Guess how I got suspended from the Labour Party?

@R0wantrees I think the point that Jane Fae made about how women had different life experiences and one couldn't for example compare the lived experience of a 'poor' woman to the Queen may actually illustrate the opposite. That in respect to being a girl and woman, biology is the shared experience regardless of wealth, occupation etc.

The Queen is also a woman and mother.

YY. The Queen has had two children, so she has the experience of childbirth in common with every other mother on this planet. The Queen has had to navigate menstruation whilst living under the public gaze. Can you imagine if she'd had a leak and had blood go through her skirt during a public engagement? She has that experience of menstruation in common with almost all other females. The Queen will have grown up as a girl and expected breast growth and menstruation like all other women. Even girls with CAIS expect menstruation, it then doesn't arrive.

& then there is the practice of 'virginity testing' (only for females).

How many times is Owen Jones going to make the exact same tweet?

We don't have magical machines that can test the validity and strength of feelings.

I've just got a great idea for a start up business …;)

"Elizabeth I's cousin Mary Queen Of Scots was abducted and raped. A woman can be literal royalty and a man can still rape her."

I possibly meant "actual royalty". I mean not figurative royalty like "Madonna is the queen of pop", but proper royalty by the dictionary meaning of the word, a member of a monarchy's ruling family.

I've never been to my local labour meeting before, wish I could go and watch the fall out tonight.
Good work David .

Did they wear pink mammoth fur?

I do love you, Truscum! I'll be laughing at that one all day!

@merrymouse Who knows why QE1 never married, but I suspect part of the reason was that marriage meant forming an alliance and a man becoming King.

The role of a Queen was to produce an heir, and not many options to redefine yourself except to be a virgin.

Fast forward to now, and we have women told they "can't have it all" and must choose between motherhood and career or else be substandard at both. We have maternity discrimination and a sex pay gap that affects mothers but not fathers. Same shit, different century.

Elizabeth I's cousin Mary Queen Of Scots was abducted and raped. A woman can be literal royalty and a man can still rape her.

We don't have magical machines that can test the validity and strength of feelings.

Exactly. And once we start codifying beliefs in law we go down a very dark path

I'd love to see a woman, a female, run for a woman's officer position and then publicly declare that she does NOT self ID as a woman

With you on that WeeBisom

Women aren't defined by biology, oh the irony flying high over their heads. 'Don't define women by their bits, define them by liking pink instead'. Being female IS just about your dna and genitals though, that is all there is to it, there is no fancy feeling or thought or sexual orientation. It's not reductionist to call a kettle a kettle. Your genes don't define what you as an individual but they do define your species/sex.

I think it all went to shit to put politely as soon as gender got made into a big deal, it should be irrelevant to day to day life and how people live, if you want to identify as something fine but it shouldn't be the state's job to validate your experiences.

SarahAr:
You said that David is obviously not a self-identified woman because you were not sincere in your claim to have a female gender identity." However, at the moment, the self ID policy says absolutely cock all about 'sincerity'. I just read the NEC statement - it simply says that women, including "self-identifying trans women" are welcome to apply for women only positions. So where are you getting the idea that self-identified trans women must be 'sincere' in their identity? This, currently, isn't part of the self ID policy at all. More to the point, if Labour do introduce a sincerity clause, how on earth do you uphold and enforce that? If being a woman simply is a matter of declaring that one is a woman, and if that is the only condition, then by definition insincerity is a moot point.

Now, perhaps it might be said that a trans woman is one who has appropriate, real, feelings or beliefs about their gender identity; and these feelings and beliefs are such that when they declare 'I am a woman', that declaration is sincere and genuine. So, the idea would be, that a genuine trans woman has certain feelings (feels like a woman, feels dysphoric), and on that basis their self ID declaration is the real deal. There's just one problem with this. We have no way of telling who is a genuine trans woman and who is not. We don't have magical machines that can test the validity and strength of feelings.

For my part, I'd love to see a woman, a female, run for a woman's officer position and then publicly declare that she does NOT self ID as a woman. She would declare that she is biologically female, but that doesn't believe in gender theory and so repudiates the notion of self-identification.

#r2vine to comment on Jeremy Vine's show on Twitter

Who knows why QE1 never married, but I suspect part of the reason was that marriage meant forming an alliance and a man becoming King.

The role of a Queen was to produce an heir, and not many options to redefine yourself except to be a virgin.

Queen Elizabeth I also a woman, though not a mother.

One of the reasons we have pain relief in childbirth, contrary to what god allegedly decreed in genesis 3:16 was that Queen Victoria knew it was a darned good idea. Because she was a woman.

Conversely, the thing that the Queen and a 'poor' women can never experience as opposed to Jane Fae is being a 'trans' woman.

Absolutely rowan

Identity wise I have very little in common with the Queen (I appreciate corgis but on balance am more of a spaniel person) and have much more in common with many men.

The one thing I have on common with her is a female reproductive system and a common interest in how women’s health issues are managed.

If the Queen had had a younger brother, she would not have become Queen. He would have become King.

So the rule was, until very recently, that female royals are bypassed in favour of male royals.
A point of similarity there.

How comes TRAs can never explain who will get to say what Self-ID is acceptable and what isn't? Who are these people that will have the right to say someone is abusing Self-ID?

exactly that R0wantrees... all those women have faced discrimination because of their sex, even the queen

Not at all. I think only a few people would take advantage of legal self id.

How could somebody take advantage when self id has no definition?

That’s a bit like saying all property is theft, so we’re going to cancel all property law, but only a few people will take advantage. You wouldn’t be taking advantage if there were no longer criteria to define property.

I think the point that Jane Fae made about how women had different life experiences and one couldn't for example compare the lived experience of a 'poor' woman to the Queen may actually illustrate the opposite. That in respect to being a girl and woman, biology is the shared experience regardless of wealth, occupation etc.

The Queen is also a woman and mother.

"The debate is not mine to have, but if my actions have prompted it, then I hope the opportunity is used well."

I think that's right. I met Richard Herring recently of "when is international men's day?" fame and apparently he gets invitations to speak/appear as a result of what he does but errs on the side of declining which I think is the right decision....

Some serious transphobia going against David Lewis if you search the name on twitter. People are even questioning his gender identity, suggesting his right to self-ID is less valid than others.

Hope he gets some more support to defend him from the transphobes and keep twitter a safe space.