What should a politician say re: TWAW

[quote UsernameNotAvailableHmm]@JKRfan
@cherryonthecakes

TWATW is the most diplomatic thing to say. Women are 50% of the population while trans people are 1% of the population. Assuming that TW are half of that then it's between annoying 50% or 0.5%. If you want to be in power then the choice isn't difficult- you want to keep the 50% on your side.

But they don't seem to care about this obvious logic of how many votes they are likely to get, so we need to be very suspicious as to why this is the case.

Maybe they look at it like this:

If all the political parties disregard women and children's rights, then women who need or care enough to want safeguarding and single sex spaces will have no party to vote for.

Women can either not vote at all or, if they do, will be voting against their right to have safe single sex spaces ...[/quote]
Quote Username *If all the political parties disregard women and children's rights, then women who need or care enough to want safeguarding and single sex spaces will have no party to vote for.

Women can either not vote at all or, if they do, will be voting against their right to have safe single sex spaces ...*

At one point under Theresa May(Justine Greening now no longer an MP) it was almost this position but the Tories deciding not to implement self-id, alongside their MPs being freer to say what they really think on issues, means that rather than spoiling ballot papers, voters need to reward the Conservatives for realising the dangers at the last moment. Anything else is giving whoever is behind this what they seem to want
: the actual effective disenfranchisement of women hardly a 100 years since we got the vote.

@UsernameNotAvailableHmm I am beginning to think this is all a deliberate attempt to disenfranchise women.

They can’t actively remove female suffrage, but they can make it impossible to vote.

Therefore I’m voting Tory, against instinct and nature, as at least they have not bought into this wholesale.

First we were women, then females, then ‘biological females’, then ‘natal females’. It doesn’t matter how many words activists try to take, the category of people conceived as, born as (and therefore remaining) female exists.

@JKRfan
@cherryonthecakes

TWATW is the most diplomatic thing to say. Women are 50% of the population while trans people are 1% of the population. Assuming that TW are half of that then it's between annoying 50% or 0.5%. If you want to be in power then the choice isn't difficult- you want to keep the 50% on your side.

But they don't seem to care about this obvious logic of how many votes they are likely to get, so we need to be very suspicious as to why this is the case.

Maybe they look at it like this:

If all the political parties disregard women and children's rights, then women who need or care enough to want safeguarding and single sex spaces will have no party to vote for.

Women can either not vote at all or, if they do, will be voting against their right to have safe single sex spaces ...

Another dilemma is this:

If we decide that a woman is simply anyone who wants to be one (an empty concept, of course), then we also have NO NAME for the group of people who are biologically female.

So what is the new name for that group?

If we had one, it could have been used in that BBC endometriosis article and it would have covered the group which contains almost all cases where endometriosis matters as a health disorder.

And if we had one, we could continue collecting data on the female sex and how it is treated (Afghanistan) and we could fight against sexism and misogyny.

As things stand, we are losing our ability to do any of that, never mind getting our biological sex erased.

But this problem is, of course, exactly the goal of trans activism. They don't want just a seat at the table; they want our seat at the table.

I think that the Labour/trans debacle could be this decades PIE. Read up on it if you've never heard about it:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paedophile_Information_Exchange

* I would like to make it crystal clear that I am NOT equating all trans people with paedophiles. I am merely comparing 2 things that are unacceptable to most people - paedophilia and intact men dressing as women, to gain access to single sex places/complete against women in sport etc *

Back in the day PIE managed to wheedle their way in to politics and the NCCL (now Liberty). I think this extract from the Wiki page is very telling, especially the last line:

"A number of senior Labour Party politicians were linked in newspaper stories to PIE in December 2013, and again in February 2014, as a result of their involvement with the NCCL at the time of PIE's affiliation. The party's deputy leader, Harriet Harman, had been employed by NCCL as an in-house solicitor and met her husband, the MP Jack Dromey, then a member of NCCL's executive committee, while working in this capacity. In addition, Patricia Hewitt was NCCL's general secretary for nine years. The former chair of PIE, Tom O'Carroll, claimed the three had not attempted to expel PIE out of fear for the impact this might have on their careers at the NCCL"

