@Theeyeballsinthefuckingsky
Expanding the definition of women to include men, and on the basis of their own declaration which is what Labour unacceptably want to do, destroys any hope of evidence based policy making
I get that. So are you saying it IS more important than whether women can eat, heat their homes and feed their children?
Want to tackle issues around woman’s pay or violence against women or the under representation of women in politics or womens poverty or improving woman’s health? How do you do that when you don’t know if you counting biological women or including men who feel like women? Whose testimony are you listening too - biological womens or men who feel like women?
Well one way you do it is by tackling pay, violence, political representation, poverty and health generally. Women are a subset of people, so the government policies that affect people generally, without being gender-specific, affect women. Less funding for the NHS means women, along with men, get worse cancer care, longer A&E waiting times etc. etc. Weakening of trade unions and deregulation of workplace rights means workers generally - some of whom will be women - get paid less.
Yes, there is a then a whole set of sex-specific issues that of course one wants the government to manage properly, and I get the frustration at having to argue about the very existence of sex in the first place, and why that's a huge problem. But it doesn't negate the general structural economic problems that affect everybody except the wealthy, regardless of what sex they are. The Tories hope that it will divert your attention from those though, and they appear to be right.