Reforms proposes "Women and Motherhood Protection Act"

Disingenuous. I replied to you bringing it up:

No. I replied to another commenter bringing it up & you ran with it.

And I simply said why can't we have both. Which as a female person I think is an entirely valid question.

As I already explained exclusion & division isn't in alignment with left wing principles.

Is it a more nuanced approach to believe that 'Transwomen are Women'? The Trade Unions en masse have badly let their female members down by happily giving away their existing sex-based rights. Refusing to represent the various nurses at Tribunals. They deserve to have zero female members.

Here is the thing. As much as certain people like to believe they are in the left, the left has abandoned not only women's rights, but worker protections like controlling the movement of labour. Not to mention "anti-racist" stuff like preferencing some on the basis of race.

Whereas it seems we now have Reform and the Tories talking about enshrining some important women's rights, recognising the economic value of motherhood, controlling movement of labour, and denying the validity of racial preferencing.

Why is it again that anyone is supposed to be upset about being called right wing?

Indeed.

Disingenuous. I replied to you bringing it up:

At least they have a history of supporting women in the work place.

Single sex spaces 'protecting' women from a few trans people don't have anywhere near the impact on women in the work place that their denial to its access would.

And I simply said why can't we have both. Which as a female person I think is an entirely valid question.

If it's such a pointless diversion, why doesn't the Left simply say "yes we'll protect the identity and rights of female people as a separate thing to trans identifying men" and take the wind right out of the evil Right's sails?

They have always had the power to do that. And yet they don't.

As a woman, I see that as saying very very clearly where they really place my rights and concerns in the grand scheme.

You spouted your usual misunderstandings about what women on FWR think and why they care.

My engagement was regarding left wing principles & their focus.

Now if you don't mind, could you take your derailing obsession elsewhere?

They go further than just opinions, don’t they?

I agree with this.

I think it's vanishingly unlikely Reform will be the party to deliver it.

Opinions are still 'legal' last I heard.

You were perfectly happy to engage on this until you got an awkward question you can’t answer.

They can’t really “align” with things that are illegal.

Not another thread on trans people.

Why must you centre this issue everywhere as if its the only one & effectively dominate the media space so other more impactful issues are silenced?

Is it any wonder that unions have rejected gender critical demands when they just smother other more salient issues being heard?

This is exactly why the right pursue this issue so doggedly because they know exactly its overpowering & divisive effect to other left wing issues.

I’m in favour of legislation that forces capitalist societies to adapt to the fact that female lives are often very different from male lives and also that the manner in which our society operates frequently disadvantages women while claiming to give them equal treatment and opportunities.

Various threads on Mumsnet show that things like pregnancy, menopause, child rearing, or caring responsibilities can unfairly inhibit women’s ability to live full lives or to have the careers they want.

If a political party has a proposal to address these issues, I’m willing to listen to the proposal. And, at the very least, this new proposal might encourage other parties to reformulate and reconsider their offerings to female voters.

You suspect wrong then.

I can do nuance and difference til the cows come home.

What no one is yet justified is why all that nuance and difference isn't being accepted alongside sex rather than having to overwrite it.

It's not like sex doesn't exist, or have meaningful consequences especially for women. So why the fear of acknowledging that? Why do I as a female person have to be redefined as someone who shares some undefined feminiminity of the mind with trans women just because he thinks I do, whether that rings true to me about myself or not?

I'm not scared of "the other".

I'm scared of the sexism that is necessary for one to believe a transgender personality is a genuine expression of an innate manhood or womanhood of mind in the body of the opposite sex.

I'm scared of that sexism being baked in to our law and culture by entities like governments, unions, employers and educators adopting well meaning adherence to a bundle of progressive sounding values without thinking through what they are actually endorsing.

I'm scared that if we allow the idea that some men are actually closer to being women than men because of how they think to become an accepted "fact", we are opening a back door to bring back all the old shitty sexism about what type of jobs and roles women are good for and what they are not.

I'm scared that if we start to allow the idea that physical sex isn't really a meaningful difference between men and women, we won't then be able to justify needing extra protection or support for the times when our sex really does matter.

And I am very very scared how quickly otherwise rational people switch to "burn the witch" when it comes to any discussion at all on this topic.

Opinions being supported need to comply with principles. The left traditionally has a more nuanced approach to issues rather than interpreting them as black & white. There's more acceptance of diversity, a broader understanding of grey areas & encouragement of solidarity that acts as a bulwark against the right

I suspect the disconnect here with gender critical feminists isn't with unions but the left wing principles that underpin them.

I feed Labour don't even think women should have their own toilets. We can't trust Labour on Women's rights. Hell Starmer doesn't even know what a woman is.

Unions don't take sides per se but are bound by principles that support policies aligning with their greater 'project' which prioritises workplace inclusion, employee safety, and preventing workplace division that creates segregated hostile environments.

Crazy idea - why can't we have protection for women in the workplace and recognition that male people who have womanly feelings are not in fact interchangeable with female people?

Because it's actually sexist as fuck to suggest mens and womens minds are so different that if a man thinks womanny enough thoughts then he is actually a women regardless of the sex of his body.

They do take sides though. You just agree.

Because fear of 'the other' is a more conservative interest that when it comes to trans people is a matter of opinion rather than an objective necessity like access to the workplace that's also contrary to left wing ideology of equality & nuance.

Unions having to represent broad views particularly of the left can't take sides on contestable issues.

At least they have a history of supporting women in the work place.

Single sex spaces 'protecting' women from a few trans people don't have anywhere near the impact on women in the work place that their denial to its access would.