We already know how cynical political leaders can be, yet is it always useful to have it confirmed.
As we also know, the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Labour Party will not affirm the realities of human reproductive biology for party political reasons. To do so would lead to a very public conflict with members of their own party and highly vocal activists.
Keir Starmer refuses to say if a woman can have a penis as he flounders while being grilled in trans rights debate
Angela Rayner says it is 'unacceptable' to ask a trans woman if they have a penis but you CAN ask trans men if they're pregnant - as she warns that gender row will 'damage people'
It's an extraordinarily extreme position to take. Even Australopithecus must have thoroughly understood what Starmer and Rayner prefer to misunderstand. The obvious follow-up question is to ask if there are any facts either of them would affirm if to do so would be politically detrimental. Clearly the answer to that seems to be no, there are no such facts.
Would Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner refuse to affirm that their names are Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner should political circumstances require them to refuse? I think they would.
If political circumstances demand it, facts about climate change, green policies, pandemic policies, education, the NHS and the real world generally appear to have no Labour Party status whatsoever.
6 comments:
Such is the mindset of idealogs. They'll even sacrifice mothers and babies in their pursuit of doctrinal purity. And people get so worried about satanical abuse!
As a variation of this question will probably be asked of every politician after the top job, you would think they would be better prepared. I would think a good answer to the "What is a woman" question would be to throw it back and ask the questioner whether they think they are a woman; and then ask them to elucidate the criteria by which they make that judgement. (That wouldn't work, though, if asked by an actual insane trannie).
What makes this so enjoyable is the fact that these are people who aspire to the top jobs, but find that the issues roaming around the mountain-top are a bit fiercer than they imagined when they set off from base-camp. Losing the trannie vote would not cost a single seat, so these people are beclowning themselves because they fear being thought heartless and uncaring when some big madman in a frock starts publicly snivelling and gets mascara all down his stubbly cheeks.
They can just go fuck themselves.
Can a trans man/wo-man (can never remember which way they are going) self impregnate?
The family tree will be interesting.
It would be sensible to just ignore these people, as was done for centuries. "Live and let live, but don't tell me about it", worked very well until 'modern social media' ruined it.
Individually we all know XX from XY and can act appropriately. So, do whatever you want to, as long as it doesn't upset or force others to express an opinion.
Mr. Haart, your final paragraph equally applies to all political parties. This is why I will make the journey to the polling station to spoil my paper. It hurts me to do that but it is the only response to the madness which has gripped our ruling classes.
Tammly - as far as I can see they'll sacrifice anyone who isn't a party member.
Sam - yet I wonder how much they really have to fear if they do seem to be heartless and uncaring. As if the bubble is genuinely misleading and they can't see the advantage of taking on a tiny minority.
Doonhamer - the family tree could become impossible to follow.
Ed - that's it - "Live and let live, but don't tell me about it". As you say, worked for centuries.
Andy - I can't make up my mind because I think Labour would be worse, but I'm not as convinced about that as I'd like to be.
Post a Comment