EPTI wonder if that’s gonna translate to them being viable in the next general, or they’ll do a UKIP and not be able to break through that ceiling despite doing well on other elections?
UK Politics Mega-thread - Page 632
| Forum Index > General Forum |
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26021 Posts
I wonder if that’s gonna translate to them being viable in the next general, or they’ll do a UKIP and not be able to break through that ceiling despite doing well on other elections? | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On May 03 2025 04:26 KwarK wrote: Sex is what you have going on between your legs. Sexuality is who you bang. Gender is which of the various sets of gender constructs you feel most comfortable with. Let's give a very simple set of binary examples. You can have 1. A dick / no dick 2. Bang men / bang not men 3. Has long hair / has short hair We might commonly see the combo "no dick, bangs men, has long hair". Let's call that straight cis female (in this super basic example I'm reducing the entire expression of gender down to hair length). But picking an answer on any of those 3 doesn't require you pick a specific answer on the other two. You can just as easily have "no dick, bangs not men, has long hair". That's gay cis female. Or "no dick, bangs men, has short hair". That's gay trans man. Start with 3 to determine male or female gender identity. Then if the genitals match the gender identity you assign cis or trans. Then if the person they're banging has the same gender identity you assign gay or straight. The collection of ideas that collectively form gender expression are super arbitrary. Wearing makeup is typically a female thing, excluding JD Vance, but it doesn't have to be. High heels used to be male. Long hair is considered feminine but there's no justification for that. Some jobs such as teacher or nurse are pointlessly gendered and the gender associated with them has switched a bunch of times over the years. Cooking is feminine unless you're a chef in which case it's masculine. It's all basically made up but it still has power. The moulds may be arbitrary but it's still painful if you're trying to force yourself to fit one that just isn't right for you. Trans women aren't claiming that they have dicks, they're identifying that the masculine mould is a better fit for them. With that in mind transitioning is something we’re collectively imposing on the trans community. It wouldn’t be necessary if we didn’t have so many dumb rules about who was allowed to like what. If someone born with a dick likes dresses, feeling pretty, makeup, being a homemaker, looking after kids, eating salads, watching rom coms etc. then we won’t acknowledge that unless they chop their dick off. And that’s crazy. But we won’t socially legitimize their chosen gender identity unless their physical characteristics match our expectations. They don’t want to chop their dicks off, they want to wear dresses, but we won’t let them unless they chop their dicks off because we have a weird idea about who wears dresses. You have this terminology backwards. It's not trans women that typically don't have dicks and identify is masculine. It's trans men. Women that are trans are not called trans women but instead trans men so it's a common mistake. Also the acceptance of men in dresses has nothing to do with whether they chop their dick off. Almost nobody knows who has had gender reassignment surgery and who hasn't so their criteria for accepting someone in a dress can't be based on that, unless it's a very very short dress and the person isn't wearing underwear. Otherwise I think your post is mostly right. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12320 Posts
On May 03 2025 04:26 KwarK wrote: Trans *men aren't claiming that they have dicks, they're identifying that the masculine mould is a better fit for them. With that in mind transitioning is something we’re collectively imposing on the trans community. It wouldn’t be necessary if we didn’t have so many dumb rules about who was allowed to like what. If someone born with a dick likes dresses, feeling pretty, makeup, being a homemaker, looking after kids, eating salads, watching rom coms etc. then we won’t acknowledge that unless they chop their dick off. And that’s crazy. But we won’t socially legitimize their chosen gender identity unless their physical characteristics match our expectations. They don’t want to chop their dicks off, they want to wear dresses, but we won’t let them unless they chop their dicks off because we have a weird idea about who wears dresses. The people who end up doing GAS (gender-affirming surgery) also have gender dysphoria. I believe this would still happen in a society that doesn't care about gender, as it's primarily an internal sense that they have. You hear from people who express that feeling about themselves when they're like 3 years old, I don't think the weight of gender roles has really hit them yet. You are right that there are people who identify as transgender (and/or as non-binary) and who don't have gender dysphoria, their problem is more along the lines of what you're describing, and for these people your claim is probably right; it's just that those people won't be doing GAS. | ||
