Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[MikeWM]

I wouldn't see it that way at all. Certainly the left thinks they are trying to include groups that have been discriminated against, but the way they are trying to do it is - to my mind - causing more harm than good and actually likely to increase rather than reduce discrimination. I don't oppose the kinds of cultural attitudes that have appeared on the left because I want to see some kind of dominance of certain groups: I don't want to see that. Rather, I oppose those attitudes precisely because I want to see an end to discrimination: I want to see everyone treated with equal respect irrespective of things like ethnicity, sexuality, beliefs, minority group status or otherwise, and I believe the 'left' approach to cultural issues is (unintentionally) doing the opposite.

As someone who until rather recently would have described themselves as very much on the left - I entirely agree with all of this.

 

[duncanp]

I wouldn't see it that way at all. Certainly the left thinks they are trying to include groups that have been discriminated against, but the way they are trying to do it is - to my mind - causing more harm than good and actually likely to increase rather than reduce discrimination. I don't oppose the kinds of cultural attitudes that have appeared on the left because I want to see some kind of dominance of certain groups: I don't want to see that. Rather, I oppose those attitudes precisely because I want to see an end to discrimination: I want to see everyone treated with equal respect irrespective of things like ethnicity, sexuality, beliefs, minority group status or otherwise, and I believe the 'left' approach to cultural issues is (unintentionally) doing the opposite.

You get an echo of this when certain organisations update their literature to use terms like "birthing parent" and "non birthing parent" instead of "mother" and "father" to supposedly avoid upsetting transgender people.

So it doesn't matter about upsetting people, regardless of their gender identity who would prefer to use the terms "mother" and "father" does it?

And who are these organisations who decide unilaterally that the terms "mother" and "father" are upsetting to transgender people? Surely transgender people can decide these issues for themselves.

Some transgender people may be upset by the words "mother" and "father". But does that mean they have the right to change the language to suit themselves regardless of whether it causes upset or offence to anyone else.

 

[najaB]

And who are these organisations who decide unilaterally that the terms "mother" and "father" are upsetting to transgender people? Surely transgender people can decide these issues for themselves.

That's not purely a transgender issue, it's a non-traditional family thing. Consider a lesbian couple, or a gay couple with a surrogate for example

 

[Broucek]

That's not purely a transgender issue, it's a non-traditional family thing. Consider a lesbian couple, or a gay couple with a surrogate for example

But the point remains. Some people are upset by the loss of the words "father" and "mother" because they consider them to be a matter of biological reality. That doesn't necessarily imply that they want to disempower or undermine non-traditional families.

As with the whole trans vs. TERF debate, it appears to me that the side seeking change often tries to gaslight the opposite (status quo) opinion rather than being honest that any change will tend to produce "winners" and "losers" and that these things need to be weighed up.

 

[najaB]

But the point remains. Some people are upset by the loss of the words "father" and "mother" because they consider them to be a matter of biological reality. That doesn't necessarily imply that they want to disempower or undermine non-traditional families.

Those people miss the point that there's a huge difference between depositing sperm and being a father, as well as between carrying a baby to term and being a mother.

 

[Broucek]

Those people miss the point that there's a huge difference between depositing sperm and being a father, as well as between carrying a baby to term and being a mother.i

Most people have no trouble calling someone a “mother” or “father” who made no biological contribution. But that’s no reason to downgrade biological mothers to “birthing parents”

 

[Yew]

You get an echo of this when certain organisations update their literature to use terms like "birthing parent" and "non birthing parent" instead of "mother" and "father" to supposedly avoid upsetting transgender people.

So it doesn't matter about upsetting people, regardless of their gender identity who would prefer to use the terms "mother" and "father" does it?

And who are these organisations who decide unilaterally that the terms "mother" and "father" are upsetting to transgender people? Surely transgender people can decide these issues for themselves.

Some transgender people may be upset by the words "mother" and "father". But does that mean they have the right to change the language to suit themselves regardless of whether it causes upset or offence to anyone else.

Lots of these sorts of controversies seem to be the result of Tabloid newspapers trawling though comments until they can find something to be outraged about. If you search hard enough, then you can find some non-story to sensationalise...

 

[najaB]

But that’s no reason to downgrade biological mothers to “birthing parents”

How are they downgraded? In the hospital it is accurate to describe them as the birthing parent. They have 18-plus years to be a mother.

 

[Broucek]

How are they downgraded? In the hospital it is accurate to describe them as the birthing parent.

And there we have it…. A beautiful case study of gaslighting!

