Ed Davy on R4 Today - there should not be safe places for women

Well none of them really. For very different reasons than most of the posters on this board (because a whole variety of people across a wide political spectrum believe in actual reality) but Conservatives do tend to be...ah...conservative.

Radio 4's news programmes today have really been pushing the 'Ed sets out his stall to appeal to disillusioned Tory voters in the south of England' line.

But not the female ones.

51% Ed.....

Vote for us and have no rights! It'll be great!

Radio 4's news programmes today have really been pushing the 'Ed sets out his stall to appeal to disillusioned Tory voters in the south of England' line.

Now call me a cynic but I can't see the people of Kent and Sussex listening to this and thinking, 'This man makes so much sense!'

Of course no one's asked the obvious question either which is does Davy think that male people should be allowed to have places and spaces of their own where biological women can't insist on being too?

Odd that, isn't it?

From what I heard he just stated simply that women shouldn't have spaces free of biological males. There's no other way of being human other than being "biological", males as adults are men.

So what he said is that women should not have any women-only spaces.

It matters not what criteria he is using for which men should be allowed in women's spaces, in principle he thinks women saying no to men should not be respected.

Prostate!!!

Quite jarring to hear him say it out loud but yes, this white man has stated love on the radio that there should be no spaces where biological males can’t go.
Just before 8am.

And vice versa. So an elderly man struggling with prostrate issues will have to consider whether he wants to use a urinal in a unisex toilet.

Oh and the whole 'should female people be considered autonomous humans who are allowed to group and do things by themselves, ever, at all, without male supervision or being required to centre male people at all times?' thing.

Because male supremacist much?

But I hold no hope out of that one being heard either.

You can't assume that eliminating everyone except cis women will ensure safety.

I could say for the eleventymillionth time that it's not solely about safety, it's what we do with the female humans who cannot use mixed sex spaces (and may not identify as the gender identity you're enforcing on them without their consent)

But I've been screaming this into the void for weeks and no one making this point ever seems to hear me.

Possibly I need to add more rainbow emojis.

You can't assume that eliminating everyone except cis women will ensure safety.

I don’t know why or who would identify as ‘Cis’, but unless Ed Davey can explain what ‘trans’ means and who is excluded from that category, he is simply advocating for mixed sex spaces.

Ed Davey on LBC was unequivocal having listened to women's concerns about female single sex spaces being mixed sex and who feel threatened,

"I don't agree with them"

But at least he "listened with patience" so there's that I guess.

Maybe he's going for a new brand of politics when the aim isn't actually to get in Governement but just talk useless platitudes and look completely out of touch with society.

You can't assume that eliminating everyone except cis women will ensure safety.

Around 98% of violent and sexual crime is committed by male people regardless of personal identity.

Female only spaces are low risk as long as they stay that way.

This is great. I only posted this a short while ago on a different thread but it works here too:

That's a familiar line I see trans activists spin around safeguarding all the time MonsignorMirth: if a safeguarding measure does not give 100% protection 100% of the time, it needs to be discarded.

Jaysmith71

Yes, I think for a lot of well-meaning people it's merely the next good cause. More and more people are having their 'They Live' moment when they put on the shades and consider the effects on safeguarding etc but we're a long way from the tipping point yet.

Freespeecher

Because they really think this is progressive and popular, opposed only by bigots who want to bring back Section 28.

Scratching my head at this one. I assumed politicians would be cynical enough to at least obfuscate rather than risk pissing off 50% of the electorate to chase the votes of

[quote nauticant]The exchange in the form of a transcript is present upthread both as free text and as a twitter screenshot (which I posted) GreeboIsMySpiritAnimal.

Alternatively, here it is as a short audio clip on twitter:

twitter.com/Rootsy62654547/status/1438793246449315851[/quote]

Thank you, @nauticant. I've emailed Daisy Cooper (my MP) to ask for her thoughts.

I'm not holding out much hope though, as I know she's met with Maya and some other local feminists to hear their concerns, and stuck very firmly to the party line.

At least what he said was clear, uninequivocal. There should be no single sex spaces in society. There is no argument to counter. That was his statement. It is very easy to explain to any one asking for a Lib Dem vote now the reason why not. The leader was to do away with women's space. He said it on prime time Radio 4. Any women voting now for them, votes for that.

Until this morning, I had no idea who Ed Davy was. But now I will always remember him and what he said.

With this and the Bell ruling I could just cry. I can't believe women and children are so unimportant that we have to tolerate this.

I'd imagine by now Davey will have been told of the decision in the Keira Bell case and will be assuming that in some way this shows that he's on the right side of history after all. Therefore his comments this morning can stand on their own without needing to be explained.

Well, let's see. I think the gloss will come off today's celebrations rather soon.

On the back of Ed Davey’s comments this morning I’ve just cancelled my party membership. I’m aligned with the Lib Dems on many other issues, but I won’t lend my support, even tacitly, to any party that persists in throwing women’s sex-based rights under the bus.

Well done. I made that choice a few years ago. I'd been in the party long enough to remember when it was genuinely liberal.

And it is reaching the stage that we stop thinking about how to get them out and start considering what we can do to keep them in but make them a bit less Tory.

Christ that is a depressing thought. I don't disagree but just can't bring myself to vote for my local (particularly sleazy) Tory MP.

You can only think that transwomen are the most oppressed if you deliberately overlook culturally entrenched misogyny and actual murders of women, the daily sexism all women and girls put up with, and the international phenomenon of femicide

You can only think they are the most oppressed if you can actually explain what ‘trans’ means. It’s a completely subjective concept.

It’s also irrelevant. For various reasons some men are abused and oppressed. That doesn’t mean they are women.