KwarK
United States43212 Posts
On May 03 2025 06:35 BlackJack wrote: You have this terminology backwards. It's not trans women that typically don't have dicks and identify is masculine. It's trans men. Women that are trans are not called trans women but instead trans men so it's a common mistake You're right, that's what I get for rewriting my comment a few times and not proof reading. You'll note I got it right further up. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14047 Posts
On May 03 2025 06:23 WombaT wrote: Hm, Reform seem to be doing rather well in these locals. I wonder if that’s gonna translate to them being viable in the next general, or they’ll do a UKIP and not be able to break through that ceiling despite doing well on other elections? We saw in the last general that they were competative in a lot of races, but that competativeness is what cause such a landslide in the number of seats. If they were to become even more competative it wouldn't result in a lot more reform seats but more or less fewer conservative mps. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9716 Posts
On May 03 2025 13:25 Sermokala wrote: We saw in the last general that they were competative in a lot of races, but that competativeness is what cause such a landslide in the number of seats. If they were to become even more competative it wouldn't result in a lot more reform seats but more or less fewer conservative mps. The problem for Labour is that at the last GE they were seen as the sensible alternative. They have made themselves so deeply unpopular in the last 6 months that they're really going to have to work at regaining trust now for the next 4 years to replicate what was already 'not the best' performance at the last election. The best thing that could happen for reform isn't more people voting reform, its fewer people voting Labour, and that's what looks like happening on the current trajectory. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/may/02/keir-starmer-under-fire-labour-mps-byelection-loss-reform-uk “In Runcorn, the Labour message was, ‘Vote Labour or get Nigel Farage,’ and quite a lot of people seemed to go, ‘OK, I’ll take Farage.’ I’ve been doing this for a decade and I’ve never seen this level of dislike for Labour, particularly from people who were willing to give them a chance last year and feel they were given false hope,” the activist said. “One man chased me down a path yelling, ‘Are you Labour?’ When I told him I was a Green he calmed down.” | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21951 Posts
On May 03 2025 14:27 Jockmcplop wrote: The eternal cycle of politics. Populists break things, fixing stuff requires unpopular choices so next election the people trying to fix shit get voted out for more populists who break things.The problem for Labour is that at the last GE they were seen as the sensible alternative. They have made themselves so deeply unpopular in the last 6 months that they're really going to have to work at regaining trust now for the next 4 years to replicate what was already 'not the best' performance at the last election. The best thing that could happen for reform isn't more people voting reform, its fewer people voting Labour, and that's what looks like happening on the current trajectory. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/may/02/keir-starmer-under-fire-labour-mps-byelection-loss-reform-uk | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26021 Posts
On May 03 2025 14:27 Jockmcplop wrote: The problem for Labour is that at the last GE they were seen as the sensible alternative. They have made themselves so deeply unpopular in the last 6 months that they're really going to have to work at regaining trust now for the next 4 years to replicate what was already 'not the best' performance at the last election. The best thing that could happen for reform isn't more people voting reform, its fewer people voting Labour, and that's what looks like happening on the current trajectory. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/may/02/keir-starmer-under-fire-labour-mps-byelection-loss-reform-uk I find it a bit odd. I get why myself, or yourself, or those of similar persuasions aren’t super enthusiastic to put it lightly. It seems Labour have become deeply unpopular with the ‘common sense middle’ of the nation, and pretty damn quickly. Something it took them months to do seemingly what it took the Tories multiple terms and borderline self-sabotage to do. It’s an odd feeling, they’re not my politics, but within the politics they’re trying to appeal to, I think they’re doing alright? But yet it seems to be quite a large segment of that constituency that’s turning. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26021 Posts