 

[najaB]

And there we have it…. A beautiful case study of gaslighting!

a) How is it inaccurate to describe the parent who is giving birth as the birthing parent; and
b) Gaslighting doesn't mean what I think you believe it means.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

a) How is it inaccurate to describe the parent who is giving birth as the birthing parent; and

Words have important emotional and (for many people, spiritual) connotations beyond their basic meanings. If all you care about is scientific accuracy, then perhaps you could try referring to your girlfriend (if you have one) as your 'copulation partner' - which is arguably just as accurate and just as dehumanising as 'birthing parent'.

Good luck trying that though... Not recommended (unless your girlfriend is called Anya )

 

[najaB]

If all you care about is scientific accuracy, then perhaps you could try referring to your girlfriend (if you have one) as your 'copulation partner' - which is arguably just as accurate and just as dehumanising as 'birthing parent'.

It's not dehumanising to refer to the parent who is giving birth as the birthing parent, while they are in the process of giving birth.

If I had a partner, with whom I was in the process of copulating, then it would be correct to refer to them as such. Though, I would have to question who I would be talking with.

And, I really don't see what is divisive about not assuming roles.

Now, if a heterosexual couple referred to themselves as "mother" and "father" and the healthcare provider insisted on using birthing and non-birthing parent you might have a point, but I'm confident that this has never happened outside the imagination of an 'anti-woke' campaigner.

 

[DustyBin]

Can you give examples of senior people on the left using "culture war" issues to bait the right, in the way some on the right seem to be doing to the left? I have no time whatever for Corbyn and his ilk, but I don't recall them behaving in that way.

There are countless examples. The problem is that one persons “baiting” is another’s “freedom of speech”, “telling it as it is” or “valid opinion”, and we tend to be biased in this regard as a result of our own views.

This is the point being made by @DynamicSpirit and others above; sometimes you need to take a step back and acknowledge that “your side” is equally to blame, and that views and opinions are just that. It’s not a good versus evil situation (the majority of the time).

 

[najaB]

A mother is a woman who has given birth, no need for any other word.

And a woman who adopts a baby and raises it is a...

 

[edwin_m]

There are countless examples.

So why doesn't anyone quote a few? I'm genuinely interested in seeing your point of view, but this is difficult if you just tell me I'm not understanding without providing examples of what it is that concerns you.

 

[brad465]

Can we just b****y shut up about this whole man/woman/trans debate please? At the very least it has delved into an area that has sweet ** to do with this forum topic.

 

[nw1]

Oh dear, this forum is getting as woke as the rest of the media. A mother is a woman who has given birth, no need for any other word.

If the media is woke, then my name is Donald Trump.

 

[Purple Train]

I wouldn't see it that way at all. Certainly the left thinks they are trying to include groups that have been discriminated against, but the way they are trying to do it is - to my mind - causing more harm than good and actually likely to increase rather than reduce discrimination. I don't oppose the kinds of cultural attitudes that have appeared on the left because I want to see some kind of dominance of certain groups: I don't want to see that. Rather, I oppose those attitudes precisely because I want to see an end to discrimination: I want to see everyone treated with equal respect irrespective of things like ethnicity, sexuality, beliefs, minority group status or otherwise, and I believe the 'left' approach to cultural issues is (unintentionally) doing the opposite.

This is entirely my fear with the approach to cultural issues. I can see why certain people think that the best way to do it is to find alleged discrimination everywhere they go, but all it seems to be doing is assigning people to different groups based on their skin colour/sexuality/etc., and in what world is that the best way to go? After all, what was it Martin Luther King Jr. said? "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will be judged not by the colour of their skin, but by the content of their character." That dream is still, ultimately unfulfilled, much as the world has changed since 1963.

Getting back on topic, the next GE can't come soon enough. I can't wait for the day we have a boring Prime Minister, and I hope that occurs at the next election, though I'm not exactly optimistic. I hope Starmer can be as economically radical as his persuasions seem to be without bowing to Labour's right and tempering it down - though I'd rather he did everything gradually, we've had more than enough of Prime Ministers going too far, too soon in the past year!

(EDIT: Apologies to the two posters above; I didn't see your posts until I had sent this message.)

 

[yorksrob]

I'm not quite sure which one it is either! I tend to think both personally (as in ownership is an outcome but equally it improves your opportunities or those of your children if you have it). But I do think that @yorksrob makes a good point that for a lot of people their accommodation status is quite precarious which makes life that little bit harder. In the private rented sector you're typically only ever going to be around eight months from a potential eviction (fixed period for an Assured Shorthold is typically six months, Section 21 notice period is two months). Which makes it rather hard to feel that much security of tenure! Obviously some landlord might grant longer fixed term periods but on average the fixed term is only ever six months.

Personally one change I'd introduce would be to get rid of Section 21 "no fault" evictions (which the Government did promise, to be fair, to do but that was four years and three Prime Ministers ago and is still not even on the horizon) to at least start to restore some security of tenure for the ever increasing number of renters.

