53
votes
UK PM Rishi Sunak applauded for being openly transphobic in speech
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- Rishi Sunak says misgendering trans people is 'common sense'
- Authors
- Amelia Hansford
- Published
- Oct 4 2023
- Word count
- 468 words
They're not even using dog whistles anymore.
Just unmistakable transphobia.
Venting
The fucking audacity of these psychopaths... how does he not see the absolute insanity that is saying blatant and openly hateful shit like this, then in the next sentence (seriously, RIGHT after, watch the clip in the article) go on to pat himself and his party on the back for being champions of gay rights!? Where the hell do they get off? Wtf is going on??
Takes a lot to surprise me nowadays, especially in regards to trans issues in the UK. But open hate like this from the most powerful person in the entire country is seriously shocking to me. I can only say that I'm relieved not to be trans in the UK and I am so afraid for my queer siblings there
This is what a weak, corrupt and ineffectual party does - virtual signal to a shrinking voter base of ageing bigots to distract from their inability to introduce meaningful policy, address real problems or improve people's lives.
I hope the youth of this nation drag the Tory party through broken glass the next election and tell them in no uncertain terms where they can fuck off to with their culture war crap.
Hear hear.
Conservatives need an outgroup. They've (mostly) lost the war on gay rights, so they're moving on to trans rights, making trans people the outgroup. Propping themselves up by embracing gay rights helps to make them seem more progressive, more reasonable, more like they aren't just looking for an outgroup but actually identifying a problem with society.
The real problem with society, of course, is them. Their lives would be better if they stopped trying to fight cultural wars like this, as would our lives; it would be a net good. But as a classical music composer once wrote, conservatism relies on having outgroups, so they don't know what they'd do with themselves politically if they didn't have an outgroup to fight against.
Thus they perpetuate this cycle, finding a new group to marginalize every time.
To be honest, I'm not seeing any evidence whatsoever that conservatives (reactionaries) are embracing gay people. I'm seeing book bans in schools for anything remotely variant from heterosexuality. I'm hearing dog whistles about "grooming".
It's never just about a single outgroup. The pitch is to make all possible outgroups seem as numerous and menacing as possible, so that the beleaguered believers will be propelled by rage and terror.
It depends on what country you're in, really, but you're right. As soon as it becomes acceptable for them to backslide on gay rights, they do, and we're absolutely seeing that happen now (in places where they did start to accept gay rights).
Don’t most people have an outgroup? It hardly seems limited to conservatives.
The outgroups that I, as a queer leftist, have are not functionally the same as the outgroups that the right enforces. While sure, there's a lot of people I don't consider part of my ingroup, I will still argue for change that makes their lives better; we may be different, but that's okay. As a pretty basic example, I routinely argue for proportional representation in Canadian politics, and conservatives routinely pull out the "ah, but if we had proportional representation, your team wouldn't be in power right now" line as some sort of gotcha--but it's not, I'm not just arguing for better democracy for my own sake, I'm arguing for it for the betterment of society (and society includes people who pull disingenuous gotchas).
Conservatives' outgroups, however, are formed with the specific goal of oppression.
My outgroups are social, they inform my personal behaviors and levels of trust, but I don't see anyone as less human, less deserving of rights. Conservatives are specifically campaigning on the basis that people in their outgroups deserve less than they do by virtue of what are often intrinsic qualities of their person. Gay people don't deserve to get married (but conservatives do), trans people don't deserve gender affirmation (but conservatives do), poor people don't deserve healthcare (but conservatives do). By creating these outgroups and then fighting to oppress these outgroups, they're attempting to rise above everyone else, to get what's theirs even if (especially if) it means they have to take it from someone else.
So while yeah, everyone has an outgroup, it's not a fair comparison. You need to compare the function of the groups, the reason they exist, and if you do that you'll find that they're very different things we're discussing here.
I was thinking of, say, "billionaires."
Not that any of us know any, and they are pretty invulnerable. But they do seem to be a general-purpose scapegoat for leftists?
It's also interesting who doesn't get outgroup treatment. Radical islamic fundamentalists seem a lot worse? They would certainly be more intolerant of LGBT rights. But I guess they're too far away from us to be politically useful.
