JKR calls Labour's Bluff - Offering Meeting leadership only on her terms

Such a depressing debate with KS. Any decent man who respects women would understand why biological women need single sex spaces to preserve their privacy, safety and dignity and they would be uncomfortable going into a single sex women’s space. My adult ds wouldn’t even go into a Victoria Secrets shop to buy his gf a present that she asked for because it was so intensely female that he felt he shouldn’t be there fgs

How can you be protecting women's rights as they stand, if you won't agree to define what a woman? Or just leave it as an area of law which is causing problems for women?

I know you're commenting on my own post, but it really is important.

The conversation always swings back to 'vulnerable, traumatised men'.

It needs to focus on the women.

And not just what they need or want. Because you then get the old clash of rights conversation. However spurious.

What can never be an attributed to a clash of rights, is the fact that women are being used to validate men. Their very presence is the attraction.

Without them, it's just a space. These men don't want a space. They want a space with women in it.

Important point.

And not only that, these men, and Starmer, require the presence of women in those spaces in order to provide the validation.

Starmer twaddling (thank you Jane) away on radio today: paraphrased:

"I listen and totally understand and value women's need for biological sex spaces, will protect them, and will make it so that poor sad vulnerable men with gender identities get to use them too."

Where the actual fuck do you plan for the women to go who are pushed out of those spaces so those men can express their true inner selves you absolute muppet?

The majority of the journalists are from the same establishment left-leaning circles as the politicians, so most journalists are as far behind and under informed on this issue as the people they’re attempting to question. It’s ridiculous how none of them ever put any proper research into the issues involved 🤬

Completely agree.

Yes. That's why it would be a good question to ask I think.
I know a turning point for my DH is when I simply asked him to explain to me his understanding of why we have sex segregated spaces in the first place.
I think sometimes, asking questions that lead people to conclusions themselves can be helpful

I think part of the answer there, is based in the asymmetry of power between men and women. Men know that if a female comes into their space they can just tell her to jog on or if they have to, shove her out by force, and that she is not a physical threat at all. It's not a thing they worry about.

Men do deserve dignity, privacy provided by single-sex spaces just as much as women, it's just that they aren't worried at all that women will take that away. It's not remotely going to happen.

I'm wondering what it would be like for someone to go a bit lateral on this, and ask KS or other politicians:
"Can you explain the reason why this debate only seems to concern women's and trans rights being in conflict? Why do you think it would be that men aren't expressing any concerns about impacts on them or threats to their rights?"

All good points, but TrAnS aRe thE MOSTY MoST MaRgInAliZZZZed!

Yes. I want someone like Starmer to explain to me, is pity respect then?

Do I owe a man my submission and unconditional enablement the minute he says some magic words?

Because that really won't be happening.

a 30m interview between Starmer and JKR is what we need to be honest, not those other (valid, worthwhile) groups - because JKR will get the clicks and attention and she'd clean up

Relevant current thread by Jane who has just asked KS about women on 5 Live

I'm m asking kier a question about women's rights on 5 live how to phrase it? www.mumsnet.com/Talk/feminism/5107115-im-m-asking-kier-a-question-about-womens-rights-on-5-live-how-to-phrase-it

All good points, but TrAnS aRe thE MOSTY MoST MaRgInAliZZZZed!

What respect? What exactly are they tucking inside that ruddy buzz word?

Are people in balaclavas screaming at women being respectful?
Is the social media sewage about raping and killing women who want their own sex class, words, language, beliefs and spaces being respectful?

Or do they mean that women, speaking on this subject, should be deferential and submissive to the wishes of any male claiming a TQ+ identity?

Is 'respect' (submission, subserviance, deference, co operation with coercive control') something a male commands from women purely due to his TQ+ claimed label?

How 'respectful' is it to require women to accept their language, beliefs and ability to voice the impact upon them of these males to be strictly limited to what the male perceives as acceptable?

How 'respectful' is it to continually be demonstrating that a born male is a much more important and prioritised human over one born female? While lying that binary sex isn't a thing and no one knows what it is?

How can Labour or the Lib Dem's/SNP etc hope to improve public services when, in a very short space of time, public bodies are going to face a huge raft of litigation from those affected. There are potential employment discrimination actions against NHS and government employers such as the changing room nurses, negligence actions against schools, universities etc by girls raped or assaulted in mixed sex school toilets or injured in school sports. Women raped or sexually assaulted in prison .All of this harm is reasonably foreseeable. There is no point increasin public spending if huge sums are going to be paid out for litigation . Not just the huge damages awards for damages sterilised children needing a lifetime of care but the costs of litigation, the loss of staff and management time to litigation. This is bigger than Thalidomide, bigger than infected blood as it does not just involve product liability or clinical negligence claims but employers' liability, liability for the care of prisoners and discrimination as well

Why can't the journalists ask the questions of starmer .. how will you pay the legal bill out of public money for all this ?

Yes! That's exactly the kind of "respect" I was talking about!

The thing about calling for respectful debate is it implies that those of us who’ve been talking about gender ideology for almost a decade now have been acting in an unacceptable manner.

It’s a sneaky both sides dig.

Is that why the Greens have just done another purge of women who aren't acceptably compliant?

We must treat everyone with respect? Does Carla think that includes the ciswomen/cervix owners etc? Must they be respected whilst simultaneously having their words and rights removed. If the greens can square that circle solving the climate crisis should be a doddle!

Justin Webb was roasting Carla Denyer
(Green) on the Cass review this morning. She said some recommendations were good but had concerns about others. Also did the ‘we must treat everyone with respect’ thing that they all revert to when asked about gender.

The Today programme has mentioned gender issues every day this week. I’m guessing that’ll end on 5th July!

Having watched Keir Starmer’s uncomfortable squirming as he tries to answer the question ‘what is a woman?’ I have come to the following conclusions:

1. He really believes a man can biologically become a woman
2. He is beholden to the far left in Labour for whom this is part of the ideology
3. He has skin in the game and may have a child who is trans and whom he is colluding an untruth with All of the above does make him unsuitable to develop national policies in this area

Found a short video from Sex Matters that addresses a frequently asked question here and on Twitter - why do politicians always pivot to talking about trans rights when asked about women's rights...

Presumably that's been done, though? At least at elite level. Pro cycling teams surely have plenty of dosh to sort that. Whether that filters down to the bikes you buy in Halfords, I dunno. I suppose it's much the same with footballer's boots.