Ed Davey is just every inexplicably over-promoted, middle-aged bloke mansplaining a in meeting.

His biggest sin was that as Energy SoS in the coalition govt, he was instrumental in winding down our natural gas reserves to serve the ZeroC policy. And we're paying dearly for that in 2023.

It's another indicator of the permanence and reality of sex. Men in general have the privilege of not needing to care about things unless they are personally affected: they don't even have to have them on their radar.

My father was all 'well it doesn't really affect me so why should I be interested' when I first started to talk to him about this. When I pointed out what this meant for his daughters and grand daughters, and he realised about overnight school trips and changing rooms, he was livid and wrote to his MP.

It was not until I pointed out a direct threat to his property/people he cares about that he saw any issue. That was when it affected him. Although a few years on, he's now increasingly fed up with the endless hyperbole and ramming down throats and boundary pushing which also affects him.

Ed Davey is the LibDem's Matt Hancock - promoted way beyond his actual competence.

I thought the point being made is that misogyny is really the last acceptable prejudice, so if asked directly, most men would feel obliged to say they would march in protest if trans people or disabled people were deprived of the right to vote (even if in reality they probably wouldn't bother), whereas for some reason it is more acceptable to admit that you wouldn't actually be that fussed if women were deprived of the right to vote.

Ask them if they would protest if disabled people couldn't vote. Or trans people.

@determinedtomakethiswork What's your point?

(And just for the record I am disabled, as are both my children.)

My point was, even though it would affect the people closest to them (wives, daughters, mothers) a lot of men wouldn't, and clearly aren't, standing up for women's rights - they're just not particularly bothered, even though they might pretend to be.

Also - disabled people are genuinely one of the most marginalised and vulnerable groups in our society. I do not personally believe that trans people as a group are as marginalised and vulnerable, so should not be lumped into comparisons like you've done in your reply to me.

I'm just loving his petulant "...look, I've been very clear on this..."

I would focus less on the how and more on the why.

For example, if toilets and changing rooms should be organised according to the non-physical characteristic of gender identity rather than the physical characteristic of sex, why aren't there toilets and changing rooms for non binary people? Why don't we have urinals in women's toilets for women with penises and sanitary bins in men's toilets for men with uteruses?

If sports should be organised according to a non-physical characteristic rather than the physical characteristic of sex, why gender identity and not star sign or favourite colour?

Ask them if they would protest if disabled people couldn't vote. Or trans people.

If that's true, why didn't Stella Creasy delegate pregnancy and breastfeeding to her male partner, rather than whingeing endlessly about how MPs don't get maternity leave and not being allowed to breastfeed in the House of Commons?

How can I find out what gender the doctor who delivered me decided I was? Because all that is recorded on my birth certificate is my sex.

Every time this mansplaining tosspot opens his mouth he hammers another nail into the coffin of the possibility of me ever voting Lib Dem again.

How dare he? How dare he tell women he knows better than us about what a woman is, and that we are bigots if we don't agree?

Fuck off, Ed, you utter waste of oxygen.

Yeah. Agree with all of that. I guess I am dealing with a conspiracy theory or similar.

So the argument goes something like - while you women are busy arguing about something that in the overall scheme of things isn't that important, politicians and the like are free to make decisions on really important stuff like the economy etc... My argument thus far has been along the lines that it is important and it is a big deal and that it's misogyny in disguise etc... But I don't seem to land my points very well.

The individual does agree that overall it's an issue just that it's a small issue.

It’s fundamental and basic

If they can’t grasp this they don’t deserve to be in

They should sit out until they completely change

And besides, the government ran a public consultation after consulting with transgender rights groups who wanted laws changed to favour men over women.

Was that just a distraction? They are angry about the result of the consultation and are still insisting the government must do what they want irrespective of the outcome. Is that a distraction?

Should we not be distracted and let the law be changed without scrutiny?

^^

All of that.

Sanity, a basic grip on reality, and not suckered in by extremist quasi religious ideologies are three fundamental things I require of anyone who wants to run the country. It's a pretty low bar.

If they can't manage those three things then nothing else they have to say is relevant really.

So did Rishi Sunak and the Conservative party, and people seem to fine to trust them. Some are still prevaricating (as they are in other parties).

If we're going to hold everyone to statements they made months ago and refuse to accept a change of mind, we might as well pack up and go home now!
What are we campaigning for??

It's definitely a distraction, but I think it's an important one to sort out. If the bar is set so low that overriding women's rights with nonsense like "some women have penises" is accepted what's the hope that these people can run a country?

What do people think about the argument that this whole debate about women having penises etc ..is to distract us from the economic mess we are in

Generally I seem to hear this from people who are trying to control what women care about, think about, and talk about.

It's perfectly possible to have several concerns about various issues all at the same time.

So it's a minimising and a deflection.

The two issues that are involved in the question 'do women have penises' are

1. Women's rights - does this politician think they are worth discussing and
2. Honesty/integrity/conviction

To me both of those issues are very important. If a politician doesn't care about women's rights they are not getting my vote, and likewise for the latter point.

@WagnersFourthSymphony that article was hilarious, thank you.

What do people think about the argument that this whole debate about women having penises etc ..is to distract us from the economic mess we are in and other major political storms e.g. war, climate change. Part of me understands that point but then I think actually this trans debate is much bigger than you might think.

I don't understand it. It should not be a political issue and I don't think the Tories have made it one. They did not whip their Scottish MPs and a couple voted to support Sturgeons self-ID bill. Two of their most important appointments in rolling back the madness: Dr Hilary Cass and Baroness Kishwer Falkner, were strong, well qualified and seemingly apolitical. Indeed Lady Falkner was associated with the LibDems for a long time. The Tories have MPs like Caroline Noakes and Maria Miller (and a number more) whose views are different to those of the PM, without the sort of problems that say Rosie Duffield has experienced within Labour. And dialing back a few years, David TC Davies MP was able to put his head above the parapet and question self-ID when no one else dared to do so.

If you look at Rishi's five key priorities for 2023 they address the sort of things Governments should be addressing.

It is those parties who are trying to enforce views that are making the debate political. Yes you, LibDems, Greens and Labour. They too should focus on "its the economy, stupid" policies. Yes the Government should play a role when safeguarding and equalities issues arise, but this is best done by an evidenced rather than ideological approach.

That's argument says that objections to men entering womens sports are unimportant in itself, that the unfairness doesn't matter, when it's just women and not everyone.

And that rapists should be going into women's prisons as complaining is only a distraction from money, women in prison don't matter, only the prices in shops.

Getting a payrise is important, not stopping rapid onset gender dysphoria harming children.

It's rather capitalist of them.

Unfortunately there are plenty of women that say what Ed says.

What do people think about the argument that this whole debate about women having penises etc ..is to distract us from the economic mess we are in and other major political storms e.g. war, climate change. Part of me understands that point but then I think actually this trans debate is much bigger than you might think.

Anyway, grateful for some counter arguments I can use next time I get that challenge.

What we need is unequivocal commitments to protecting single aex spaces on the basis of biological sex.

In old money, women need women's spaces that men can't colonise or invade.

Stuff them

They were all TWAW a minute ago

If only we could believe they mean it.