Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Angela Rayner says you can only be a Labour member if you believe TWAW

358 replies

jadefinch · 11/02/2020 13:36

And has effectively also said that Women's Place and the LGB Alliance (essentially groups for women, gays and lesbians to meet and discuss women's, gay and lesbian issues) are hate groups and them meeting are hate crimes

Angela Rayner says you can only be a Labour member if you believe TWAW
Angela Rayner says you can only be a Labour member if you believe TWAW
Angela Rayner says you can only be a Labour member if you believe TWAW
OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Thread gallery
12
MissingMySleep · 16/02/2020 09:50

I'm genuinely curious in how this thinking works. Does Rachel Dolezsl now get to id as black? Can anyone id as anything? Sex /gender/race/colour/nationality/profession/height/married status and so on? Surely legislation is needed with identificatiable steps before any legal changes are made to any status.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Dolezal

Lordfrontpaw · 16/02/2020 09:43

It’s going to even more degrading when they allow single ‘gender’ wards and we have to pretend not to notice.

MsSafina · 16/02/2020 09:36

I have a friend who is old enough to remember mixed wards and she said it was a degrading experience.

R0wantrees · 13/02/2020 18:54

Miller 🤷‍♀️🤦‍♀️ Idiot

The spotlight needs to extend to the advisors around the Women & Equalities Department, the trans activist lobbyists & their networks. Policies have been negotiated behind closed doors for many years & across all parties.
There's a need for some scrutiny to establish who has been enjoying unchecked influence & power

LouHotel · 13/02/2020 18:33

Will be drafting an email tonight along with asking for clarification from my out and proud LGB MP on what his views are.

ThePurported · 13/02/2020 18:31

They have probably applied the Edward Lord method in their analysis of the consultation results, i.e. binned all responses from people who didn't identify as someone with a gender identity.

I have no doubt that a self id bill is on the way.

midclegs · 13/02/2020 18:26

Apologies - I have not rtft but we need to bombard MINISTER FOR WOMEN AND EQUALITIES
If your email is regarding my role as Minister for Women and Equalities please email [email protected]k or call 03000 200 2299.
I'm sure the likes of our watchful friends will be doing the same.

theflushedzebra · 13/02/2020 18:19

I've got an awful feeling they're just trying to sneak these amendments through the back door again.

Then it will just be "it's the law, bitches, STFU"...

theflushedzebra · 13/02/2020 18:17

Why have they never published the consultation?

Penny Morduant was clearly wanting to get this through, and gloated at Pink Awards that she'd seen the results of the consultation - so why not publish? If it went the way she hinted, then that's justification to make the changes to the GRA. But they haven't.

littlbrowndog · 13/02/2020 18:12

Thanks again rowan.

Miller 🤷‍♀️🤦‍♀️ Idiot

Imnobody4 · 13/02/2020 18:04

It's been said they (the gov) intend to announce something 're the consultation next month. Anyone know anything?

moggiemonster · 13/02/2020 17:44

Clearly it is worst than I thought. I naively thought the Tories were stalling on GRA. I am almost inclined to give up and watch us eat ourselves. The ones who will suffer the most are the groups of females we try so hard to reach.

ThePurported · 13/02/2020 16:38

Am I alone in wondering whether I have missed something and am wrong in my views?

You're supposed to embrace sexist stereotypes and plastic surgery as a form of 'empowerment', that's all.

ThePurported · 13/02/2020 16:28

That's a great piece by Ruth Serwotka.

You see being a socialist is nolonger about being a fierce intellectual but about embracing an infantlilising ideology.

Amen.
Burgon can piss off, he calls women 'cis women'.

Mockersisrightasusual · 13/02/2020 16:19

Patel and Braverman.

WANTED: Two more horsewomen for the impending apocalypse.

#gettheapocalyspedone

ErrolTheDragon · 13/02/2020 16:18

Thanks , Clymene.

ArranUpsideDown · 13/02/2020 16:14

Nothing to add to R0wantrees ' summary except that now that Suella Braverman is Attorney-General it looks like there will be a full-on assault on the Human Rights Act and Judicial Review etc.

twitter.com/AdamWagner1/status/1227970279370035200

twitter.com/HelenArmet/status/1227989163401732102

Thermidorean reaction in 3-2-1...

Michelleoftheresistance · 13/02/2020 16:14

Is it only me who can't see the hypocrisy?

I'm as baffled as you are.

I've read everything I can find for years, and talked here trying to work out what the hell is the reason this can seem reasonable to someone supposedly intelligent and sane, but there never is an answer.

