Stella Creasy says women can have penises

I think part of the issue is that Stella (and probably many of the women at GCC as well) comes from a pretty privileged background. The impact of sexism and misogyny is muted and buffered by the economic and cultural capital of a being white, middle class and with an Oxbridge degree. That privilege allows you, if you choose, the latitude of viewing trans identified men as the most vulnerable group, because your own 'lived experience' of being female is relatively privileged.

What is wrong with these people? Seriously, they might as well preface everything they say with "I'm fucking bonkers, me. Get a load of this one-it's a cracker". They surely must realise that apart from the Koolaid gang everyone else just thinks they are total nutters.

Oh dear Stella you silly billy, I'm so embarrassed for you.

If a baby is born with a penis he is a male and will never be female.

Ok?

Perhaps there's a wriggly baby on her lap, knocking the keyboard

I just had a look. God she's so rude and overbearing.

She always does this on Twitter.
Why Labour politicians think sneering at the electorate is a good thing is beyond me. Baffling. Makes her look like a total idiot.

I agree with this.
She isn’t anywhere near as clever as she thinks, no critical thinking skills, no debating skills. She was so woeful on here that I felt embarrassed for her. Also she is one of the reasons that so many women no longer want to vote Labour.

Actually, I consider trying to protect womens rights a perfectly good use of my time.
But thanks for asking :)

She's really doubling down on Twitter - I'm really surprised at how she's speaking to people, particularly to those who are being perfectly civil. Surely there should be some guidelines that she's required to follow when engaging with conversations with the electorate on social media? * *

I wonder if she is considering standing down at the next GE. It’s a safe seat (I am a constituent, never get a reply and blocked on twitter) but her behaviour this weekend has been shocking, and also seriously extreme (‘hysteria’, ‘I fear for your students’, and no response at all to women who have shared experiences of rape). Is she marching into the gunfire as a gesture before she gets lost? Much more worrying: does she think this will get her closer to leadership? Silly woman, the misogynist men taking Labour down this path will never vote for her, and we will all have left.

she’s repellant.

I have no words for my contempt for her.

She's now accused us of 'hysteria' .. such a feminist. She truly is awful, I absolutely hate how she uses twitter, deliberately creates a twitter storm, then self righteously storms off. She's a gift to the patriarchy, would love for Ben Cooper to interrogate her mad shit views.

Ah, Stella Creasy has responded to JCJ, with a very carefully selected tweet to intentionally misrepresent deflect with - ignoring all the more substantive stuff quoted previously. She'd be right at home in FWR, deflecting like crazy.

Creasy: If you want to stand by them as women then call them women and respect that the law does too. Or even better dont' be Piers Morgan and read more than the headline.....

JCJ: We read it Stella. You said male people are female. You can't blame Piers Morgan for that sounding like mad shit.

Creasy: Hi jane fwiw you were suggested to me as someone who wanted sensible debate on feminism and meant to engage with your earlier messages when had chance. Calling me ‘mad shit’ because we disagree doesn’t meet that test so think best left.

JCJ: It's very interesting to me that you have not engaged with any of the substantive threads I have written that you have also been tagged in which point out to you that your claim about the possible separation of sex from gender identity in data collection - & law more generally - is being made in wilful defiance and refusal to recognise that that is not what is happening, that it is not happening because of policy capture by the trans rights movement, and that politicians like you have completely abdicated your responsibility to ensure that gender identity is not allowed to overwrite sex in law, data collection, or the organisation of public space, and have let that work fall to ordinary women, who have undertaken it at considerable personal cost and risk, while being vilified and intimidated by trans activists.

What seems evident from this exchange, and some of the responses I saw you picked out earlier, is that you are entirely committed to abdicating that responsibility, and, in fact, to colluding with the monstering of the women who have been doing your job for you.

No doubt, with all your feminist credentials, and academic expertise in matters of objectifying and defining women in male interests, remain steadfastly silent on the threats and intimidation that have been rained down on women for asserting the political importance of exactly what you claim 'should be possible.' That is, the separation of sex from gender identity in law and public life, and the continued salience of sex where necessary.

Indeed, you will sidestep this, in favour of picking out a perhaps indelicately phrased yet nonetheless true claim about a fundamental assertion that you have made.

Because male people are not female.

And saying they are is mad shit.

The problem here is that we have people saying it’s transphobic to claim that biological sex exists, or that a man can’t become female by fiat.

If reality is transphobic then what use is the word?

Yep - you need continual double-think. You have to pretend "woman" still means female people (or "fish" still means sea creature) to say things that look like they make sense with that definition.

And people will sort of assume that's what you mean, because clearly otherwise a "fish tank" would be nonsensical - some types of fish would get soggy.

But before you know it, all your snacks are ruined because people are actually putting biscuits in them because that's what was written down, and don't you know trans fish are fish, bigot?

They’ve got roving wombs?

Even the ones with cocks?

‘The only reason the grouping does anything is that you're using the false grouping to hijack existing groups and laws - those created for "women" with the original definition.’

And this.

‘It's a useless word, just like a word for "fish and biscuits".’

This.

So this suggestion that trans can mean woman but not female I don't think is any improvement or any more acceptable in terms of reality or the meaning and use of language than the familiar bald mantra.

Yes, it's a logical dead end. If you have a word for "women who don't have a problem thinking of themselves as women and men who want to think of themselves as women" - what do you use it for? It's a useless word, just like a word for "fish and biscuits".

Why are you grouping those groups together, and why are you separating them from other people?

There are coherent reasons for separating sexes in general society and law.

There are no coherent reasons for separating genders in society and law, any more than star signs.

The only reason the grouping does anything is that you're using the false grouping to hijack existing groups and laws - those created for "women" with the original definition. Similar to the "gay->LGB->LGBT->LGBTQ" hijacking, but even more blatant.

Corroding trust is not clever, especially when you are trying to position yourself as the party of integrity.

Yes, Floisme, exactly.

Nope. Happy to spend much of my time refuting that women have penises. The remainder of my time I spend educating people that the earth isn't flat.

I consider it a public service.

HTH

Thanks, tabby. I'm not on twitter so when I saw a reference to Pike yesterday, I thought of Dad's Army...and gave up trying to make sense of it.
So this suggestion that trans can mean woman but not female I don't think is any improvement or any more acceptable in terms of reality or the meaning and use of language than the familiar bald mantra. As to Stella Creasy's answer, I still have no idea what she meant.

Jon Pike happy to do it. Stella might be busy that day?

As he did with Grace Lavery and Helen Joyce, Andrew Doyle has offered to host a discussion for Stella Creasy and Jon Pike.

I would be happy to host a discussion between [Stella Creasy] and [run think write] on my show.

I would remain impartial and ensure that each side of the debate is given a fair hearing.

Always best to discuss contentious issues in person!

twitter.com/andrewdoyle_com/status/1530497214803591168

Agree. You just know that half of them will try and gaslight everyone into thinking that they were just thinking about the rights of women and girls