to let you know how men use the Equality Act to undermine women's spaces

[pisacake]

This is Liam. Liam was a 17-year-old Harry Potter fan (photo here from his Twitter).

twitter.com/iamLilyTM/status/639376063655739392

Liam doesn't appear to have too much interest in running, but nonetheless got very upset that there are women-only runs, in addition to the thousands that are open to men.

He thinks this is similar to apartheid, or Rosa Parks being told to go to the back of the bus. twitter.com/iamLilyTM/status/637324189733666816 (August 2015)

Being kept out annoys Liam. (And a lot of other MRAs alike who get REALLY angry at not being allowed to join, despite their being literally thousands of other places to run.)

But wait! An idea! If Liam says he is a girl, he will be able to go wherever he likes including all those women-only runs he was so cruelly rebuffed from.

After all, at one time the Race for Life was able to be kept relatively man-free, as Cancer Research said:

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120528181520/raceforlife.cancerresearchuk.org/utilities/faqs/who-can-enter/index.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">web.archive.org/web/20120528181520/raceforlife.cancerresearchuk.org/utilities/faqs/who-can-enter/index.html

"Under the Gender Recognition Act 2004 we are happy to accept entries from individuals who possess a female birth certificate or gender recognition certificate. However, as Race for Life is a female-only event we have a promise and responsibility to our female supporters to ensure our Race for Life events are represented by women only. Therefore, if you do not have either a gender recognition certificate or a female birth certificate, we are afraid you will not be able to participate in Race for Life. "

But this didn't last long! The Equality Act 2010 came along and it said

"A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process [of changing gender]". So anyone who is even THINKING about changing gender is protected, and you better be careful about crossing them.

So Raceforlife quickly deleted the requirement for a GRC, and just to confirm this.

twitter.com/CharlotteMedler/status/604486954785357824

"Hey @raceforlife what is your opinion on pre-op women running? Does having a wang mean I can't do it? Let me know, pls."

The reply:
"hello, transgender women are welcome to take part in our events, so we'd love to have you :)"

Message has got through loud and clear to Liam, a few months later Liam says he is a girl called Lily (this declaration isn't really accompanied by any action, though he has had one Gender clinic appointment, where he got some handouts about hormones).

He tells his school. Some people, including his younger sister, are unhappy about his behaviour.

But not to worry, he looks up 'solicitor' on Google, and finds a firm of solicitor who represent teenage Harry Potter fans wanting access to women & girls spaces, completely for free! www.buzzfeed.com/patrickstrudwick/this-trans-teen-threatened-her-school-with-legal-action-to-w Awesome! Free lawyers!Totally no consequences!

Emboldened, he moves on, with his MRA activity, getting a woman kicked kicked out of a neighbouring constituency Labour party:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5087503/All-Labour-officials-local-committee-resign.html

Then he's elected women's officer in his own CLP.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trans-teenager-lily-madigan-voted-in-as-a-labour-women-s-officer-mwchkhzq8

Then people point out that he seems to own a Twitter account with blowjob, rape, Jimmy Savile & curry jokes. He says it's fake then it's pointed out it's dated 2013 so unlikely to be, and finally he blames his younger brother for the acocunt and says his family is racist, sexist and homophobic and that's why he has moved on from them.

www.kentlive.news/news/kent-news/transgender-labour-womens-officer-rochester-817234

Said brother is not impressed and calls him out publicly for throwing him under the bus

twitter.com/madigan_smurf/status/933760359810428928

Lily/Liam is a big fan of Jeremy Corbyn, who for his own part has said that, as a genuine 100% authentic transwoman, Lily/Liam can do whatever he wants. www.facebook.com/MedwayLabour/posts/1506650112756340

As if all these weren't enough, he's now being sponsored for a Women in Leadership programme in by Tris Osborne, a (male, natch) Labour candidate in Luton. twitter.com/cllrtrisosborne/status/934368405993508864

Rosa Parks eat your heart out eh? Look who's got the last laugh now! Silly women wanting a race without men in it!