‘ What I think is interesting about the evasiveness is that it suggests they haven't fully bought into the philosophy of TWAW. If they had done, they could simply say yes, it's possible to have a penis and be a woman. Or they could say that a woman is anyone whose inner sense of gender identity is female. Why don't they say that? Presumably because they realise it's nonsense. Or they realise that the majority of the electorate will consider it nonsense.’

It’s the last bit.

I don’t know. I suppose because the activist group among them have narcissistic tendencies?

They could just say "adult human female" which is the dictionary definition and perfectly correct. There is an obvious follow-up question, which is "are trans women female?" or "Can you be a woman if you have a penis?" In which case I would say something like "According to the law yes, under certain circumstances; according to biology, no."

What I think is interesting about the evasiveness is that it suggests they haven't fully bought into the philosophy of TWAW. If they had done, they could simply say yes, it's possible to have a penis and be a woman. Or they could say that a woman is anyone whose inner sense of gender identity is female. Why don't they say that? Presumably because they realise it's nonsense. Or they realise that the majority of the electorate will consider it nonsense.

So why does the matter hold such sway, for such a tiny percentage?

Sounds more realistic.

I've seen 1% quoted in the news but my life experience suggests that its probably less than 0.01%

Cherry:

With regards to 1% of the population, I don’t think I’ve seen more than three TW in my life. Nowhere near 1/100 people are trans. I don’t count kids exploring their ‘identities’ in that conclusion. But people actually transitioning are very rare.

Boris at PMQ
"'We must recognise that when people want to make a transition in their lives, that they should be treated with the maximum possible generosity and respect, and we have systems in this country that allow that and have done for a long time, we should be very proud of it.
'I do want to say in addition that I think when it comes to distinguishing between a man and a woman, that the basic facts of biology remain overwhelmingly important.'

If the bumbler can do it, so can the others.

I said this on another thread (nb it's not my own stance but what I think politicians are trying to make out?):

Kind of wondering why people don't answer the 'what is a woman' question with something like 'in most cases it's a female adult but can also include people who aren't biologically female but whose mental health depends on them being treated as if they are, and can exclude people who are biologically female but prefer not to be called a woman'.

That's woolly yet accurate enough isn't it, as a really broad definition to just have something to say that isn't hugely offensive? Or is that actually offensive to TWAW people (bringing mental health into it/ the fact they're not biological females)?

AFAICT - and happy to be corrected - it sort of reflects what people mean when they don't agree that it's 'adult human female'. Plus it also leaves the indefinable 'gender' out of it.

TWATW is the most diplomatic thing to say. Women are 50% of the population while trans people are 1% of the population. Assuming that TW are half of that then it's between annoying 50% or 0.5%. If you want to be in power then the choice isn't difficult- you want to keep the 50% on your side.

Most of the responses on this thread are doing the placating TRA bit and frankly I am sick and bloody tired of everything having to be caveated with that.

As another poster said just rip the plaster off and state clearly and unequivocally that TW are not women, those TW with a GRC have the 'legal' fiction that they are but that is all it is a legal fiction and does not and should not override biological sex and the protections that requires.

But and this is a big but.....there is no point in stating what would be an acceptable form of words and all the voters falling for this u-turn, if they then go and pass law achieving something different such as a TW is a W so can access women's spaces.
We need to be very careful about what they really mean by what they say.

They should also (if they ever want my vote again) add that they are also keen to investigate the sudden massive spike in girls and young women trying to 'identify out' of womanhood and the role played in this trend by social media immersion and online porn, something their generation did not have to contend with as teenagers.

Also the answer to a question about women's sex based rights is NEVER 'Trans rights blah blah blah'