Who wants to tell Labour Party?

We could play a feminist version with a destination of Full Matriarchy?

My mum and my aunties were addicted to Mornington Crescent. Whenever they got a few sheets to the wind, they used to play their own version - loudly and drunkenly - with fanciable famous men. The destination was Gregory Peck (don't ask. And don't ask about the rules they came up with, either)!

Truscum - I would give you a million if I had it. Have a .

www.isihac.net/mornington_crescent.php For Rufus - I think it adds to the obfuscation I always thought the idea for the game had something to do with chess commentary, as it started at the time there was a lot of chess on television (Kasparov and K????? etc).

I think MM is not the only one to be played - there has been a lot of that going on.

My own feeling is that Maria Miller couldn't be bothered to do any of the legwork so when the trans lobby offered to do it on her behalf, she just jumped at the chance. Probably hasn't even read the report that has her name on it.

I'll bet she thought "Brilliant, I'll let them do the work and then take all the credit for it".

She didn't realise she'd been played. That's why she is so defensive about it. She can hardly admit it, can she?

One million pounds to the person that can articulate the objective criteria that reveal the difference between a real transgender person and a fake one.

They surgically change their genitals and don’t disrespect the gender they are supposed to identify with?

It’s probably the wrong answer, I just fancied a shot at a million pounds 😁

Rufus Mornington Crescent is sometimes played on I'm Sorry I haven't a Clue on Radio 4, a panel game show notorious for focussing on the silly or absurd. The panellists improvise a pretend game by naming various tube stations, supposedly in an effort to reach the Mornington Crescent station, and faking the things people normally say when playing real games, including solemnly discussing the non-existent rules.

Ah....

Juells
apologies, it was formatted in The Metro article but this got lost in my copy & paste.

@R0wantrees

Some 34 groups have now come together and written a letter to Penny Mordaunt, the new minister, calling for the act to be revised

Christ, did they never hear of paragraphs?

Saw this earlier on facebook, and was curious to know a bit more. Seems that Oaxaca is a sovereign state in southern Mexico, with a population of just under four million. But they manage to divvy that up into eight regions and 30 districts.

This other article by same source explains:

"There are 9,660 people are running for office in the state this year, with elections being held for 42 seats in the state Congress — for which there are 667 candidates — and for mayors and councilors in 153 municipalities. Candidates at the municipal level total 9,084. Over half of those — 4,667 — are women."

So at least the 19, well, 2 + 17, are not taking women's places. Fairly progressive to have actually half women in government. And I guess that is why 19 (assumed) transsexuals did get the vote, because the region actually is progressive in that regard. Well maybe that, and it looks like every second person in the state is in politics, LOL.

Love how removal of all sex based protection, removing the right to privacy and the very identity of women for 52% is a 'small risk' worth it because of the immense gains to 0.whatever of the population.

What I really don't get is how Maria Miller totally missed all of this.

This couldn't happen here.

As stated already, if a man says he is a woman, then he is one - same as you, same as me, same as any other woman we might meet.

There can be no dishonesty or deception... It doesn't even matter whether he believes it himself or not, because no one is going to check. The LP's position on this is that if a man makes the declaration to them that "I am a woman", then he is one...

I was thinking this morning about all the times I've had to 'prove' myself to others when I've wanted to join something or be recognised as something.

When I joined the Brownies I had to attend meetings for 6 weeks to show my commitment to the organisation and to learn about what being a Brownie meant. I had to learn a motto and a promise and, after being officially presented by my Sixer perform these in front of an audience to ensure that I understood what it was I was commiting myself to.

When I gained my degree, as I had opted to understake a qualitative, rather than quantitative, analysis, for my final year project, the BPS required me to send (IIRC) a copy of my abstract, the conclusion and specified pages from my results section so that its scientific rigour could be verified before I was allowed to join.

I've had to complete a detailed job application form for every job I've applied for detailing my qualifications and the experience that indicates to me that I would be suitable for this role. If I fail to do that satisfactorially, I will be rejected.

I've never been able to self identify myself into an organisation/group of people/community just because I wanted to. My word alone has never been enough. I have to prove that I've considered its appropriateness for me; that I'm really committed to it; that I possess the necessary qualifications and meet the necessary requirements...

And yet these men who want to appropriate womanhood are being told they don't even have to do so much as jump over a toadstool!

So how did they decide that these were not genuine transwomen? What are the disqualifying factors that reveal a fraud?

One million pounds to the person that can articulate the objective criteria that reveal the difference between a real transgender person and a fake one.

And go.

Love how removal of all sex based protection, removing the right to privacy and the very identity of women for 52% is a 'small risk' worth it because of the immense gains to 0.whatever of the population.

Utter refusal to even recognise there are any other stakeholders who matter. And love how women understanding the truth of all this, what it is going to involve for women and pointing the significant disadvantages to them is framed as 'inciting hatred'.

And 'dignity' winning out? Would that be the death threats to non compliant women, the thumping of a 60 year old, blockading stairs while wearing masks to prevent women assembling to discuss current legislation in their own country, wrecking meetings for sex abuse survivors, getting non compliant women arrested or trying to control and shut down MN to prevent women being able to talk without having to bow down to this particular sacred cow?

