Jess Phillips appointed a minister to focus on tackling violence against women and girls and domestic violence.

Do transwomen commit male violence?

If you can't define red, does it stop your favourite toothbrush being red? 🤔

#disappearsintonavel

It is my actual point.
Doesn't matter if women are called non-men, snargles, cis-women or even just people. The reality is they are disproportionately victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence, men are disproportionately offenders.

Take action against the crimes and women will be protected and male offenders will be prosecuted. Regardless of what we call them.

I prefer to focus on the outcome over the method. Wanging on about "what a woman is" in the case of VAWG is pedantry that doesn't contribute to the outcome.

Not the case in other issues affecting women (such as single sex spaces) but I guess that's why Labpur have split the role. Annaliese Dodds/Bridget Phillipson get to do the "what a woman is" and safeguarding bit. Jess Phillips gets to do the reducing VAWG bit.

Very sensible.

As I say. Enjoy your argument in missing the point.

If you struggle with the concept of law and the importance of definitions in ensuring fairness and justice in lawmaking I'm sorry I can't help you.

You inability to do this, doesn't stop us arguing the case with people who can and those responsible for law making.

Yes that makes perfect sense.

As usual you don't pick up on the actual point, you make a totally irrelevant straw man argument because hell, that equates to law making.

Good o.

Enjoy your argument.

And does any of this stop Lord PlinkyPlonk sentencing the violent person in court? Does any of it stop the justice system being updated to more effectively protect victims of sexual and domestic violence?

I don't think it makes much difference at all. Ironically because I'm a GC feminist. The words we use don't affect the reality which is men-as-a-class are the vast majority of domestic and sexual abuse offenders and women-as-a-class are the victims.

Lord Justice Plickyplonk is making a legal judgement about male violence. But Lord Justice Plickyplonk, can't clarify whether the feeling of the victim makes them a woman by law or whether the perp is a woman by law or not.

Lord Justice Plickyplonk then cant rule whether it's a hate crime under the New anti Misgynogy laws or not. Because Lord Justice Plickyplonk requires legal definitions. Defendant gets a fine and a mild telling off. The victim fears leaving the house.

Meanwhile Lord Justice Oink seems that anyone who says they are a woman is a woman. Therefore the 6'8" womanly perp can't be done under the New Misgynogy laws for hitting the 5'0" bloke. Defendant walks free.

And Lord Justice Squeaky defines men and women on the basis is sex alone because New Law is so wooly and the victim in this case can afford a bloody good solicitor to make the case that the perp is a lying twat. Lord Justice Speaky throws the book at the defendant.

So 'justice' in a world of fudge and lack of definition is just great and completely fair and equal.

Sounds bloody great.

If you can't define red, does it stop your favourite toothbrush being red? 🤔

#disappearsintonavel

Yes and for Jess Phillips she's specifically said she sees the trans issue as separate from her work in helping vulnerable women:

"I feel totally comfortable speaking out about women - sometimes when I talk about women that means different things. I am capable of holding two ideas in my head at once … I believe in single sex spaces for biological women, prisons, refuges, etc. - 100 per cent."

"The idea that I am meant to parrot 'transwomen are women' as a slogan is fucking meaningless."

"It should not be beyond the wit of man to protect women's biological sex spaces and provide different spaces for trans people."

This is from an interview earlier this year. I don't see anything to worry about in her appointment to this role. She gets it.

"What is purple?"

"Purple is a concept that isn't defined. My favourite colour is red."

"So how do you know red isn't purple if purple is a concept that's not defined?"

"Red is one of the other colours. Why are you being so stupid?"

"...."

It does matter, it is emotional abuse. Questioning someone's reality, indicating them speaking about their experiences is wrong, denying someone's lived experience and perceptions and expecting them to lie, these are characteristics of coercive control.

This is what I was saying.

Also, if we looked at the profile of those being told all their lived experience is wrong and they have to lie, we'd find it was disproportionately female people and children being told this. Not men.

Erm. No.

Where does this leave wives? Where does this leave children?

Have we had a study on the physiological impact on close relatives told their existence is a lie and their memories and their own identity formation doesn't matter because someone else says so, and if they get It wrong they are a hateful bigot?

Identity formation is not purely individual. It is also shared particularly amongst close family members. It is about how we relate to others too.

A girl who has grown up with a brother has those lived experiences - and is rightly or wrongly shaped by that. To suddenly say that her life experience is invalid and she must now tell everyone she had a sister doesn't work. She lacks that lived experience and ability to relate to other girls who have sisters.

This stuff actually does matter.

Perhaps the middle ground would be to bring in self ID but also strengthen the Equality Act to clarify that sex means biological sex and make the single sex exemptions mandatory rather than optional in certain circumstances.

Schroedingers GRC innit.

And why are we being told by Stonewall and Labour that the wording of the equality act means what they say it does not what others think it does because they have different understandings of the law.

My understanding of Labour's position is that it says the Equality Act 2010* *means what it says it means, i.e. that sex is binary, either male or female - hence the fact that they don't believe it is necessary to amend it, because it makes it perfectly clear that they are different. It very deliberately separates out gender reassignment as another protected class because the sex of trans people does not change. Certainly Starmer was saying that in the debates in the run-up to the election.

Also, why is self ID needed if getting a GRC is already not necessary for the purposes of accessing single sex spaces for the opposite sex, and you can't be asked to produce yours or even be asked if you have one?

Why does the equality act state protected characteristics of sex AND then a separate one for gender reassignment including those who have a GRC or are in the process of getting one as DIFFERENT if they are one and the same?

Why does the Equality act allow explicitly for exclusion in certain situations relating to sex if these are the same thing?

And why are we being told by Stonewall and Labour that the wording of the equality act means what they say it does not what others think it does because they have different understandings of the law.

And why is self ID needed if you can already say well I'm going through transition even though I have no intention of getting a GRC but I deserve the same rights to those who go through the process despite the law.

I mean it's almost as if people are deliberately trying not to see the cluster fuck this has become because it's a bit inconvenient to their political views. And to hell with fairness.

Quite.

I've said it before but it bears repeating.

Either you believe that "women" means "female people".

Or you believe that "women" means "most female people, including those who identify as female or do not believe they have a gender identity, but excluding those who identify as something other than female, plus some male people who identify as female".

If you believe the latter, I have two questions for you.

1. What is the word for "female people"?
2. What is the purpose of the latter category?