From the reclaim the night website: Reclaim The Night is a women-only march. Men who would like to support the event are encouraged to join the Men’s Vigil, before joining us at the mixed rally

Interesting

Same link

www.reclaimthenight.co.uk/event.html

All women are welcome at Reclaim the Night, including: women of all colours and cultures, of all religions or none, women of any age, disabled and non-disabled women, heterosexual women, lesbians, trans women, bisexual women, refugee and asylum-seeking women and any other women you can think of! We would love to see you all there. Bring along your mothers, grandmothers, sisters, aunts, nieces, and daughters.

These are more 'women' in women's roles

twitter.com/SusanMatthews/status/934683306741915648

twitter.com/JaxDoes/status/934724501694271490

Plus, you better hope your daughters are rubbish at sport
highschoolsports.nj.com/news/article/6125446999049543832/transgender-policy-gets-overhaul-by-state-athletic-association/

Saga, so why say MTT are there to support women?

Saga, so why say MTT are there to support women

Because there are transwomen and women.

Reclaim the Night does welcome transwomen though. But you seemed to have missed out that bit from your quote.

Saga that comes down to the basic issue here: are transwomen women entitled to be counted as women particularly in issues surrounding biological politics despite any feelings of or disadvantages to biological women, or are they a subset of men and biological women are entitled to maintain boundaries? I believe the latter.

If I thought that a transwoman womans officer truly was passionate about and campaining for rights and politics for all women I would be a lot less worried. However TRA literature clearly excludes all biological politics from being 'women's issues' and Madigan's statements so far indicate that he intends to use his post to support the trans community. I don't accept that as ok. I think it's sadly very likely that his sole interest in reclaim the night and race for life is to prove he can enter any women's space at will. Which makes it about overcoming boundaries and his personal politics, not about giving a crap about the sex he claims to be a part of.

I have a huge problem with that. I won't celebrate narcissistic exploitation of women or erasure of their politics and representation. I'm deeply worried that anyone would.

However TRA literature clearly excludes all biological politics from being 'women's issues' and Madigan's statements so far indicate that he intends to use his post to support the trans community. I don't accept that as ok

It's not ok. If someone is elected to the role of women's officer, then their priority should be about campaigning for the rights of all women. That's their job.

Saga, I was showing how men, of all gender identities, could support women on the march without taking it over.

Owen Jones @ owenjones84
Labour's Parliamentary candidates are currently being selected. Some of those candidates are backed by @PeoplesMomentum. It's asking them to sign up to its code of ethics. That isn't a 'loyalty test' - it's just, er, basic commonsense.

Why are they signed up to Momentum ethics not Labour ethics?

This is in relation to this article in the Observer today:

amp.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/25/momentum-loyalty-test-would-be-mps-labour-corbyn
Momentum loyalty test planned for would-be Labour MPs
Contenders asked to sign contract to back Corbyn’s objectives and party manifesto to win group’s support

I believe this is what they are referring to:
www.peoplesmomentum.com/ethics

Most of it seems reasonable but like everything the devil is the detail and it's notable in its self that Momentum are trying to control (look there is that authoritarian word again) the wider labour party effectively by creating an code which if you don't sign up to it, your politics are not pure enough and you are not committed enough to the socialist cause. It's an exercise in subtle intimidation.

Also this one is the problematic one in the code when it comes to women:

Momentum seeks to reach out across the community and encourages the participation of people who may not have been involved in political activities before. Ensuring the safety and self ­expression of everyone is a priority, especially of those who are often marginalised on the basis of their gender, sexuality, ethnicity, race, religion, class, disability and educational or economic status.

It is open to abuse and interpretation. Women can be perceived to have been involved in politics before but not trans women. This is a distortion.

It can be used by TRAs to extert disproportionate influence to their support, whilst (falsely) professing to be being perfectly reasonable and non threatening. The code of conduct itself is enough to threaten other candidates, over this idea of political purity.

The membership of Momentum its self is small in comparison to the rest of the Labour party.

This power dynamic means a small number of people have influence which is particularly disportionate. How can Momentum hold Labour hostage? Because they largely control the Labour party social media and therefore the message.

Excellent labour party members from top to bottom are falling foul of this because they don't think they should be answerable to a small faction in the party and should be accountable to the many not the few (trumpian politics has a habit of accusing others of what they are guilty of themselves - 'for the many not the few' is a hidden political reversal due to the influence of Momentum).

Bullying and harrassment takes many forms. One of these is asking, why you haven't pledged allegiance to our wonderful cause - look aren't we so reasonable. It's a restriction of freedom and this is what many in Labour are terrified of.

