<waves at politicians seeking to understand women's rights>

Because I realise politicians are busy people, here's what, for me, is the central part of the excellent article Tinsel linked to on the so-called "spousal veto." (Apologies to the transwidows for bowdlerising the wording slightly to stay within MN's ridiculously onerous talk guidelines; the original article uses correct pronouns throughout).

Would the Lib Dems think it acceptable in any other contract for one party to entirely change the terms, yet the other party still be bound by it? It seems unlikely.

The arguments around this issue boil down to this: Which is the greater evil, a heterosexual woman being trapped in a same sex marriage against her will, or her [spouse] having h* Gender Recognition Certificate delayed while h* wife leaves the marriage.

And please, politicians, read this aloud to yourselves correctly filling in the blanks - because as someone once said "if you can't see sex, you can't see sexism." This would not be happening were it not women's rights under attack - note the careful exclusions in the original GRA surrounding male primogeniture. To adapt one of the excellent Rules of Misogyny, "Women are whatever men say they are, and men are whatever men say they are (except when inheritance rights are up for grabs)."

I will not vote for anyone who does not know what a woman is. My sitting MP - who I have voted for for a long time - has lost my vote. Open to offers!

As a woman who grew up in a school that encouraged girls to follow their dreams and aspirations, sporting or academic, as a woman who grew up being able to use safe female spaces, but experienced assault and harassment outside of them, as a woman who now works with women who have not been able to access secondary or tertiary level education due to their sex, who have not had choice in their marriage to a man and who are not allowed to work, as a woman who has been able to work and also have some employment protection against the sex-based disadvantages of pregnancy and childbirth, as a woman with young daughters this is the most important issue for me to consider from the political party representing me. Overriding everything else. I would actually rather be poor and be in a society where the sex-based protections for women and girls are acknowledged and discussed than in a society that does a fantastic job of brexit, welfare etc and women and girls are at risk of male violence, or losing employment, etc due to intolerance of any debate about this.

And I will be voting because I know it’s still a privilege as a woman to be able to do this.

Please MPs hear us.

Hello politicians. Before you continue to virtue signal about abolishing the spousal "veto", please consider the effect of this on women.

Here's a handy summary:

makemorenoisemanc.wixsite.com/mysite/post/trans-widows-and-the-spousal-veto-a-modern-fable-of-male-entitlement

Excellent idea vivariumvivariumsvivaria.

For anyone wanting to understand the issues, this thread is a great place to start: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3145470-Break-it-down-for-me

And then consider whether you are personally comfortable being part of a process which is removing womens rights by stealth?

This

You misogynistic fuckers

Hello politicians

Most of you have BADLY underestimated how your incredible willingness to trample over women’s rights goes down with the general population. You’re in a small echo chamber of people vigorously agreeing with each other that you’re right and it is just some nasty TERFs who don’t want to be nice to poor oppressed trans people. But Face facts. The vast majority of voters will feel some sympathy for individuals with dysphoria but those VOTERS:

• do not believe there is such a thing as a female penis
• do not want their teenage daughter sleeping at Guide camp in a tent with undisclosed male bodied persons
• do not think giving untested puberty blockers to young children is ok
• do not want male bodied people changing next to women at the swimming pool or at M&S
• do not believe you can change your biological sex but power of thought and belief
• do not think male bodied people belong in women’s refuges or women’s prisons
• don’t want their young boys labelled trans because they happen to like pink, glitter and trying on Disney princess dresses
• don’t much appreciate being labelled as a bigot because of the above

Could be shortened to "Dear politicians, you are aware that women can vote, yes? And that if your party tells them to go fuck themselves they probably won't want to vote for you?"

Exactly. Look at how many people on these threads are saying they will have to spoil their ballot, in despair. All those votes that would have been given to a party that respected the rights of women-- rights that already exist, they just need to be acknowledged.

Give me a bearded party leader who is not so very woke that he has to announce his pronouns...a female party leader who does not fall back on "but lesbian relationships can be abusive too" and "there is no hierarchy of equalities but transwomen are the most oppressed"...

And damn, just don't give me a smug tossled-haired leader who refuses to do interviews because he is sure to fuck it up. Especially after what he and his cronies have done to this country...

...enjoy your (political) erasure

LOL! I like that.

Good idea for a thread.

Lurking politicians, please find time to read the existing legislation, in particular the GRA and the Equalities Act. Pay particular attention to the parts of the Equalities Act which give examples of situations where organisations can, in defence of the legally protected characteristic of sex, quite lawfully exempt individuals undergoing gender reassignment or with a GRC.

These provisions explicitly cover cases like that of Clare Dymon, who requested a female HCP for her mammogram, then found her request being used as a case study of bigotry by Brighton hospitals. The law as it stands is on Clare's side, and rightly so.

Also please note how many organisations now incorrectly put in their equalities statements that the protected characteristic is "gender" when in fact it should read "sex and gender reassignment."

Also please read some reputable science written by geneticists and developmental biologists (not incoherent rantings about clownfish by self-styled "biology teachers" on twitter) and do remember - human beings are not, in fact, clownfish.