Average pay for FTSE 100 chiefs jumps by 39% to £3.4m

Study shows median CEO package has surpassed pre-pandemic levels with rate 109 times that of average UK worker

www.theguardian.com

I believe it's more insidious than just people who have a precarious accommodation status. Just not having the security of fully owning ones home will have a profound effect on ones attitude to risk.

 

[DustyBin]

So why doesn't anyone quote a few? I'm genuinely interested in seeing your point of view, but this is difficult if you just tell me I'm not understanding without providing examples of what it is that concerns you.

A couple of quick examples that spring to mind are comments made by Dianne Abbott about white people, at least one of which she apologised for (which is admirable but also an admission of guilt). Completely divisive and rather ironic when accusing white people of playing divide and conquer! We had Emily Thornberry resign from the Shadow Cabinet after implying people who display St George's cross flags were racist knuckle draggers. We had New Labour wanting to "rub the right's nose in diversity" according to Andrew Neather (an old but textbook example of baiting!). One could argue that the actions of the Scottish Government in regard to transgender rights have stoked the culture war; I'm sure they were fully aware of how divisive it would be.

I should add that personally I don't lose any sleep over the majority of these things but others clearly do. Having taken the bait they're then branded "frothers" etc. by the left.... Job done!

 

[nw1]

I believe it's more insidious than just people who have a precarious accommodation status. Just not having the security of fully owning ones home will have a profound effect on ones attitude to risk.

I would agree. And in fact how many people own their home outright anyway? Most people not renting are having to pay mortgages I suspect. (I realise this is OT and probably belongs in its own thread)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Apr 2023 ==

A couple of quick examples that spring to mind are comments made by Dianne Abbott about white people, at least one of which she apologised for (which is admirable but also an admission of guilt). Completely divisive and rather ironic when accusing white people of playing divide and conquer! We had Emily Thornberry resign from the Shadow Cabinet after implying people who display St George's cross flags were racist knuckle draggers.

It's not racist, but I would argue that flying the England flag outside of sporting events is meaningless nationalism. It is an implication that you believe that England is a superior country to any other just because it's your country of birth.

(I will qualify that by saying that nationalism is justified when your country is being invaded, oppressed by another or even just seeking more autonomy from a larger neighbour. So I always feel happy to see the Ukraine flag flying outside people's houses, I'm happy enough to see the Welsh or Scottish flags, but seeing the England flag - or those of other similar "dominant" countries - outside houses just irritates me unless the World Cup or some other comparable sporting tournament is on).

 

[yorksrob]

I would agree. And in fact how many people own their home outright anyway? Most people not renting are having to pay mortgages I suspect. (I realise this is OT and probably belongs in its own thread)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Apr 2023 ==


It's not racist, but I would argue that flying the England flag outside of sporting events is meaningless nationalism. It is an implication that you believe England is a superior country to any other just because it's your country of birth.

I believe that the majority of owner occupiers will be on a mortgage.

 

[DustyBin]

I believe it's more insidious than just people who have a precarious accommodation status. Just not having the security of fully owning ones home will have a profound effect on ones attitude to risk.

I would agree. And in fact how many people own their home outright anyway? Most people not renting are having to pay mortgages I suspect. (I realise this is OT and probably belongs in its own thread)

I see the point being made here and I agree that lack of security in this regard can affect peoples attitude to risk. Although having said that, plenty of people start a business to address this very situation!

In my original post I was thinking more about equality of opportunity when it comes to access to good quality and/or higher education (where home ownership is less relevant).

 

[yorksrob]

I see the point being made here and I agree that lack of security in this regard can affect peoples attitude to risk. Although having said that, plenty of people start a business to address this very situation!

In my original post I was thinking more about equality of opportunity when it comes to access to good quality and/or higher education (where home ownership is less relevant).

Well, perhaps, but education is only a part of the story in a system where so much opportunity is tied to taking risk.

 

[najaB]

It's not racist, but I would argue that flying the England flag outside of sporting events is meaningless nationalism. It is an implication that you believe that England is a superior country to any other just because it's your country of birth.

Disagree. Flying the England flag is patriotism, and there's nothing wrong with having pride in your nation of birth/association.

However, a lot of people cross the line from patriotism (which is a justifiable pride in your country, accepting that it has warts) into nationalism - which refuses to acknowledge any flaws or imperfections and sees legitimate criticism as an attack.

 

[MikeWM]

This is entirely my fear with the approach to cultural issues. I can see why certain people think that the best way to do it is to find alleged discrimination everywhere they go, but all it seems to be doing is assigning people to different groups based on their skin colour/sexuality/etc., and in what world is that the best way to go? After all, what was it Martin Luther King Jr. said? "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will be judged not by the colour of their skin, but by the content of their character." That dream is still, ultimately unfulfilled, much as the world has changed since 1963.