There's a difference between identifying someone who doesn't agree with your ideals, and finding an innocent outgroup to punch down at to keep your base happy. Billionaires are the closest the left gets to an outgroup for directed political ire, but it's easy to reconcile if you believe it's morally indefensible to have the kind of wealth disparity that only comes about through wage theft and human suffering.
That's where any superficial similarities end, it's more than "the right doesn't like people and the left doesn't like people, both sides are the same". The left functions outside of that demonization, whereas the right's platform requires it as a mask for their lack of beneficial legislation. Fearmongering about the "other", particularly over traits they cannot control like skin color or sexuality, is "politically useful" for the right.
Any right-wing religious fundamentalists tend to hate LGBT groups, but it doesn't make it practical to focus on hating them back, looking for ways to make their lives more difficult purely out of spite.
There's also the difference that the outgroups like "billionaires" are ones you can just choose to stop being part of, but the outgroups that the right focuses on are largely ones you can't just stop being part of. You can't stop being gay, you can't stop being trans, you can't change the color of your skin, and they sure do make it hard to stop being poor. But being a billionaire? That's a choice. Billionaires make the decision to hoard their wealth rather than put it back into the world. They can just stop hoarding, start distributing.
(Yes, I know that it's not as easy as just "sell all the shares of your company and donate all the money" but this isn't advice for billionaires. If they need that advice, they can pay someone for it.)
This doesn't seem like a useful comparison at all. The power and influence of "radical Islamic fundamentalists" does not remotely compare to that of billionaires in countries like the US and UK. Because of their immense wealth, billionaires can directly influence politicians through campaign contributions, as well as society at large, given the significant influence of money in our societies. While the threat of "radical Islamic fundamentalists" is used more as an excuse for imperialist foreign policy and the curtailment of civil liberties than an actual threat to most people in the West. Also, I'm not sure why you single out Islamic fundamentalists when Christian fundamentalists have much more power in those countries, especially in the US, and especially when it comes to undermining LGBT rights.
Implicit in your argument is that we should only care about politics in “countries like the US and UK.” But we can and sometimes do care about what happens in other countries, even though we have little influence there. There are countries where Islamic fundamentalists are in power. That’s a scary situation.
I'm taking it on faith that this is a good faith argument and not whataboutism.
So let's say I'm perfectly happy to acknowledge that I'm more ideologically opposed to a far-right religious fundamentalist dictator in a distant country than I am to a local politician in my liberal democracy that said something nasty about trans people. Seems reasonable, I'm sure there's less overlap of beliefs.
What then? I don't have any influence in this other country, I can't effect any change. In the unlikely scenario that I could directly effect change then it's as an interloper without a sufficient understanding of the culture, the geopolitics involved or the ramifications of my actions. Historically that has frequently not gone well.
So what outcome am I gunning for by focusing my attention on hating this far off group of people that I have maximal disagreement with? Is it making my life or the lives of others better in any way, or is it just a distraction? Would I not be better served by focusing attention on a less extreme issue within my sphere of influence? Perhaps something closer to home which I understand better and might be able to do something about in some small way.
The point being made is that defining an out group is a secondary byproduct.
It's about caring more about identifying a societal problem and possible solutions and in the process of which butting heads with those that disagree, not about defining them as the enemy up front.
Yep, it makes sense to pay more to things that affect you or that you can do something about. Although, since I don't live in the UK, perhaps a similar argument applies there? I don't follow UK politics all that closely, or at least not consistently.
I don't have a strong opinion on which issues in which places people should spend time caring about. Sometimes it's interesting to read about what's going on in faraway places.
I believe this is in reference to conservative politicians in particular, at least in the US and UK. A key part of their strategy from what I've seen is to mark some group as an "enemy" (without outright calling them enemies) to garner voter support, with legislation and speeches aimed at suppressing that group. The most common targets are the LGBTQ+ crowd and immigrants, with some targeting religious minorities.
Yeah, my outgroup is people that discriminate and try to suppress others.
This is absolutely misleading. Yes, the Conservative party passed the bill on same sex marriage, but they were very close to a majority voting against it. From Wikipedia:
When 47% of your party voted against same sex marriage, you cannot claim to be a party that supports LGBT people.
