Andrew Marr questions Angela Rayner and Jo Swinson on SelfID and EA2010

She thinks TWAW, of course she thinks a woman victim and her TW abusive partner are lesbians. Thing is she's saying that TW abusive partner should be excluded on an individual basis. I say they should be excluded on a class basis because women need a male-free environment to recover. Separate provision is needed for TW victims.

I would ask Swinson why lesbians were brought up at all - in a question about biological males gaining access to women's refuges. Lesbians are female - therefore totally appropriate for her to seek help from a women's shelter.

The question was about whether biological males should be entering women's shelters.

Bringing lesbians into the debate is an outrageous (and homophobic) comparison - suggesting that women's refuges have all sorts of problems about who they let in already - "take the example of lesbians..." - says Swinson earnestly...

Lesbians are not a problem for refuges, or for other women in refuges - biological males are.

I want our side to stay the side that explains things. You have to understand someone's train of thought to redirect it.

She was blindly regurgitating the parts of the Woke script they plagiarised from MRAs - "women do it too". She's either a homophobe who's looked into it and believes it or she's an ignorant homophobe who regurgitates Woke-via-MRA talking points because she doesn't give a shit about lesbians.

It's not my responsibility to gently lead a politician into not spouting overt homophobia on national television. It's her responsibility to avoid homophobia so she's in with a chance of my vote.

Why would I perform female socialisation on behalf of Jo Swinson who not only wants to remove my rights but goes on TV and uses homophobic tropes?

I want our side to stay the side that explains things. You have to understand someone's train of thought to redirect it.

third fiddle why are you continuing in trying to decipher Swinson's comments on refuges, there is no logic to her train of thought and it is homophobic to bring up lesbians in a context where they are least likely to be. Refuges are about mvaw not lesbians, ffs.

Both of them embarrassed themselves hugely in this issue. They really think women won’t base their vote on an issue that has a negative effect on more than half the population. They are deluded. I don’t trust any party on these issues. None of the seem to be able to speak openly and believably about this. It’s making me mad.

Lang, I'm usually a fan but I'm not happy with a narrative that says homophobia to shut down discussion any more than I'm happy with a narrative that does the same with transphobia. I'm sorry if I'm being stupid and missing something, but you can be sure the liberals are going to need it explained in baby steps where the homophobia lies too. I find it difficult to reason from what I see as false premises (TWAW) so maybe I'm just getting lost. (In logic, false implies any statement at all.)

To be homophobic, her argument needs to in some way imply that lesbians and men are a similar risk to women, doesn't it? Her argument as far as I can see it goes

1. Single sex refuges are there so that women can go somewhere their abuser can't follow. (Implication majority of abusers male.)
2. In cases where abuser is same sex, refuge needs to take precautions to ensure that particular individual does not come in. (Implication that this is rare so can be handled as an exception.)
3. TWAW so TW abusers should be treated as 2.

What I can't see there is any implication that lesbians are a risk in general. Please can someone spell it out? There's nothing implied about the relative likelihood of 2 and 3, it's not implied that the lesbian already in the refuge in 2 is a risk in any way, and it is implied that male abusers much more common. Or is it just the TWAW that's homophobic generally?

I will say again that I don't think it's a good argument. Importantly that women recovering may need a space fee of males in general not just free of their abuser (hence female staff etc). Also that male abusers lie and manipulate to gain access to victims, and if you let in TW you are potentially letting in any male abuser who lies about his gender identity, or male more generally who lies to gain access to vulnerable women. You wouldn't just need to take care if you had a woman in the refuge fleeing from a TW partner, it would actually increase risks across the board.

It isn't just women of faith, it's disability too. MNetters with Autism have talked on the FWR board about how difficult it is to see factual evidence and yet try to consciously use contradictory language and responses, that it is stressful and at times impossible which causes fear of what will happen when mistakes are made. Women with Tourettes. Women with dementia. Women with PTSD from sexual assaults, rapes, traumas. The list goes on and on.

There is a clash of protected characteristics, there is currently nothing in law stating (as is being mooted) that gender identity trumps all other needs under all circumstances, and if tested in court it would seem very likely that a judge would find that such a clash of interests requires a third way, because of the exclusion of some females and that such exclusion and discrimination is against the law. Third spaces. Which meets all needs instead of subordinating one group to another.

Sadly this requires well funded and very brave and resilient individuals to stand up and make the legal cases.

Interesting profile of Jo Swinson on the BBC website today. She opposed all women shortlists earlier in her career and it seems has been quite determined not to be defined by her sex. Yet at the same time has been quite groundbreaking, was the first woman to take part in Parliament whilst breastfeeding and has first hand experience of sexual violence towards women.
There seems to be a real push/pull around being a woman MP. The expectation you will understand women's issues (and care) yet also to be taken seriously (by men) and still having a 'normal' family life.

I live in an area where it will be a close shave between Labour and Conservative. The Labour candidate is female , but a total idiot who waffled on about Gay rights (?.?.?) when I asked about self id last election. She is standing for a second time and may just swing it, so I may vote Tory for the first time ever.

I've just posted this on the R4 Today thread - but it's v relevant here too.

Have the Libdems never heard of AGP?

Have they never heard Tara Hewitts training talk to the NHS confirming that some males do this as a sexual fetish?