100% agree. In my opinion we were *finally* making rather good progress towards the 'MLK society', but now we appear to be going significantly backwards again.

Getting back on topic, the next GE can't come soon enough. I can't wait for the day we have a boring Prime Minister, and I hope that occurs at the next election, though I'm not exactly optimistic. I hope Starmer can be as economically radical as his persuasions seem to be without bowing to Labour's right and tempering it down - though I'd rather he did everything gradually, we've had more than enough of Prime Ministers going too far, too soon in the past year!

The problem is that Starmer and most of the Labour party seem entirely wedded to the 'approach to cultural issues' mentioned in your previous paragraph. It seems very likely we'll travel considerably more in the wrong direction under a Starmer government. At least the Tories manage to put up some token resistance to the more extreme examples of this stuff (though they then do precious little about it).

Given Starmer has already broken all of his 2020 pledges seemingly in order to appeal to the right of his own party, there's precious little evidence he'd do anything more than tack further right economically once in power, when needing to try to appeal to the entire electorate.

 

[nw1]

I see the point being made here and I agree that lack of security in this regard can affect peoples attitude to risk. Although having said that, plenty of people start a business to address this very situation!

Which is itself something fraught with risk, and not an ideal move if you want a secure and guaranteed income, unless you know your idea is a dead-cert success story which will make lots of money. Not many of us have the talent to have that assurance!

 

[duncanp]

It's not racist, but I would argue that flying the England flag outside of sporting events is meaningless nationalism. It is an implication that you believe that England is a superior country to any other just because it's your country of birth.

(I will qualify that by saying that nationalism is justified when your country is being invaded, oppressed by another or even just seeking more autonomy from a larger neighbour. So I always feel happy to see the Ukraine flag flying outside people's houses, I'm happy enough to see the Welsh or Scottish flags, but seeing the England flag - or those of other similar "dominant" countries - outside houses just irritates me unless the World Cup or some other comparable sporting tournament is on).

Nonsense.

How come flying the England flag means that you "...believe England is a superior country to any other just because it's your country of birth...", and yet flying the Welsh, Scottish, Ukranian or any other flag doesn't demonstrate the same beliefs for those countries.

You might equally say that flying the Scottish saltire demonstrates support for Scottish independence, which is certainly not the case, as the saltire is not the personal property of the SNP.

Why should people in England feel ashamed of flying the cross of St George this coming Sunday (St George's Day)?

 

[nw1]

100% agree. In my opinion we were *finally* making rather good progress towards the 'MLK society', but now we appear to be going significantly backwards again.

I would definitely agree we're going backwards, speaking from a liberal-left point of view. I would say the peak period for liberal values was approximately 1995 to 2007, before the credit crunch triggered the current move towards right-wing authoritarianism (and it's this, rather than "wokery", that is the big problem IMO).

The problem is that Starmer and most of the Labour party seem entirely wedded to the 'approach to cultural issues' mentioned in your previous paragraph. It seems very likely we'll travel considerably more in the wrong direction under a Starmer government. At least the Tories manage to put up some token resistance to the more extreme examples of this stuff (though they then do precious little about it).

Given Starmer has already broken all of his 2020 pledges seemingly in order to appeal to the right of his own party, there's precious little evidence he'd do anything more than tack further right economically once in power, when needing to try to appeal to the entire electorate.

Starmer isn't ideal, true. But he's a good deal better than Sunak, who promoted such characters as Braverman and Anderson. And certainly infinitely better than Boris or Truss.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Apr 2023 ==

Nonsense.

How come flying the England flag means that you "...believe England is a superior country to any other just because it's your country of birth...", and yet flying the Welsh, Scottish, Ukranian or any other flag doesn't demonstrate the same beliefs for those countries.

You might equally say that flying the Scottish saltire demonstrates support for Scottish independence, which is certainly not the case, as the saltire is not the personal property of the SNP.

True, flying such flags may have such a motivation, but IMO there are good reasons to fly those flags and promote nationalism for those three named countries, and many others. For England and other dominant countries there are not.

Why should people in England feel ashamed of flying the cross of St George this coming Sunday (St George's Day)?

It just seems to me to be pointless, and worshipping the flag "for the sake of it". England is in no way a country which is oppressed or dominated by another or a country seeking to obtain more autonomy from some other country.

 

[najaB]

It just seems to me to be pointless, and worshipping the flag "for the sake of it". England is in no way a country which is oppressed or dominated by another or a country seeking to obtain more autonomy from some other country. It is instead a dominant country, similar to say the USA or Germany.

Is it your opinion that there's something wrong with being proud to be English?