In all the threads here, on Twitter, in articles, you'll never find an answer. Other than first lies and misinformation. And then mantras. And then rage, intimidation and threats. And then flouncing.

It's like being trapped in some holiday cottage over Christmas with the MiL from hell who has rampant narcissism, with everyone else frantically indulging her in the hope she won't be vile to them. Except it's being trapped in a country MiL appears to be running, with her flying monkeys in tow.

R0wantrees · 13/02/2020 16:06

So, it is only the Conservatives that appear to protecting single sex spaces.

No the Conservatives havesnt protected women's spaces & in fact under their successive governments most of the public policies such as prisons, NHS wards, schools have been adopted.

Much of the current policy mess can be traced back to Maria Miller MPs January 2016Transgender Equality inquiry recommendations. Miller, the Women & Equality department & APPG did not do due dilligence and were steered by many of the same TRAs now directing the Labour Party.

Prof Kathleen Stock analysis of the failings: medium.com/@kathleenstock/womens-place-talk-full-text-house-of-lords-oct-10th-2018-b1f3d70c4559

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3391330-Prof-Kathleen-Stock-WPUK-speech-at-House-of-Lords-Important-disection-of-the-key-issues-for-MPs-policy-makers-etc-with-ref-to-The-Trans-Equality-Report

July 2017 Janice Turner's interview with Maria Miller MP
(extract)
"Maria Miller gathers up her handbag and makes to leave: “I don’t think I’m happy about this. I think I’ve finished . . . I didn’t realise this was such a stitch-up.” I’ve been questioning Ms Miller about a report on transgender rights she produced last year as chairwoman of the women and equalities committee. The government has just announced that it will go to further consultation this autumn.

Many of its recommendations, to redress hate crime against transgender people, to improve access to NHS services and stop discrimination in employment (as seen in President Trump’s cruel, summary banning of up to 6,600 transgender US military personnel), are widely supported. But one proposal that seeks to change the very definition of “man” and “woman” has far-reaching implications.

Justine Greening, the equalities minister, announced her support this week for changes to the 2004 Gender Recognition Act, echoing calls by Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader. At present a person who wishes to change gender legally must be 18, demonstrate they have lived in their chosen gender for two years, have a diagnosis of “gender dysphoria” (a mental disorder whereby a person feels they don’t feel they belong in their biological sex) and be questioned by an expert panel.

The heart of the controversy is the view, espoused by Ms Miller’s report, that switching gender should instead merely be a matter of “self-definition”. A man need only “declare” that he is a woman. Your gender is what you feel it to be: there would be no requirement even to take female hormones or have surgery — about 70 per cent of trans women still have intact male genitals — or even “present” as a woman to be legally female. (Some older trans people are troubled by this, believing that it trivialises and delegitimises their struggles to live in their non-birth gender.)

Furthermore, if the law changes, “gender identity” is likely to become a protected characteristic under equalities legislation: ie if you deny a person is a woman or a man when they claim to be, you are guilty of discrimination or hate crime.

When Ms Miller, 53, released her report in January last year she was surprised that criticism came not from conservatives but, as she put it, “women who purport to be feminists”. This may be because feminists, well versed in sexual politics and long-time supporters of gay rights, are among the few people who can penetrate the arcane, confusing terminology.

Many see potential loopholes and conflicts of rights that put women at risk, giving men access to rare female-only spaces such as single-sex wards, changing rooms and domestic violence refuges, designed to keep them safe and private. Maria Miller gathers up her handbag and makes to leave: “I don’t think I’m happy about this. I think I’ve finished . . . I didn’t realise this was such a stitch-up.” I’ve been questioning Ms Miller about a report on transgender rights she produced last year as chairwoman of the women and equalities committee. The government has just announced that it will go to further consultation this autumn.

Many of its recommendations, to redress hate crime against transgender people, to improve access to NHS services and stop discrimination in employment (as seen in President Trump’s cruel, summary banning of up to 6,600 transgender US military personnel), are widely supported. But one proposal that seeks to change the very definition of “man” and “woman” has far-reaching implications.

Justine Greening, the equalities minister, announced her support this week for changes to the 2004 Gender Recognition Act, echoing calls by Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader. At present a person who wishes to change gender legally must be 18, demonstrate they have lived in their chosen gender for two years, have a diagnosis of “gender dysphoria” (a mental disorder whereby a person feels they don’t feel they belong in their biological sex) and be questioned by an expert panel.