Would someone from the Libdems care to explain to women why they should allow those male bodied sexual fetishists to get off by being included n women's spaces? Because as per Tara Hewitt, and Stonewall, they are included under the trans umbrella now.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=jD3RfsVu73Q

Tara's training course.

From 4:25 Tara describes trans being an "umbrella" term, including a range of different identities.

I'm supportive of trans people not being stigmatised, and being able to receive medical care with dignity - but I'm at a complete loss as to why this means vulnerable women have to share intimate spaces with male bodied people because of how they feel internally, or because of how they dress.

Tara, who is a transwoman, distinguishes between transexuals, drag queens, cross dressers who may be cross-dressing part or full time, and may be doing it as a fetish.

When the LibDems (and others) talk about this, I think they must only be considering transexuals - because I can't see why anyone would think male sexual fetishists should be allowed into women's spaces.

If Paris finds Parisself being groped or assaulted by escalators then I think Paris is using them wrong.

He may well feel he has the wrong body for him. But it's also the wrong body for being in the girls' facilities.

Absolutely.

And it doesn't help when people like Paris Lees push the rhetoric that women and girls not wanting to share facilities with males are being "irrational" - Lees tweeted last year that it was like a "fear of escalators"

My daughter's school (and her close friendship group) has its first transgirl as of last week. The same friendship group also has at least one girl that I know of who has been raped and wants single-sex facilities as a bare minimum.

Nobody wants to be the one to say to the 'new girl' that it would be massively insensitive of them and unfair to the girls to intrude: he was their friend before this started, after all, and they don't want to hurt him/her.

That means nobody is actively sticking up for the poor girl who has suffered serious assault.

He may well feel he has the wrong body for him. But it's also the wrong body for being in the girls' facilities.

This is the thing that gets me. If you think of yourself as a progressive, well, who do you think is going to be on the sharp end of these bloody stupid policies? Which ethnic groups in the UK are most likely to include women who simply cannot use spaces where someone might be waving a penis around? Because the answer is not "white".

They will never get put in prison

They just don’t seem to have any thoughts at all for ordinary women and girls

It’s so elitist as well

None of them women will ever have to use a refuge

They are in high paid jobs.

Do they never consider the life’s of ordinary women ?
They will never know what it’s like to feel powerless yet they happily give women and girls rights away

They allow schools to teach children that you can change sex

Erasing girls boundaries

that makes exceptions for religious women

This is the muddle people like Owen Jones find themselves in now. Berating black, lesbian and asian women for being 'phobic' in order to cover at least one of his unsustainable/competing or conflicting bases.So he finds himself supporting right wing, ex - UKIP, Muslim speakers, against Asian, feminist, Labour party members.

I suspect that some of them may try to come up with a policy that makes exceptions

I suspect that this step by step unavoidable presentation of obvious conflict and issue - in terms of real life incidents and examples - is going to have to be how this whole business proceeds back towards truly single sex protections.

The conflicts of interest, when they arise ( & they will, and already are) will have to be faced at some point. This will expose the radical TRA ideology for what it truly is. This whole business is so retrograde it's unbelievable.

I suspect that some of them may try to come up with a policy that makes exceptions for religious women after the first few high profile cases of women who can't share spaces with men for religious reasons hit the media, and those people will then be attacked by the "no exceptions or excuses" wing of of their own parties

Have to say I now have a new understanding of what Liberalism looks, and feels, like. My experience having tried to engage with Liberals, is that there is an odd disconnect between heart and head; no real passion; and a total focus on individuals and their rights.

The issue of Self Id has really brought this to a focus for me. I have voted Lib-Dem on a couple of occasions, always imagining, for some reason, that they were left of centre - but without some of the 'class baggage' of the Labour party. But now I see Liberalism as devoid of any real analysis of the causes of oppression for different groups ( unless that group is the latest, trendiest, most fashionable cause).

It is just about being 'nice' and treating people equally. That there may be various conflicts of interest is never really dealt with.

Someone is going to have to explain to them, really slowly, that by admitting male bodied people into female spaces means that many women from different ethnicities are going to be excluded from those spaces as a result.

There is a local council run swimming pool, which has separate, curtained off swimming sessions for Muslim women...to enable them to partake and enjoy swimming. What would be the scenario, I wonder, if a M to F trans ( with fully intact male body) wanted to go partake in one of these sessions?

What would Jo Swinson say, then, I wonder?

Do you think they may have one set of rules for Muslims - allowing them to discriminate in favour of sex, but a different set for other groups?

Is LGB Alliance onto this naked homophobia yet?

It’s a real shame that Ed Davey didn’t win the LD leadership. Swinson is awful and the LDs will be lucky to end up with 20 seats whereas a few months ago there predictions of getting 40-50.

Oh well...

I wish a broadcaster would say to Jo Swinson, "If being a woman is just a feeling, how did you get pregnant, twice?"

Jo Swinson is an utter disgrace to women. I know the pool was small but picking a woman of her interlectual calabre is an insult to women. and Labour are not much better.
my feeling is someone very highup (john mcdonnell? - i know some have said he is on our side) has obviously explained the implications of self id at the manifesto meeting and they have opted for the now famous labour fudge but the spectical of women labour mp umming and erring on the issue is depressing and embarrising in equal measures.