I will edit my comment as I look more into the stats of the other instances you provided, but I can already say with certainty you have given the Tories far to much credit already, based on the same sex marriage vote alone.
Edit 1: Again, from Wikipedia, speaking about LGBT people serving openly in the military:
Edit 2: In regards to MSM blood donation, Wikipedia says:
And then:
The Conservative party did work with Stonewall and others to end the 'gay blood ban'. Still, I am hesitant to give them credit as Stonewall had been calling for this change at least 10 years prior in 2011, and the Lib Dems and Green party had been campaigning for this since 2015. (I'm not sure what Labour's stance was.) In any case, dragging your feet on an issue such as this isn't really taking a pro LGBT stance.
Edit 3: I'm not sure who you're referring to as the first (openly?) LGB cabinet member, but as far as I can tell, again from Wikipedia:
That award seems to go to Labour.
Edit 4: This isn't something you mentioned, but I think it's also worth reminding ourselves, as I pointed out in a thread a few weeks ago, it has been over 5 years since the government committed to banning conversion therapy, and as @DanBC pointed out in that thread, it seems that this is no longer likely in the timeframe allotted before the next general election. (Not to mention the fact that Boris Johnson sought to scrap the ban during his time as PM)
The Tory party is not, and never has been friends of the LGBT community. They have at times passed LGBT friendly laws, but often only after facing pressure and calls from other parties for years to do so. I am absolutely confident in that what little pro-LGBT legislation that has been passed by them in the last 13 years would have been passed far quicker and with less infighting and foot dragging if any of the other major UK political parties had been in power for that length of time.
All so they try and win votes from an area of the nation that doesn't actually exist in any great way. This importation of culture war bullshit goes directly against British ideals.
There's reports from this year showing we're more welcoming, open and liberal than we were 10-15 years ago.
Then you've got these troglodytes spouting hate because they want power. They're repugnant and deserve nothing but scorn and ridicule.
Bastards.
As a trans person in the UK, I am increasingly concerned for my safety. I guess it's mostly posturing, but it's hard to keep just putting it down to that - I am concerned by what and who they are encouraging.
I am sorry its getting to you dude. There's also plenty of evidence out there that more and more of us Brits see you as our fellow countrymen rather than these bastards.
Sadly the Labour party lacks the spine to call out divisive Tory politics as a last ditch stand by an intellectually bankrupt party to maintain power despite having no vision for the future of the country and being utterly clueless about how to improve living standards.
I partially agree.
If they were to stick their oar in both positive or negative... They'll get slapped with the right wing politics stick of "They want gays to eat your babies!" given how Sunak and Bman are going at the moment.
So they're not engaging at all. They should focus on their own policies and not engage with any accusations or attacks against them. A firm policy of ensuring rights remain and such will be good to see once the campaigning starts, one I suspect we will see quickly.
We're so used to bickering on the Internet, I think sometimes we do forget that the pricks at the top have way bigger sticks that we do.
Labour are fully engaged in anti-trans positions. They did nothing about Rosie Duffield; Starmer has said that GRA reform (something that had cross-party support just a few years ago) is wrong and that Scotland should not have changed their law; he's also said other openly anti-trans things.
I mean, just look at all the stuff they've dropped over the past week. There's no chance they're going to uphold LGBT+ rights.
It was kind of grim having myself and my trans brothers and sisters called out specifically in the PM's speech yesterday, but I remind myself that it would only be scary if this were a government that were capable of actually doing anything. They're government by pozzy vibes, and are basically in campaign mode, trying to sway people to their cause, and they've picked trans rights as the issue to try and wedge voters with. Their problem being that we don't have the same frenzied religious right that the Americans do, and the overwhelming majority of Brits are content to just let us get on with our lives. Plus there is the slight problem of the rest of the UK being absolutely in the bin at the moment, and focusing on a tiny minority of people doing no harm to anyone else is not going over well when people can't afford to heat their homes and put food on the table.
I extend my sympathies to all the LGBTQ+ folks in the UK. It's one thing to be in a culture war over roads, it's another to be hurting real people.