Control, control, control.

And as Jared O'Mara proves, the ethics code doesn't mean a great deal - as long as you follow the script a blind eye will be turned to other things even if it's widely known about. Why was he not subject to the normal Labour Party vetting process before being confirmed as the party's candidate. Was it because he was supported by Momentum?

What is defined as harrassment is being rewritten to suit. Just like all these other things.

Owen Jones, as usual, is trying to explain it away saying this is 'common sense' (ooh ukip were obsessed with that too weren't they). It's an attempt to avoid scrutiny by saying, why are you even questioning this. Move along there is nothing to see here.

Except there is a question mark here that should be scrutinised and pointed out for what it is. About power and control not free and fair debate. It's about trying to narrow Labour's focus not broaden it.

To question this is not to be opposed to socialist goals but to be opposed to a concerntration of power in a small elite group without proper scrutiny. It is framed as being centrists versus 'proper socialists'. This again is about purity. There should be a pluralitist approach here with many with stronger opinions all being heard. They are not. It's dangerous and alarming.

Holy shit Red, that's terrifying. It really is back to the 80s now, but even Militant didn't do this

The Equality Act is being mis-interpreted here. You can still discriminate if there is a good reason to. For example, jobs which are restricted to certain ethnic minorities to increase representation from those ethnic groups.

Another example would be the well known case of the B&B in Cornwall, where the owners wanted to stop gay people from sharing a room because of their religious beliefs. Gay rights trumped religious rights in that case.

And in my view, biological womens rights should trump trans rights. There are very good reasons to have womens' refuges, indeed to protect womens' sport and to protect things like schemes to increase the representation of women in certain professions or eg quota systems for boardroom roles. The idea is not that a man pretends to be a woman and then gets a boardroom role via a quota!

If transwomen feel threatened by men, they can ask for their own refuges etc.

None of this is difficult. It is being made difficult by a small subset of men who are fed up with women having any say in anything and are using the trans arguments to push women back into their box.

"None of this is difficult. It is being made difficult by a small subset of men who are fed up with women having any say in anything and are using the trans arguments to push women back into their box."

But that small sub set of men are powerful.

And women are supporting it too. I don't understand women who, on one hand feel the need for a wonens officer post, but are happy for a man to take that role.

The Equality Act is being mis-interpreted here. You can still discriminate if there is a good reason to.

That wasn't really the point. The point is that the starting presumption is discrimination (very broadly construed) is outlawed.

And TRAs WILL use the law for their ends.

Most people will just roll over rather than risk legal confrontation.

You can not remove biology from politics.

You could build more facilities to accommodate the needs of trans community.

The catch is that politically this is more difficult from a denial of biology altogether.

There in lies your issue.

Here's is Madigan given the simpering treatment in the Sunday Times

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/lily-madigan-im-a-transgender-teen-agitator-imake-an-ideal-labour-womens-officer-2ctxksngx?shareToken=8563fcd1bc2ff2e40ad77936c5b5dce8

He says he asked Labour to 'look into' Anne Ruzylo (reality, he demanded she be sacked immediately and suspended from the party on threat of escalation both inside and outside the party)

Oh look, Liam/Lily has removed/renamed the Twitter account in the OP. None of this ever happened folks, look away now.

Oh look, Liam/Lily has removed/renamed the Twitter account in the OP. None of this ever happened folks, look away now.

A devastating loss for his 24 followers.

I've been thinking more and more about Ed Miliband and others repeated use of the word 'hysterical' to describe concerns about the transactivist agenda and proposed changes to the law.

For those who don't know "hystera" means womb (as also in hysterectomy) and 'hysteria' refers to the theory that the movement (!) of the womb within women's bodies causes women to have emotional outbursts and generally be erratic and irrational. While that might seem an old-fashioned view, it is still a term applied specifically to women to this day to dismiss them ie don't listen to the hysterical women, they are irrational.

In this current debate, we have seen women raising concerns, in the climate of increased awareness of the sexual abuse that women face and the fact 96% of sex offenders are male , of any man being able to access women's changing rooms, refuges, prisons, etc. This includes wanting to discuss the preservation of protections that have already been written into law following rational debate and scrutiny (e.g. exemptions under sex discrimination law for single sex services for rape and domestic violence survivors, for disabled men and women to be able to receive intimate care from someone of the same sex etc)

Transactivists who identify as women have claimed that 'misgendering' them is 'literal violence' and that not getting what they want is 'killing' them.

