Labour clarifies trans women and AWS

I wish somebody high profile would explain this in very simple, plain English, ideally on a TV programme with a huge audience. I honestly believe that most of the UK population don't understand the jargon and switch off when this is discussed. Also, now that LGB has morphed into LGBT a lot of people genuinely think that having some concerns about transgenderism is just a variant of homophobia, and (rightly) they want to distance themselves from that.

The key points for me would be:

1. If anybody can identify as the opposite to their biological sex, women's sport will be badly affected.

1. Children should not be treated as medical cases if they don't conform to toxic gender stereotypes.

1. Men should be challenging restrictive stereotypes for what it means to be a man or a boy. They should be vigorously championing the right of any man to wear what he likes, to express emotion and be sensitive and still be recognised as a man.

1. Teenage girls should be supported to see that not conforming to gender stereotypes, loathing their developing body, hating getting unwanted male attention, feeling attracted to other women, finding a porn-soaked world very frightening and so on are not reasons to conclude that they are really male. They need role models - strong women, lesbian women of all types, a firm line on sexual harassment.

1. While men continue to be more violent and sexually predatory than women, women and girls need sex-segregated spaces for their own safety and also for basic privacy and respect. This is non-negotiable.

Yep. And the fact remains that UK voters are 3:1 against self-ID - yet all political parties, institutions, third sectors orgs, etc, are absolutely intent on pushing it through, come what may. It's the perfect example of a top down unpopular imposition of policy. Quite how the beneficiaries insist on seeing themselves as a marginalised group utterly defeats me.

LangCleg they always do. Whether it be here, twitter or anywhere else. They always run away or cry bigot.

Article by James Kirkup about David Lewis' suspension etc:
(concludes)
"If this article has made your head spin a little with the mental contortions required to follow the arguments I have so laboriously set out, I can only apologise, not least for writing like the failing philosophy undergraduate I once was.

But I also suggest you get used to this stuff, because this will soon cease to be an issue just for Labour. The Government will shortly bring forward a consultation that could see a move to introduce the principle of self-identified gender in English law. I wonder if ministers will have some answers to the questions that Labour and David Lewis have raised."
blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/05/the-catch-22-of-labours-gender-policy/

I can't answer these questions nor can I back up my assertions. I shall now flounce but while doing so I will point out that you are all sad little people because you expect facts and logic.

Crisp let the other thread drop, I notice.

I can't answer these questions nor can I back up my assertions. I shall now flounce but while doing so I will point out that you are all sad little people because you expect facts and logic.

Lol. Couldn't find that evidence then crispbutty. Thought as much ;-)

Was that Owen Jones?

translation

I can't answer these questions nor can I back up my assertions. I shall now flounce but while doing so I will point out that you are all sad little people because you expect facts and logic.

Wot? No data set?!

I realise this many be controversial but right now I'd like to see Labour abandon AWS and women's officers rather than watch this travesty.

I'd certainly rather no AWS than to see them abused by Oxbridge educated hyper-elite males purporting to be the most oppressed women in the country. It's a fucking farce.

Labour are losing feminists, many of whom man the phone banks, stand at the stalls on the high street and knock on doors.

Labour are making themselves look ridiculous to people not that interested in politics - if they make such a dog's dinner of what is perceived to be a fringe issue, what will they do with the economy?

Labour are filling right wingers with glee because all this is grist to their leftards are eating themselves mill.

And meanwhile, nobody would ever guess that the originating report recommending self-ID came from a Tory minister. What is it about the left that it takes an issue and tries to win it by overdoing the virtue signalling at the expense of policy detail, gets called out on the holes in policy detail and, instead of filling in the holes, would rather double down on the idiocy? Why does the left always, always, always, do this?

My hope is that all of the political parties will recognise the need to have separate but much needed efforts to represent a) women and b) equalities.

I realise this many be controversial but right now I'd like to see Labour abandon AWS and women's officers rather than watch this travesty.

Whilst I'm a bit apprehensive about what the TRAs will go after next let's take away this platform and make them compete for spaces with -other- men for a political voice

I'm sure everyone will agree it's good to have some sort of closure on this issue.

Oh Lord it's just so disingenuous. It's like one of those North Korean TV reports about our dear leader...

I imagine the Labour Party would say that LM is 'living as a woman' full-time and at the time of the election was counting down the days to getting a GRC (apparently). However, they seem very keen to accept Eddie Izzard as trans as well, and Eddie seems to be living as a female very little of the time. The real test is of course 'Have you drunk the Kool-Aid?'

How does David Lewis fail to subvert the process when a certain other all woman short list self-ID trans person has successfully subverted it for months?

jennifer james and her 'legal advisers' have been made very clear they don't have a leg to stand on.

Well no, what's happened is Labour's 'legal advisers' have responded to a pre-action-protocol letter with a strange justification of why they imagine they are not breaking the law.

I'm not going to share the leaked letter because it shouldn't have been leaked in the first place. I've read it though, and their justification appears to hinge on two things:

One is the definition of gender reassignment and the bit that says for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.

They are arguing that therefore any tw, grc or not, is kind of a bit like an actual woman because look! It says sex!

This is exactly what I mean when I say sex as a protected characteristic will no longer have any meaning.

The other argument they are using is that s104 doesn't specifically say that all members of an AWS must be women, just that you can only have a single protected characteristic shortlist if the PC is sex, and it's therefore fine to include some other people with any PC if they are underrepresented.

So by that logic we could have 'all women plus a few black men' shortlists, or 'all women plus some gay men' shortlists etc. I've no objection to reserved spaces on shortlists for male trans people, BAME men, gay men, disabled men whatever, but not at the expense of another underrepresented group - not on AWS. Let the men budge up.

And they're using both of these arguments at the same time. This is not 'very clear', this is a fudge. What is very clear is that they don't have a strong argument and so are using two weak ones instead which do nothing to support each other.

our poll also found what looks like a sharp drop in Labour support among women

you don't say?!

(The Tories, of course, are the ones who are actually bringing self-ID forward as policy, but Labour have deftly managed to draw most of the feminist anger about the issue onto themselves, and it’s hard to think of any other explanation that could be behind women’s sudden large-scale desertion of the party.)

Quite

Oh yes that poll answers the question perfectly. So in fact the majority of women are not in favour of self ID at all. Which is hardly a surprise.

If Crisp is still looking for it after all this time then I suggest that they might be wasting their time

I'm sure Crisp will come back with some other crappy research that doesn't actually answer the question at all. Smoke and mirrors and all that stuff. Either that or Crisp is busy conducting a quick face book or Twitter poll from their friends to bring it back and present it as evidence.

crispbuttyfan

Recent polling on self ID here: wingsoverscotland.com/girls-and-boys/