The heart of the controversy is the view, espoused by Ms Miller’s report, that switching gender should instead merely be a matter of “self-definition”. A man need only “declare” that he is a woman. Your gender is what you feel it to be: there would be no requirement even to take female hormones or have surgery — about 70 per cent of trans women still have intact male genitals — or even “present” as a woman to be legally female. (Some older trans people are troubled by this, believing that it trivialises and delegitimises their struggles to live in their non-birth gender.)

Furthermore, if the law changes, “gender identity” is likely to become a protected characteristic under equalities legislation: ie if you deny a person is a woman or a man when they claim to be, you are guilty of discrimination or hate crime.

When Ms Miller, 53, released her report in January last year she was surprised that criticism came not from conservatives but, as she put it, “women who purport to be feminists”. This may be because feminists, well versed in sexual politics and long-time supporters of gay rights, are among the few people who can penetrate the arcane, confusing terminology.

Many see potential loopholes and conflicts of rights that put women at risk, giving men access to rare female-only spaces such as single-sex wards, changing rooms and domestic violence refuges, designed to keep them safe and private. It is these concerns I put to Ms Miller in her Basingstoke constituency." (continues)

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/2993425-Maria-Miller-interviewed-by-Janice-Turner-full-text

moggiemonster · 13/02/2020 15:47

Am I alone in wondering whether I have missed something and am wrong in my views? I can't get my head around why people are performing such mental gymnastics. I don't know what to say, so many friends (educated middle aged professionals) don't see the erosion of any distinction between the sexes as a problem - no issues in cycling and rowing between men and women I have been told. I am seriously wondering if I am missing something. There doesn't seem to be a middle ground or grey area it is one extreme or the other. Life isn't like that. So, it is only the Conservatives that appear to protecting single sex spaces. I have given up trying to discuss outside of MN. My union's SM posted about a child's medical transition and this was seen as positive. But yet we're meant to be on the watch for FGM. Is it only me who can't see the hypocrisy?

R0wantrees · 13/02/2020 14:45

Thu 18-Oct-18 OP (I) wrote, 'Stephen Whittle influential TRA asserts 'We know we have Labour behind this one, so will simply do our best to get them elected' & Corbyn seems to confirm this at Pink News'

(extract)
"Yesterday on a thread condemning Stephen Whittle's use of predicted suicide, he joined and commented confidently:

In the end we will pull ourselves together and continue the campaigning – as we have always done. We know we have Labour behind this one, so will simply do our best to get them elected. As I tell the community “we have always lost more battles than we have won, but we only ever need to win the big one”.

I hope that clarifies matters.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/a3397010-Guardian-article-on-MPs-concern-with-GRA?msgid=81891984#81891984

Last night at Pink News party, Jeremy Corbyn apparently confirmed Whittle's belief:
'PinkNews Awards 2018: Jeremy Corbyn vows support for transgender reforms' (continues)

thread: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3398127-Stephen-Whittle-influential-TRA-asserts-We-know-we-have-Labour-behind-this-one-so-will-simply-do-our-best-to-get-them-elected-Corbyn-seems-to-confirm-this-at-Pink-News

Ereshkigalangcleg · 13/02/2020 14:31

I agree, he's lying. He's being disingenuous, like when he switched from talking about "trans women" to suddenly (when no one was talking about them) give the typical TRA example of an FTM trans person when it came to toilets. Because he knows that males in women's toilets doesn't play well with most people.

Michelleoftheresistance · 13/02/2020 14:23

He knows exactly what it means. He's lying, deliberately, loudly and vigorously, aiming this at people not in the know who are wondering, in Jane's words, what women are making a fuckton of noise about. His hope is that they'll go 'oh just a bunch of feminist harridans, it's fine' and wander off again.

Then once self ID has been forced in under the cover of such lies, he'll look smug when people say 'but you said...' and point out it's the law and too late now. And we've always been at war with Eurasia. And it's hate speech to question.

We've seen these tactics over and over and over, they're absolutely intentional. Not innocence. Not stupidity. It's to achieve the wanted aims under cover before anyone has time to realise and protest.

We have to point this out, over and over and over again, that he is lying and here is the evidence, and not let it go in despair. No matter how bloody irritating his beard and sulky glares are.

PronounssheRa · 13/02/2020 14:14

mobile.twitter.com/lloyd_rm/status/1227668323862798336

LRM confirming he hasn't got a fucking clue what self Id actually means. How have we ended up with such inept politicians.

Angela Rayner says you can only be a Labour member if you believe TWAW
AlunWynsKnee · 13/02/2020 14:08

A pledge you say littlbrowndog? Why, let me get my crayons...