Originally Posted by Livia (Post 9908235)

I have no problem with transgender women, but I don't want them representing me as any kind of 'equality adviser'. She knows as much about women's issues that I know about transgender issues... ie, not that much.

Originally Posted by Oliver_W (Post 9908246)

Like how that Lily Madigan got the Women's Officer for her local Labour office bullied out of office her being a "TERF", and then took her job...

Originally Posted by Livia (Post 9908254)

Exactly like that. And I'm sure that irks some long-standing Labour supporters, as well as non-Labour voters.

Originally Posted by Livia (Post 9908235)

I have no problem with transgender women, but I don't want them representing me as any kind of 'equality adviser'. She knows as much about women's issues that I know about transgender issues... ie, not that much.

Originally Posted by Kizzy (Post 9895866)

Why can't we acknowledge she has a point?...
Her historical depiction is factually accurate, why can't that be acknowledged.
There exists institutional racism , all these institutions don't have a racist ethos and the the required level of equality and diversity training and yet it exists.

Why should we have an equalities spokesperson who is afraid to address such issues?

Originally Posted by Jack_ (Post 9908293)

She wouldn't have been representing you, because she was appointed a member of the LGBT+ advisory board, which is only a newly created division of the Shadow Minister for Women & Equalities' department.

Originally Posted by Livia (Post 9908419)

Great. Because transgender women are not the same as born women and don't understand women's issues, any more than I understand transgender issues.

Originally Posted by Jack_ (Post 9908448)

Hm, quite.

Just wanted to clarify the position :)

Originally Posted by Livia (Post 9908465)

I'm glad you're clear now. Although you only seem to have highlighted the bit where it says I don't understand transgender issues... as if that's the only bit you've taken on board.

Originally Posted by Jack_ (Post 9908475)

I'm glad you are too.

And you're right, it is - that's because it told me everything I need to know.

Originally Posted by Livia (Post 9908478)

Oh Jack, I was clear from the start what you were trying to say. And I'm glad you think that tiny snippet of information is enough for you to form an opinion. And from whatever pigeon hole you've popped me into, I have to say that you being a man yourself, you wouldn't have a clue about the the myriad of ways a transsexual women and a born women differ. So let's leave it at that.

Originally Posted by Jack_ (Post 9850196)

completely recognise my privilege as a white, (temporarily) able-bodied male, and agree with the importance of acknowledging one's social standing before passing judgement on issues of social exclusion and discrimination.

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey (Post 9895833)

Munroe was the first transgender model to front a campaign for L'Oreal but was dropped in September after claims she posted racist comments online.

She wrote a lengthy Facebook post which it's claimed included the comment: "Honestly I don't have energy to talk about the racial violence of white people any more. Yes ALL white people.

"Because most of ya'll don't even realise or refuse to acknowledge that your existence, privilege and success as a race is built on the backs, blood and death of people of colour.

"Your entire existence is drenched in racism."

The comments were later deleted.




L'Oreal said her comments were "at odds" with their values and it ended its partnership with her.

The 29-year-old will work with Labour's shadow minister for women and equalities, Dawn Butler, who held an event at Parliament on Monday to announce the LGBT advisory panel.

She also said -

Come see me when you realise that racism isn’t learned, it’s inherited and consciously or unconsciously passed down through privilege.

Once white people begin to admit that their race
is the most violent and oppressive force of nature on Earth… then we can talk.’

Amongst other vile stuff.

Conservative vice-chair Helen Grant urged Ms Butler to reconsider the appointment.

Citing Bergdorf’s history of controversial comments, Ms Grant said: ‘There really is no excuse for these abhorrent slurs and, fundamentally, they damage the campaign to promote equality and diversity across public life.

When Jeremy Corbyn was elected Labour leader, he promised a ‘kinder politics’. Yet it seems every day we see some new example of abuse from the Labour Party. The kind of language Bergdorf has used has no place in public life, and ought to be condemned by all those who are serious about promoting equality.’










http://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-43211136
http://metro.co.uk/2018/02/28/model-...viser-7347571/

Originally Posted by Brillopad (Post 9897199)

Because giving such roles to transgenders has far more to do with making a statement than it does with ability. The party becomes more of a joke by the day. Enough rope.

Originally Posted by Jack_ (Post 9908293)

She wouldn't have been representing you, because she was appointed a member of the LGBT+ advisory board, which is only a newly created division of the Shadow Minister for Women & Equalities' department.

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy (Post 9908519)

:clap1:

Originally Posted by smudgie (Post 9908575)

Lovely to see you in S&D Chuff. :cheer:

Originally Posted by Vicky. (Post 9910815)

Bergdorf is an utter twat

Labour continue making themselves unelectable. Its so ****ing depressing, having been a lifelong Labour voter, I cannot vote for them in their current form. They seem to be getting worse and worse by the day, nevermind the month

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy (Post 9911404)

Same here, they could stick lighted matches down my nails and I still wouldn't vote Labour while Corbyn is leader and Abbott is still around

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet (Post 9911409)

they are unelectable and are making UKIp look like a more electable bunch

Theresa may must be loving this

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy (Post 9911413)

The reason he mainly does tours of universities is because the great unwashed,1st time voters do not know him of old and hang on his every word and THEY are the ones who will vote him in

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet (Post 9911417)

yep, you will always get young votes saying we must tax the rich (whoever the rich are) we must fight poverty, we must be more equal, we must love thy neighbour, help starving africans and all the other idealistic stuff

then these voters get a job, a car a mortgage and they start thinking about themselves a bit more and and their children and they think fck all that I want cheaper tax, petrol, mortgages and better schools/council services etc

:joker: