To think its Theresa and the Tories forever now.....(weeps!)

[SuitedandBooted]

Given that Labour can't even decide what a woman is, or follow their own bloody policies. Perhaps Maria Miller MP should change to their side..., why should anyone give a thought to 52% of the population after all?

For those who missed it, David Lewis did this to make a point;

blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/05/meet-the-man-standing-to-be-a-labour-party-womens-officer/

Personally I'm of the opinion that a woman is an adult person of the female sex, but then I'm not a "woke" Brocialist tosser.

Things have now moved on to this, as Labour was VERY cross with him, as he clearly wasn't being Trans enough . After all, they already have a male-born woman's officer (no surgical changes/hormones etc) who has come out as a lesbian - that's sincerity for you!

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3256772-Guess-how-I-got-suspended-from-the-Labour-Party

Dear Jezza, I wouldn't trust you and your pals to run the school fete.

I agree with Stripy

Tru I am aghast. I didn't fully understand the stance of GG even through I signed my name on the open letter to them. They literally see no possibility of this policy being attractive to abusers?!

Who are these idiots making decisions?

Tru i kept hoping the GG must just be terribly misguided (see what I did there ) but with good intentions Clearly I was very very wrong but I cant even begin to understand what the driving factor is ....

They literally see no possibility of this policy being attractive to abusers?!

The Trans Rights Activists line is that transwomen are women.

If you say predators might take advantage of Self ID, they say you are basically saying ALL transwomen are predators. Which makes you a bigot, and you can expect to be excommunicated from your job and woke friends.

Transwomen are officially not a threat to women. any deviation from this dogma is basically akin to racism.

Mentioning that the evidence points to transwomen retaining male pattern violence, or that there are plenty of transwomen in prison for sexual offences doesn't go down well either.

TRAs simply won't engage if you try to point out that we're not objecting to TW in particular - we're objecting to men, in general, and that TW, as a subset of men, shouldn't get a special pass into women's spaces, and more than any men do.

So GG can't write letters home to say a TW is in attendance - because then they have to admit there's a difference, they don't actually see them as real women, and they'll lose their transmaiden cookies.

So, girls get thrown under the bus instead.

If the Girl Guides can't be persuaded to put in proper safeguards, then they will become a target for abusers - that's how abusers operate, ask anyone who works with sex offenders.

And it'll take a scandal (or several) before anything is done about it.

Every now and then they seem to like to give their little echo chamber a walk so they can 'peak trans' the rest of us. It's truly strange to watch a group of feminists align themselves with Jordan Petersen (there are threads praising him in the Feminism Chat board) and call the ECHR and the UN the enemy. In mumsnet feminism board logic the lib fems are in cohoots with the MRAs and they're all out to get women.

That’s hilarious!

You claim to not know what peak-trans means then both have a little conversation full of the usual bull straight from the TRA handbook!

I’ve seen threads on AIBU that the majority of mumsnetters find offensive or totally disagree with. It becomes very clear, very quickly, that many are displeased.

That’s not happening here is it?

Oh and why would they put ‘anti-trans’ in the title? There are quite a few of us who have found a home here on MN now.

‘Anti-trans people? Yes, fucking loads. Shame.’

No. Trans people. There are a lot of us concerned about this new movement that includes cross dressers and fetishists coming under the same protected category as people with gender dysphoria, the attempt to step away from calling it a mental health condition (when the reality is, even with transition, it still takes a mega fuckton of counselling to be at ease in your own body when you have dysphoria)

And believe it or not, many of us don’t want women and children put at risk, or rights win by women to be diluted as the wired ‘woman’ becomes meaningless.

And, yeah. It is hilarious when certain posters pop up on these threads claiming to have no idea about the issues or terminology...and then use it themselves in the same post.

To think its Theresa and the Tories forever now..

Yay, let's hope so.

Because it's all a bit click-baity otherwise

You cannot give services, protections. rights or exemptions to a group you can’t define, whether that is trans people, women, people with disabilities or people suffering discrimination because of race.

Discussion of the loss of the ability to clearly differentiate in law people with a female reproductive system is clearly not just ‘clickbait’ on a site called ‘Mumsnet’.

Agreed merrymouse.

Any discussion around why people aren’t voting labour is going to contain something about self ID, that’s only going to be happening more and more often as people hear about it.

it's a little more annoying when AIBU get loads of similar anti-trans / men threads but it's really annoying when the thread's titles are vague enough to trick the uncaring majority into opening them.

Oh no literal violence!

As an ex-man (not trying to be offensive - assume this is the correct term), are you now less dangerous to women or more so as they don't know you're an evil carrier of a Y chromosome?

Personally? Well, for a start only a blind person wouldn’t know there was a Y chromosome present.

I don’t consider myself a threat to women, I have no desire to intrude on their rights or spaces. And my validity doesn’t depend upon getting other humans to lie to me and themselves.

However, for safe guarding purposes, I am still a biological man. And as a trans identifying male I belong to a class which retains the pattern of male violence.

And, like most decent men and trans women, I am not going to scream NAMALT at concerned, vulnerable women. I accept that a lot of men are violent, commit sexual crimes on a huge magnitude against women and are a threat.

And like most decent sensible men and trans people, I accept that it is not a personal attack against me to say that. The authorities and women themselves can’t tell which one I am by looking at me, it only becomes apparent which camp of ‘man’ you’ve got in your toilet/changing room/girl guiding leader after an incident has happened.

Most people consider that an unacceptable and avoidable level of risk. Hence the safeguarding and sex segregated spaces coming into being in the first place.

Does it happen even with those safeguards put in place? Yes.

Does that mean we should scatter all existing protections and safeguards to the winds? Fuck no.

However, for safe guarding purposes, I am still a biological man. And as a trans identifying male I belong to a class which retains the pattern of male violence.

This is exactly it. And you get it - YOU are not violent. You as an individual are not violent and you are probably zero threat to anyone. My husband is zero threat to anyone - he’s never even raised his voice in all the time I’ve known him.

But you and him understand that it’s not about you as individuals - that as a class men are more violent and so that means we exclude all men. The lovely ones, the saintly ones, the average ones and the awful ones. And that means my DH is subject to the same safeguarding rules as all men. And he understands that and happily obeys them regardless of whether they inconvenience him or not.

The extreme regard for the individual we are seeing now with identity politics is damaging the collective good. That’s a massive issue.

OP here.
Discussion is good, ALL discussion, spread widely, and aired in spaces where it can be seen and interrogated.

I'm not sorry if that is a novel concept to some recently-arrived MNetters (with no previous posting history), but hey, (see below) some people struggle with it (can't think why...... )

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3257819-Michael-Biggs-Sociology-Dept-Oxford-Free-speech-at-Oxford-Do-women-have-the-right-to-meet-to-discuss-legislation

You nearly have a good arguement

True praise from a devotee of Jordan ‘lobsters’ Peterson!

Think self-ID in Canada is primarily about race. I can see the point, you certainly don't want people coming along and saying that you're not First Nations enough to count (or indeed, you're not black enough to be black but that seems fair game on MN as well).

Acceptance in the face of evidence is foolish. A tiny minority of men are as you describe.

Oh of course! It is such a teeny tiny minority’s of men that do those things. Silly me, I can’t see why women would be concerned at all!

What’s that? Two women a week are killed by their partners every year in the UK?

Oh ignore that, it’s obviously just the same bloke being kept very busy.

Then there is the slight issue of the majority of women experiencing some sort of sexual assault, rape, harassment and discrimination.l, usually staring in early adolescence.

Maybe that is the same bloke too?

OH MY GOD! It’s fucking Santa that has been doing all this! That is the only rational explanation, it’s certainly not hundreds of thousands of men raping and murdering women.

And suggesting that ‘gay men take all the drugs and Muslims are all bombers’ is in the same league as ‘men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators of violence and assault on women’ is at best disingenuous and at worst, batshit crazy.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3969807/

Two thirds of all violent crime committed by

I'm asked to believe that no man who wants to abuse women or girls would ever take advantage of self-id - despite the clear fact that they do all kinds of other manoeuvrings to do exactly that on a regular basis and a whole 'safeguarding' culture has grown up to try to combat this.

I'm asked now to entirely throw that out of the window and allow men to do a range of things that put women and girls at risk and told I'm 'transphobic' for objecting.

I'm asked to ignore the reasons why women have had protections based on their sex - hard-won protections - because some men think their feelings about their identity are exactly the same as being born female and some men and women don't understand why this is a very, very bad idea which will set women back by decades and put them all at risk.

And if I ask to discuss this, I'm called transphobic - would be ejected from the Labour party had I not already left - and am threatened with violence by the very men who claim they are not violent.