BBC Question Time this week

"Could the panel have a look through this thread on mn and tell me their thoughts"

It's a shame in a way that we have to think so carefully how to pitch a question that matters to so many as we know how easily it will be dismissed or avoided depending on the precise wording used.

If woman no longer means adult human female, as seems to be the position of all political parties, what should adult human females identify as now? How can one self identify as a woman, if there is no proposed definition of woman to identity WITH any more?
Do the panel think it wise to jeopardise existing, clearly defined legal sex based protections for a nation of women and girls, in favour of replacing them with an illogical circular concept which says a woman is anyone who calls themself a woman?

Do the panel think that the 33 million females of the UK are aware that all political parties are in support of abolishing sex based protections from discrimination and sex based women's rights in law?

Do the panel think that the 33 million females of the country are discriminated against because they are recognisable as biologically female, or because they possess an invisible belief about their gender identity?
On which basis do the panel feel women and girls would prefer their rights to be protected - as the female biological sex, or as people who declare their inner conviction of a womanly identity?

I think the real issue is the public is unaware of agp. I think that the idea that cross dressers who perform femininity as a form of sexual arousal and gratification are piggybacking on everyone's perceptions of transgender as weak and vulnerable. I would ask about marie and say given his case, are you going to let what we used to call cross dressers and transvestites claim transgenderism and claim they are literal women, calling anyone bigots who disagree.

Both of the main parties assert their belief in equal opportunities and free speech. I believe that we all have the right to be treated with respect and peacefully. However when legitimate concerns are raised over the detrimental effect the GRA could have on women, a protected characteristic in EA, the conversation is closed and accusations of bigotry are thrown. Why is legislation being pushed in such a narrow minded, evasive and negative way?

Not concise sorry. There needs to be some intro to show the angle at which criticism s are being made though.

it's not 'if they say they are transgender' though, it's 'if they say they are a woman'
the Dean person may well be transgender, but they aren't a woman

I was going to say just that very thing LangCleg.

I think the word is ‘pretend’.

I don't think "self identify" means anything to the public at large.

"If they say they are" does?

"Should a person with male genitalia convicted of sexual offences involving teenage girls be housed in a women's prison if they say they are transgender?"

I like that guardian. Encapsulates the f/ m element plus wider debate.

You won't be able to cover everything in a single question.

Greening is a tory so I'd focus on the stated tory policy of amending the GRA rather than Labour's AWS. Also if you go with AWS you risk it getting side-tracked into 'why do we have AWS anyway?'

I think using a topical example like that Marie bloke is an excellent idea and ask in light of that and similar cases is it wise to amend the GRA to self-ID.

Good luck!

yes, I think 'claims to self identify' is good, because it raises the question of what is entailed in self id, people may still be picturing some poor tortured soul, when it could equally be a cynical move to access vulnerable women

I don’t have anything smart or pithy to add.

My question would be ‘what the fuck is going on???’ or ‘has the world gone mad?’

I don’t have anything smart or pithy to add.

My question would be ‘what the fuck is going on???’ or ‘has the world gone mad?’

To justine greening - would you be happy to be undressed in a ladies changing room with someone who claims to self id as a woman and still has his / her male genatalia which you can see as he/she is also undressed - as this is what self id will allow and no one can challenge that person without being potentially charged with transphobia. How do think that parents of teenage daughters feel about this scenario

Should male sex offenders who self-identify as female be allowed to transfer to a women's prison?
Like it

How about

"Should male sex offenders who self-identify as female be allowed to transfer to a women's prison?
And is it time for a free and open consultation to legally protect or remove sex-based rights, protections and privacy for good?"

It said to me that Lily Madigan was quick to identify 'hate speech' and accusations of violence against Linda Bellos who was simply responding to the notion that if she was attacked she would attack back

twitter.com/belloslinda?lang=en

Should male sex offenders who identify as female be allowed a transfer to a women's prison?

Agree this is the most powerful, topical and widely understandable question. How about adding 'self' to help link it as clearly as possible to the self ID issue, i.e.

Should male sex offenders who self-identify as female be allowed to transfer to a women's prison?

Do the panel believe that all women short lists (and other areas of sex distinction ) were set up to deal with challenges rooted in female biology or those imposed by adherence to feminine

Or

Does the panel believe all woman short lists will have served their purpose if no increase is made in biological female representation?

Or

Is a biological female who doesn't identify themselves as feminine by society's standards now considered less of a woman than a man who does?

Personally I would like to keep the debate away from focusing on trans and more about women and why the need for women's only facilities/short lists etc. Exists.

They said many words which will have left 95% of the audience thinking "WTF was that? Must be one of those leftie navel-gazing things".

Ah. I see a thread.

I was out - what did they say?

I've just listened to that segment and thanks for flagging it up.

The question I'm left with is why have trans in the LGB? Or a separate trans?

Surely the logical conclusion of those purporting that transwomen are women and transmen are men, is that there is no need for a separate identifier?