On May 03 2025 13:25 Sermokala wrote: We saw in the last general that they were competative in a lot of races, but that competativeness is what cause such a landslide in the number of seats. If they were to become even more competative it wouldn't result in a lot more reform seats but more or less fewer conservative mps. Yeah that’s a fair point, I do wonder if they can make that transition from Kingmakers in terms of who they take votes from and where, into doing so by actually taking seats. On May 03 2025 17:28 Gorsameth wrote: The eternal cycle of politics. Populists break things, fixing stuff requires unpopular choices so next election the people trying to fix shit get voted out for more populists who break things. Alternatively, people demand centrist, safe politics, or are served it up as the only dish, but yet expect big, sweeping improvements to their material conditions. Politics is strange eh? I think to compound this issue Labour absolutely shredded any goodwill it had from certain left-leaning constituencies that it can’t reliably count on anymore. The play was back Corbyn, if he loses despite everyone pulling in roughly the same direction, it’s a much, much easier sell to go ‘ok that didn’t work let’s try and win from the centre.’ I don’t like it, not my politics but, I can suck it up. The problem they have is everyone is all too aware elements of ‘New New Labour’ actively torpedoed Corbyn’s campaign at numerous junctures. Never mind subsequently expelling the man from Labour. Jesus just let the guy who’s more personally popular than basically the rest of the party to do his thing as a backbencher with ‘Old Labour’ bona fides. One of those Dennis Skinner types who’s good for a skewering line and that connection to the Labour of old, but isn’t at the coalface either. Would recommend checking out his highlights by the way, quite entertaining. Not remotely smart politics IMO, and it’s biting them in the arse, alongside expectations that I feel are perhaps unrealistic and aren’t their fault, the former was within their control. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12320 Posts
On May 03 2025 17:28 Gorsameth wrote: The eternal cycle of politics. Populists break things, fixing stuff requires unpopular choices so next election the people trying to fix shit get voted out for more populists who break things. Not even close man, Labour is breaking a bunch of things by itself with no pressure from "populists". | ||
|
Razyda
888 Posts
On May 03 2025 14:27 Jockmcplop wrote: The problem for Labour is that at the last GE they were seen as the sensible alternative. They have made themselves so deeply unpopular in the last 6 months that they're really going to have to work at regaining trust now for the next 4 years to replicate what was already 'not the best' performance at the last election. The best thing that could happen for reform isn't more people voting reform, its fewer people voting Labour, and that's what looks like happening on the current trajectory. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/may/02/keir-starmer-under-fire-labour-mps-byelection-loss-reform-uk I dont think people voted Labour for being sensible alternative, I think people voted for them for not being Tories. In all honesty I also think that if Labour carry on as it is, then Reform will get next election. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4356 Posts
On May 03 2025 17:28 Gorsameth wrote: The eternal cycle of politics. Populists break things, fixing stuff requires unpopular choices so next election the people trying to fix shit get voted out for more populists who break things. You have to be populist to merely state the current immigration model is unsustainable? Obviously that is why reform is doing well, but the last headline I saw out of the UK was the Govt approved 50 million for partially blocking out the sun with jet based geoengineering (no longer a conspiracy I guess) after spending billions rolling out solar power.You want more votes? Drop the batshit insane policies. | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9135 Posts
On May 04 2025 11:30 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Obviously that is why reform is doing well, but the last headline I saw out of the UK was the Govt approved 50 million for partially blocking out the sun with jet based geoengineering (no longer a conspiracy I guess) after spending billions rolling out solar power.You want more votes? Drop the batshit insane policies. Not sure I'm reading you correctly, funding research to test methods of limiting climate change damage is batshit insane? We should just stick our heads in the sand and wait for our asses to get fried? | ||
|
Luolis
Finland7139 Posts
On May 04 2025 11:50 Dan HH wrote: Not sure I'm reading you correctly, funding research to test methods of limiting climate change damage is batshit insane? We should just stick our heads in the sand and wait for our asses to get fried? Bold of you to assume he thinks climate change is real. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9716 Posts
On May 03 2025 20:40 WombaT wrote: I find it a bit odd. I get why myself, or yourself, or those of similar persuasions aren’t super enthusiastic to put it lightly. It seems Labour have become deeply unpopular with the ‘common sense middle’ of the nation, and pretty damn quickly. Something it took them months to do seemingly what it took the Tories multiple terms and borderline self-sabotage to do. It’s an odd feeling, they’re not my politics, but within the politics they’re trying to appeal to, I think they’re doing alright? But yet it seems to be quite a large segment of that constituency that’s turning. The problem is the people who they have economically punished. They have gone after entire demographics that are spread across the political spectrum. The elderly, the disabled etc. These aren't leftist groups of people, and we all know elderly and disabled people well enough to visibly see the struggle that is being enforced on them and the effect it has on them being singled out and attacked by Labour. Its not a good look for anyone, people were willing to bite their tongues and accept it from the tories because you expect it from them when you tick the tory box, but Labour? Add to that the right wing media just standing ready with false indignation at Labour doing the stuff they wanted to do when they were in power but couldn't and of course, their supporters lapping that up, Labour will soon realize that they are making some huge, unforgiveable mistakes. I talk to people who have voted for the tories since the 80s because they were betrayed once by Labour in the late 70s and never forgot it. A sense of betrayal is the one thing that voters never, ever forget. Labour have probably permanently lost themselves a bunch of loyal voters by sacrificing their own voters for 'the economy' instead of going after the wealthy. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18113 Posts
On May 03 2025 07:20 Nebuchad wrote: The people who end up doing GAS (gender-affirming surgery) also have gender dysphoria. I believe this would still happen in a society that doesn't care about gender, as it's primarily an internal sense that they have. You hear from people who express that feeling about themselves when they're like 3 years old, I don't think the weight of gender roles has really hit them yet. You are right that there are people who identify as transgender (and/or as non-binary) and who don't have gender dysphoria, their problem is more along the lines of what you're describing, and for these people your claim is probably right; it's just that those people won't be doing GAS. I think the claim that a 3-y.o. can have gender dysphoria is absurd, because as you say they don't even know what gender is. If the problem is being seen in 3-y.o. then it's almost certainly a societal one imposing that 3-y.o. boys enjoy playing with trucks and 3-y.o. girls enjoy playing with dolls. And if you want to do the opposite then you're weird and get stigmatized. That isn't an internal problem of the 3-y.o. feeling awkward about their body parts, because they don't even know what those body parts are, except that for some reason their friends with other body parts get to play with all the fun toys without getting bullied for it. I totally understand that a child who grows up like that can grow up resenting their body, feeling they don't belong in it, and at some point this will become actual gender dysphoria. But if it's being diagnosed in 3-y.o. then I'd argue that we should solve this at a societal level by not stigmatizing 3-y.o. boys who want to wear pretty pink dresses and play with dolls, and not stigmatizing 3-y.o. girls who want to wear pants and play with firetrucks. And yes, I think there will still be people who when they reach puberty feel that their body isn't right for them, and puberty blockers could be a solution to let them reach adulthood before deciding what biological sex best fits their gender. But it's not a 3-y.o. problem and if that's where we first see it, it's on us to change how we treat 3-y.os. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12320 Posts
On May 05 2025 16:05 Acrofales wrote: I think the claim that a 3-y.o. can have gender dysphoria is absurd, because as you say they don't even know what gender is. If the problem is being seen in 3-y.o. then it's almost certainly a societal one imposing that 3-y.o. boys enjoy playing with trucks and 3-y.o. girls enjoy playing with dolls. And if you want to do the opposite then you're weird and get stigmatized. That isn't an internal problem of the 3-y.o. feeling awkward about their body parts, because they don't even know what those body parts are, except that for some reason their friends with other body parts get to play with all the fun toys without getting bullied for it. I totally understand that a child who grows up like that can grow up resenting their body, feeling they don't belong in it, and at some point this will become actual gender dysphoria. But if it's being diagnosed in 3-y.o. then I'd argue that we should solve this at a societal level by not stigmatizing 3-y.o. boys who want to wear pretty pink dresses and play with dolls, and not stigmatizing 3-y.o. girls who want to wear pants and play with firetrucks. And yes, I think there will still be people who when they reach puberty feel that their body isn't right for them, and puberty blockers could be a solution to let them reach adulthood before deciding what biological sex best fits their gender. But it's not a 3-y.o. problem and if that's where we first see it, it's on us to change how we treat 3-y.os. You're right, my argument wasn't very good, thanks. A better one would be that there are trans women who are tomboys, who grow up being into firetrucks and other "male" interests but still have that internal sense that they're women. Gender expression is absolutely an important part of the equation but it isn't the entirety of it. | ||