Ha! The similarities with the claims of TRAs are quite striking.

Oooh

Thank you doctor

I think...

Mornington Crescent is a game with seemingly byzantine rules that actually has only one rule: the rules are whatever the person speaking says they are.

Maybe not just the Labour party?

"Some 34 groups have now come together and written a letter to Penny Mordaunt, the new minister, calling for the act to be revised.

Dear Penny, Firstly, let us wish you a very warm welcome in your new role as Minister for Women and Equalities. You have shown time and time again that your commitment to inclusion and equality is central to your values. Your moving speeches on gender equality and your being a Stonewall ally stand to showcase this, and we thank you for your transparent dedication to the cause of equality. We’re writing to you today as an alliance of organisations who are deeply concerned by the delay in starting the Gender Recognition Act reform process. Your predecessor Rt Hon Amber Rudd MP, working with Baroness Williams of Trafford, had shown great enthusiasm in using her tenure as Minister of Women and Equalities to help reduce stigma and discrimination against transgender people. We’re hoping you will have the same enthusiasm in moving forward with us, helping remove the systemic barriers currently holding equality out of reach for trans people. As the consultation falls in your new ministerial portfolio, we’re reaching out to you to show the impact the continued delay is having on trans people. This consultation being delayed is having a massively detrimental effect on one of the UK’s most marginalised groups. With the current system of gender recognition, people: must be diagnosed as having gender dysphoria; may be legally forced to delay or annul their application if their spouse vetoes their application; and are subject to the demands and whims of a panel they will never meet, who will have final say over that person’s gender identity. There is no right to appeal. The gap between the Government announcing the consultation and the subsequent delays have allowed fear and misinformation to fester, particularly amongst those who seek to denigrate and devalue the very existence of trans people. The longer this delay goes on, the longer abusive invective is allowed to continue unchallenged by a government who rightly pride themselves on robustly speaking up for its minority citizens. Several of the organisations writing to you today have built strong relationships with the Government Equalities Office over many years, and are excited to work closely together going forward. As you may know, the Gender Recognition Act is in urgent need of reform if Her Majesty’s Government is to bring about full legal dignity for its transgender and non-binary citizens. When the Women and Equalities Committee set out its recommendations for trans equality in 2016, it called for the government to “update the Gender Recognition Act in line with principles of gender self-declaration [through statutory declaration] that have been developed in other jurisdictions”, in turn removing the medicalised, quasi-judicial process currently in place for instances of gender recognition. Their recommendations call on Her Majesty’s Government to consult and improve on a process which the Committee has called “bureaucratic”, “expensive” and “humiliating”. We ask that this Government follows through on the Committee’s reasoned and important recommendations as soon as possible, enshrining the principles of statutory declaration within a robust and accepted legal framework. Your role as Minister for Women and Equalities is centred on ensuring equality for all people regardless of gender identity. Can we call on you to help secure a simplified and de-medicalised process for gender recognition for all transgender and non-binary people as soon as possible? We are under no illusions that the consultation process will be marred by people conflating separate issues and legislation, and/or using it as a springboard to further incite hatred. We remain, however, quietly confident in dignity winning out and would urge you to carefully weigh this small risk against the immense gains. This Conservative government has made clear and valiant commitments to the LGBTQ+ citizens of the UK, a legacy you should be proud to build on. The sooner these reforms can be consulted on, and respectfully responded to, the sooner trans people in the United Kingdom will have their right to a quiet and private life enshrined in law. We therefore ask that you provide us with a clear timeline for when this might be. We look forward to hearing from and working with you in the near future."

reported here:
metro.co.uk/2018/05/07/government-under-pressure-to-reform-vital-transgender-laws-7528227/

But the beauty of it is that it's "a gender parity law that stipulates that half of all candidates at the municipal level must be women."

So ALL the candidates were men.

Read it

“The vast majority are married men with families who can’t be identified as transsexuals either due to their physical appearance or other characteristics,” transsexual woman and electoral councilor Michell Altamirano Pacheco said.

That bit stood out for me...as apparently in Britain (as ova said ) this won't make a difference

Trying to make sense of this is like playing Mornington Flipping Crescent.

I think this just about sums up my experience of trying to make any sense out of trans activists' logic.

Right

Ignoring the OP for the minute while i go back and read it

Is there a simple explanation for Mornington Crescent

cf
Two threads yesterday with regards trans women prisoners Sophie Eastwood and Alex Stewart?

Reported here:
www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/transgender-killers-kept-apart-after-12493525
(extract)
"Despite their new female identities neither have had surgery, and fellow inmates complained that they felt intimidated around the pair because of their behaviour.

A source said: “It got beyond the joke. No one has a problem with transgender people. But they do have a problem when they suspect that the transgender identities are being used as a way of getting a cushier time in prison. It totally undermines real transgender prisoners.”

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3242178-Transgender-killers-split-up-by-prison-chiefs
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3242264-Transgender-murders-in-Scottish-womens-prison

“It’s a disappointment because transsexual people have fought for a long time and we’ve managed to gain these electoral rights only for these people to come and tarnish all our work. It’s annoying and disappointing,” she added.

• transsexual woman and electoral councilor Michell Altamirano Pacheco