To ask for your views on this article about Mumsnet:

[busyboysmum]

blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/02/jeremy-corbyn-has-a-new-enemy-mumsnet/

Mumsnet is fab and full of serious, interesting people talking about serious, interesting stuff. For an increasing number of them, that means gender recognition, self-defined gender and the implications (practical, social, political and philosophical) for women — by which I mean, people who were born female.

Incorrect because opposite to the truth, I mean.

@pedigreeRacer

Andi Dyer just is not convicted. I don’t think the women who were raped children are lying. Lily Madigan hates women and there is a closed Facebook group witch hunting women in the Labour Party. Lily isn’t interested in standing for natal women. That alone considering the position of women’s officer is vile. Bergdorf is highly politicised and in a bad way. Just because I said alleged, it doesn’t make any of it untrue so yes, flimsy arguments.

You just keep drinking the cool aid and sticking your fingers in your ears and spouting rubbish.

I have no issue with genuine transwomen, who want to live peacefully alongside women. But this brand of misogynist I want nowhere near me or my child.

I've spent quite a lot of time studying gendered history and an equal amount of time looking at how policy translates into legislation and I think, as with a lot of political issues, this is one that runs into difficulties over how to convert the acceptable political thought into a sensible policy. At the end of the day that almost always boils down to competing interests over worst case scenarios. So we have what the vast majority of mumsnetters would see as a valid concern that a trans person who believes that they are born into the wrong body needs to be able to live their life and express themselves in accordance with their needs and should be properly protected in doing so. However, when converting that into policies that can be put into place/enacted, it is necessary to think ahead about the hard cases that can either make bad law or lead to abuse. This is where mumsnet seems a mile ahead of Corbyn. Our lived experience as biological women makes us more aware of the issues in daily life where abuses are most likely to occur. In most cases these issues don't lie with the trans community but with those outside it who see an opportunity to further abuse those without a penis and who could be enabled to do so by simply stating, fictitiously that they have all of a sudden (and no doubt temporarily) decided to self identify as a woman. Biological women have an equally valid concern that they are able to live their life and express themselves in accordance with their needs and should be properly protected in doing so. In Utopia there would be no opportunistic abusers and so it would no doubt be possible to protect the rights of both of these groups. In the real world that is not the case and so a tough decision needs to be made over where the line is drawn between these two competing needs. I have no easy answers to this question - nor does Jeremy Corbyn but his time would be better spent in thinking more seriously about it and perhaps getting out of his ivory tower and engaging more constructively with the debate on this issue, which is after all one of the things he is paid to do......

2) No because SINOMALT (statistically insignificant numbers of men are like that)

Studies vary and statistics are flawed. But somewhere around 1% of men are pedophiles and 7% are rapists. Add to that the (very contested) stat that around a third of men would rape if they knew they would get away with it. That doesn't even include harassment, domestic violence and sexual assault that doesn't include rape. All those numbers are statistically significant.

Oxfam, Red Cross and similar are very clearly showing what seemingly lovely men do when surrounded with vulnerable, poor, desperate women.