|
CuddlyCuteKitten
Sweden2649 Posts
On May 05 2025 16:05 Acrofales wrote: I think the claim that a 3-y.o. can have gender dysphoria is absurd, because as you say they don't even know what gender is. If the problem is being seen in 3-y.o. then it's almost certainly a societal one imposing that 3-y.o. boys enjoy playing with trucks and 3-y.o. girls enjoy playing with dolls. And if you want to do the opposite then you're weird and get stigmatized. That isn't an internal problem of the 3-y.o. feeling awkward about their body parts, because they don't even know what those body parts are, except that for some reason their friends with other body parts get to play with all the fun toys without getting bullied for it. I totally understand that a child who grows up like that can grow up resenting their body, feeling they don't belong in it, and at some point this will become actual gender dysphoria. But if it's being diagnosed in 3-y.o. then I'd argue that we should solve this at a societal level by not stigmatizing 3-y.o. boys who want to wear pretty pink dresses and play with dolls, and not stigmatizing 3-y.o. girls who want to wear pants and play with firetrucks. And yes, I think there will still be people who when they reach puberty feel that their body isn't right for them, and puberty blockers could be a solution to let them reach adulthood before deciding what biological sex best fits their gender. But it's not a 3-y.o. problem and if that's where we first see it, it's on us to change how we treat 3-y.os. Fully agree on that. I have a 4 year old and she has 0 clue about what would be a girl or boy toy. But I could easily see a poor kid being forced by their parents into gender stereotypes at an early age. She likes pink, rockets (wants to be an astronaut), dolls, trains, garbage trucks (very exciting!) and many more things with 0 fucks given about who they are intended for. I miss the 90s and early 2000s when your gender, sexual preferences, skin colour and ethnicity were considered as secondary and less important parts of what defined you as a person. The "you can be whatever you want" angle was great from that perspective. However the kind of intense focus on what you did and your career that millenials got certainly sucked. I'm just not sure that this is better. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10806 Posts
They were/are just girls and all around me everyone around was totally ok with girls like that (and is to this day with women like that), if anything they were often seen as strong/independant and so on. Bringing them up when talking about young people experiencing gender disphoria or whatever seems extremly ignorant and damaging. If anything this is solidifying gender roles/stereotype by othering whoever isn't neatly fitting the stereotype. Yeah, there are trans woman who are tomboys... The large majority just fucking aren't. They are just girls/women (often young and impressionable), categorizing them as something diffrent is probably the most ignorant and moronic one could do for their self esteem. Social media is doing enough to "othering" out people that don't cleanly fit conservative gender roles, it doesn't help when progressives suddenly start that shit too (even if they mean good). But I guess if it helps to make an argument about Trans issues, it's a-ok to just categorize people again. I mean, isn't that the core issue to all of this. However the kind of intense focus on what you did and your career that millenials got certainly sucked. I honestly have no clue what you are talking about. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12320 Posts
On May 06 2025 04:05 Velr wrote: I hate that people bring up "Tomboys" so often when it comes to Trans issues. They were/are just girls and all around me everyone around was totally ok with girls like that (and is to this day with women like that), if anything they were often seen as strong/independant and so on. Bringing them up when talking about young people experiencing gender disphoria or whatever seems extremly ignorant and damaging. If anything this is solidifying gender roles/stereotype by othering whoever isn't neatly fitting the stereotype. Yeah, there are trans woman who are tomboys... The large majority just fucking aren't. They are just girls/women (often young and impressionable), categorizing them as something diffrent is probably the most ignorant and moronic one could do for their self esteem. Social media is doing enough to "othering" out people that don't cleanly fit conservative gender roles, it doesn't help when progressives suddenly start that shit too (even if they mean good). But I guess if it helps to make an argument about Trans issues, it's a-ok to just categorize people again. I mean, isn't that the core issue to all of this. Nobody in this conversation has a problem with tomboys or wants to categorize trans people as something different for that, weirdo. | ||
| ||