Despite us apparently all being women together, which group do you think gets repeatedly called 'hysterical'?

These male politicians claim that they believe transwomen are women and that there is no difference. But they can all identify which 'women' were born with wombs/female reproductive systems and are, therefore, hysterical, irrational and shouldn't be listened to and which 'women' need to be taken seriously and promoted into leadership positions.

We used to have a word to call this out (sexism) but, now we're 'all women together', we don't have that any more.

I see no issue with Lily going on the reclaim the night marches (though would much prefer some things to remain female only, it seems reclaim the night is open to male people too). So long as he is not blabbering on about how transwomen are apparently more at risk than 'cis' women and such, which is utter nonsense and I suspect, given what we know of Lily, thats exactly what they would be doing. Given near every statement he has made has been about transwomen.

He tweeted that he hadn't even applied to the Jo Cox programme and that The Times were making it up.

If so, I wonder whether The Times were trying to put the idea in his head?

no the Times didn't make it up.

The Times article was published on the 25th.

This is from the 20th.

twitter.com/cllrtrisosborne/status/932655758315085824

Liam/Lily is an inveterate liar.

I think this is part of a broader thing in society where the bottom line is that men need to have exactly whatever the fuck they like.

So you have the TAs pushing for access for all men (it boils down to) to use women's changing facilities, bathrooms, to be able to apply for women only jobs, scholarships, awards, take up quota places, and to choose to be in a women only hospital ward or prison.

The TAs also for some reason are very interested in having lots of people working as prostitutes. Some have spoken strongly about how good it is for young trans people to work as prostitutes. Why would trans activism be linked to this in any way? They are completely separate issues. Who is main buyer of sex though? Not women. So, it's about men should be able to have whatever they want.

Then we go across to "reproductive rights". I have seen arguments that due to "equality", gay men should have the same "right" to a bio child as lesbians. The fact that semen is a substance that it is not too tricky to obtain, while having a woman carry a pregnancy to term and give birth is a massive task, is neither here nor there. If women are allowed to get semen and have babies, then gay men should be provided with surrogates. The biological difference is ignored. The fact that pregnancy and birth are not a trivial thing for women is ignored. It's "they are allowed why can't we have it too! Snoffair."

A lot of this is a very basic pushback from men. They were OK to "let" us have some stuff, but now we're getting a bit too big for our boots, and they want it back. It's the same as all the men all over the net saying "Equality! Yes! So is women want to be treated the same as men then I can punch women in the face!!!!" and getting hard-ons over videos of women being punched by men. The weird thing is that when it comes to the TAs taking stuff for women, often that women have fought and fought for, and giving it to men, the left are all in favour.

I mean look at sport. Women's sport was underfunded, never shown on telly, deemed by (male) society to be crap, and the only reason to watch it was if the competitors were attractive. Slowly slowly by massive amounts of work women's sport has raised in profile, it's on the telly more, better funded, female athletes are more broadly starting to get the airtime, advertising deals, sponsorship that the men had. It's starting to get traction and as soon as it is no longer "crap" and there is some fame and money to be got, we have men joining in - so they will win and get that fame and money and backing and all the rest of it.

Whole thing is very frustrating.

Agree we end up with 3 classes - men, women (who used to be men), and then the people who don't have a name left so let's call them "non people" which handily is the status in many parts of the world anyway.

He tweeted that he hadn't even applied to the Jo Cox programme and that The Times were making it up.

He is lying.

The Times article was published on the 25th.

This is from the 20th.

twitter.com/cllrtrisosborne/status/932655758315085824

Ah, LOL. 😂. He'll probably get it, too.

It's a sad pass when The Telegraph and The Daily Mail are becoming allies on this issue.

He literally retweeted Clitoris Osborne's endorsement of him

Right here:
twitter.com/madigan_lily

I mean FFS

Well he's blatantly lying then and I can't understand why Labour aren't investigating. How can he lie so openly and no-one is calling him out on it?

I've had it with Labour and I'll be writing to my MP to let him know.