Why Are Politicians So In Thrall To Extreme Minority Views?

[dave50]

Such as extreme trans and environmental activists? Why aren't they ignored, they are tiny minorities which the vast majority of the general public disagree with. What are the politicians scared of?

[maggiebee]

Their own shadows I think!

[Untitled]

the "environmentalist" view as you call it is simply correct whether minority or not. politicians ignored it for 50 years and are now unable to.

i do not think politicians are "in thrall" to trans groups... they seem more likely to take the side of their opponents

[retrocop]

Not wishing to divert your post dave50 but I thought the same thing about certain high ranking Police Officers this morning when I read the paper.

[naomi24]

//i do not think politicians are "in thrall" to trans groups... they seem more likely to take the side of their opponents //

That'll be why Mr Starmer and the leader of the LibDems (never can remember his name) say some women can have penises then.

[ClareTG0ld]

That's not an "extreme trans" view, though; besides which, most political parties are going backwards to some extent on trans rights.

Similar with environmental activists, actually -- there's fundamentally no way that any party (even the Green Party, remarkably) is in thrall to "extreme" green activists.

[Zacs-Master]

Yes, I think ‘in thrall’ is an unfortunate choice of words. They’re not in thrall so much as mindful of not upsetting anyone who might vote for them.

[naomi24]

ClareTG0ld, You can’t get more extreme than saying women can possess men’s bits!

I think those two politicians in particular are trying to be all things to all people.

[ClareTG0ld]

I'm curious what you'd call someone who was born a girl, but has since had a phalloplasty operation:

a) a man, or:
b) a woman who has a penis?

Whilst I appreciate that the question is "really" about trans women (ie those who were born as boys), the very fact that trans men are completely overlooked in this whole biological essentialism is extremely revealing.

[dave50]

But there are hardly any votes in extreme trans and climate change ideology so why even entertain their ideas?

[Rosetta]

[email protected]. Maybe because trans men do not appear to have such loud voice in demanding that their rights trump men's rights about such things as safe places

[ClareTG0ld]

Sometimes the right thing to do isn't always the popular one. So that's part of it. Sometimes, too, the job of a government in a democracy is to protect those who either don't have a vote, or who don't have a large enough one, from those who do. Whether or not the two examples cited fall into this category is another matter; although I'd say that not only is "in thrall" misleading, it's probably also a mistake to conflate the two.

They do have one thing in common, though, which is that the "extreme" elements of both trans people and those who care about the environment all too easily get mixed in with the more mainstream versions. On Climate Change, for example, there's almost universal agreement now that we should take steps to reduce our impact on the planet in multiple ways, and the sooner the better, so it's hardly an extreme position to care about this.

[naomi24]

I would call her a woman.

This thread is in danger of being sidetracked by this conversation so I suggest we abandon it here.

[Untitled]

“ some women can have penises then.”

some women can… even if you want to discount trans people. it is very uncommon but it is possible.

[lankeela]

I found it quite refreshing the other day when applying for a new passport to only be given the choice of male or female on the form.

[Untitled]

there are a lot of votes to win by supporting action on climate change... millions of people are not as skeptical as you are and in fact i think it is the anti-environmentalists who are the noisy minority supported as they are by fossil fuel companies

there are probably fewer votes in supporting trans rights... and most politicians do not do so.

[douglas9401]

If they tell the lot of them to do one it wastes opportunities for future tax raising wheezes.

See Low Emission Zones, phasing out of internal combustion engines, pretendy recycling schemes and on and on.

[naomi24]

I don’t think there are a lot of votes to be had in green issues. I think for a lot of people the financial cost of what’s being proposed is too high.

[retrocop]

//there are a lot of votes to win by supporting action on climate change.//

I don't think that supposition would go down too well in London whilst we go through this ,so called ,cost of living crisis. Many Londoners and people in the Home Counties will have to scrap their cars which they can ill afford next month. Nurses etc on shifts cannot just go out and buy new cars, that comply with a lying London mayors ego trip, to get to work. Prices will go through the roof if builders, plumbers, electricians have to scrap their vans they use for work. The cost will be passed on to the consumer.

[Old_Geezer]

Perhaps it is the squeaky wheel that gets the oil.

[Untitled]

https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/8-10-britons-concerned-about-climate-change-half-think-net-zero-target-should-be-brought-forward