companies and government bodies how to comply with the EA2010) says that you must prohibit trans women, with or without a GRC, from entering women's bathrooms. The law itself doesn't actually require this, but why should that get in their way?

>>2393787
>"What is a woman" is a boring question. I don't care.
But a lot of people do, so it will keep making money and being in the fore. Ironically, no one gives a shit about FtM trasngenders lel.

>>2393787
>"What is a woman" is a boring question. I don't care.
then you have no place to speak on transgender topics
>The court found that you are not a woman for EA2010 purposes even if you have a GRC
yes, but it still has continuity to the GRA2004
the separation between sex and identity has just become foregrounded by the contemporary context. we might then say that the shifting notion from "transsexual" to "transgender" is the decisive severance which affords this interpretation. if indeed, however, a GRC does legally change your sex, then the EA2010 is overruled on this motion, since a definition of "sex" is surely legally mandated.
>The law itself doesn't actually require this, but why should that get in their way?
so we are not dealing with legal prohibition, just prejudice?

Everyone asks "what is a woman" they never ask "what is a man" this says a lot about our society.

>>2393812
well, what is a man?

Breaking news: Labour has banned schools from mentioning trans people. Section 28 is officially back.
Bridget Philipson on has just published guidance that states schools MUST introduce a ban on mentions of trans people and trans identity and only teach about biological sex.
I expect half of this thread will be cheering at this.

>>2393781
The stupid thing about this is that theres lots of trans people who have had bottom surgery who don't have a GRS, so what facilities should they use?
In fact basically all the government and courts policies seem to totally ignore not just FtMs but anyone who has had surgery. Someone who's had surgery can't exactly use a urinal.

>>2393886
*don't have a GRC

>>2393886
here's the thing. 95%< of people dont care if a trans person uses the toilet of their preferred identity. the >5% are angry lesbians. going to the toilets is not a legal issue unless it is chosen to be enforced also. pragmatically, i would also suggest trans people to get a GRC as collateral for potential damages anyway.

>>2393882
labour is by far more conservative than the conservative party, so its no surprise.

The Spanish Falangists were britsoc-pilled as they set up worker co-ops, pioneered the concept of muslim grooming gangs and shot George Orwell in the fucking throat.

Can someone tell me why leftists in the UK are willing to go down with the Titanic rather than simply give support to common sense immigration laws and dealing with pedophile gangs?

China has 50x lower immigration rates than UK. China would not sit by and do nothing about pedophile gangs, regardless of the religions of the perpetrators.

Why do leftists insist on taking the shitlib position on these issues just because the right happens to also agree on these?

>>2394029
Chicken Korma.

>>2394029
The "left" is 99 percent cucks, libs and trots(cuck-libs)

<The big question raised by the grooming gangs is not that some men, especially in tightly knit communities, might seek to take advantage. It is how on earth such abuse went on for decades…

<The blight of the sustained and organised sexual abuse of vulnerable young white girls by gangs of British men of Pakistani origin has been a stain on many of our towns and cities.

<Why is it that over the years the response of local authorities and others charged with investigating this abuse, with some notable exceptions, has been to downplay it? It was done either by denying the problem exists, or by burying any investigation in such time-consuming and bureaucratic processes that the impetus to seek answers was stifled.

<Downplaying the abuse continues. In January, Oldham council requested government funding to enable it to re-examine historical claims of such abuse in its area, but safeguarding minister Jess Phillips refused. A rare unanimous vote of the council on 13 February rejected Phillips’s claim that local inquiries were best and called for a statutory judge-led review as it would have more powers.
…

<British workers cannot expect the British state to remedy the situation of its own volition. It will offer regrets, excuses and apologies, but nothing more. We cannot allow cultural sensitivities to prevent the investigation and prosecution of criminal exploitation of children. Above all we need a change of ideology: put class interests first, don’t allow imposed ideas of “community” to obscure class needs and action to protect children.
https://cpbml.org.uk/news/british-state-and-grooming-gangs

>>2394070
I don't know if leftists are keeping a pulse on the right wing, but they are escalating into a genocidal frenzy.

So far, the imperial supremacy of the West allowed fascism to be kept at bay for two reasons. One is the higher profits which allowed the working class to be bought out. Second is the need to appear "respectable" which gives the imperial country "legitimacy". Once both these are gone, there's nothing holding the ruling class back, nor will the ruling class hold back the reactionary masses as they have done so far.

>>2394104
>I don't know if leftists are keeping a pulse on the right wing, but they are escalating into a genocidal frenzy.
The far-right chuddery would have been more scary if they did it before 50% of under 20s were brown. Now it is pure Capeshit.
So far the only demographic they are being meaningfuly violent toward are transgenders, who are whiter and younger than the general western population.
The left don't care about this though, they mostly support it.
>>2393882
I have called nearly a decade ago that some of the western elites will attempt to create a dalit cast out of transgenders to savegard the disgusting culture they created by scapeagoating them for civilization having turned this ugly way. Saint Augustine did this with the Gallus of Rome, Rome got terminally raped by stone cold germanic bvlls afterward regardless.
Of course trans people have nothing to do with the disgusting pond England have become but you need something to unify indegenous europeans and nu-europeans since jews, feminists and gays are off-limit now.
>>2393900
Hopefuly they get mollested out of existence in the coming elections. "Anti-Racist LGBterf conservatism with free money for hedonistic boomers" is truly a civilizational abomination, worst of all worlds, full wokeness wasnt as bad. Even Hitler is better than this.

Saw this interview with Brian Eno, gotta say obviously wealth taxes are lib shit but I LOVE the energy Eno is putting out here we need to clone this. Very tired of the defeatism on the british left and I can *feel* the tide turning.

>>2394222
does Brian realise there is effectively an infinite number of poor people if we don't have a defined border?

>>2394222
does Brian realise he *is* the capitalism? Any tosser can make music for airports with a laptop these days. 10,000 new tracks are shouted into the spotify void every day, but only the 1% club see any money for their efforts.

>>2393886
In the view of the people pushing this shit: They should use no facilities. They shouldn't exist, or so far as they exist, they shouldn't exist in public life.
When it isn't publicly acceptable to say so, they'll say something silly instead: Why don't the super-powerful transactivists (who haven't even been able to get the NHS to actually provide basic care) just lobby for every public facility in the country to add separate transgender facilities at great expense? Yes, Add. Converting existing facilities to gender neutral ones wouldn't be satisfactory. People have an equality act protected right not to suffer a transgender entering their field of vision.

>>2394241
I think there's a lot of good optics in saying that even ppl who have net worth of 10 mil are not 'the super rich'

>>2394249
I think people who are that wealthy don't actually have money as such, it's more a manifestation of power. You're asking people to give up power, never in a million years.

>>2394249
>>2394256
you're thinking in pleb terms. They don't own a mountain of potatoes, they own the rights too sell potatoes.

Why's Eyuplovely nuked his twitter this time

>>2394259
I'm not sure if you mean eno or the wealth tax, but the wealth tax is a tax on assets as such, which includes the ability to upkeep and maintain ownership over the means of production. It's not really a clean one or the other. I think it would have a measurable effect on the power of the bourgeoisie. Although of course 2% is just a token amount.

But I'm interested in hearing what you think

>>2394249
I think we should just use marxist terms rather than liberal ones

>>2394391
Oh I get you. Does Eno qualify as bourgeoisie? What means of production would he own in this case that he extracts surplus from?

>>2394394
Although I'd like 2 add that I do think 'wealth quantity' matters as well? Because capital is liquid for buying labour, so even if someone isn't strictly bourgeoisie it does matter 'how much money they have' IMO.

>>2394398
oh and also, I would think reducing the rate of profit by adding a wealth tax is helpful for those ends? I'm just spitballing though kinda… the bourgeoisie as long as they have power can overturn this but it's something towards reducing their power, influence, utility IMO

>>2394398
Yes if you have a lot of spare money that does make you bourgeois pretty much since money = capital. Idk if he is bourgeois, but he is a liberal (actually I don't know I've never heard of him or any of these musicians), and I don't think allying with liberals is really progressive right now.

>>2394573
Actually nah allying with some social democrats against the libfash might be progressive right now. Especially the trade union ones and the national bourgeois parties of Wales and Scotland.

Vote for me and I will do this to Israel!

Incredible things are happening in the UK

>>2394265
I’m guessing he doesn’t want to get prosecuted for all his tweets about Kid Starver