To encourage Ocado shoppers to read this

[Estellesylvia]

If you are an Ocado customer, you should be aware that they consider defining ‘woman’ as an adult human female to be hate speech and not ‘in line with their values’.

They threatened to pull advertising from Primesite unless Primesite took down a billboard with the OED definition of woman on it.

They have received hundreds of complaints from women since, but have refused to apologise.

Just in case you might want to consider not giving your money to a company who consider the word woman to not be in line with their values.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3376466-ocado-boycott-after-support-of-primesight-action

And if you do decide to boycott, tell them why.

Tell you what is not refreshing - all the men slagging off MN all over social media but constantly monitoring and posing as women to post here.

I am amazed this hasn’t been picked up by the press. What a PR fuck up for Ocado.

Who do they think they are? Seriously. I hope Daylesford are in talks with other suppliers.

I am amazed that the social media departments of big companies haven’t yet learnt that anything you say on this matter will cause huge offence. The best thing for the companies is to say nothing- nada, ziltch, radio silence. If you use a billboard company or a ad agency or a media platform which one or other side has decided is leaning the other way, the sensible company shuts up and ignores. It blows over quickly that way without these shitstorms which do neither side any good.

I think most, if not all, of the handmaidens are men.

Women are people who self-identify as women.

exactly the sort of circular definition that is utterly meaningless.

It's not meaningless. It very specifically means that the terms 'women' and 'men' are just social labels like 'goth' or 'christian'. It means that 'woman' has nothing to do with biology and is just a set of beliefs and fashion choices. This is the stated goal of this group who got the poster removed.

What puzzles me is:

1. How can anyone not see that this makes it very hard for biological women to discuss issues which affect them?
2. Does anyone really think society at large will let things reach this point?

And this battle needs to be fought in court - some solid rulings one way or another. The more cases which go that far the better right now.

This attitude is disrespectful imo. It’s like they were saying on this morning, birth defects happen all the time - babies are born with 9 fingers, or clubbed feet or cleft palate etc. The doctors do surgery to fix it and the person is accepted as no less of a person.

To completely dismiss that something may have gone wrong at birth IS bigotry.

Say what?

Firstly people feel dysphoric about various parts of their body. I believe there are Drs who will remove limbs for people who feel distress at having legs. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_integrity_dysphoria

This is not comparable to having a birth defect.

Some people with gender dysphoria may have surgery, but the vast majority of people who identify as transwomen retain male genitals.

Not everyone who identifies as transgender is dysphoric. They may simply like being in women's spaces.

We have sympathy for people with any kind of dysphoria, but that does not need to extent to putting women at risk or stating the definition of woman is offensive.

Woah I’ve learnt a few things on this thread! I didn’t realise that there could be such a thing as a lady dick?! Really?!

I’m not shopping there from now on.

Oh aye, delightful bunch.

I find using the words hysterical, transphobic and T**F concerning. A discussion can be had without resorting to name calling. As an aside, calling women hysterical when they have the audacity to speak up, has roots in misogyny.

Women have rights because of feminists, the right to vote for example.

Standing up and saying the right for any man to be able to declare he is a woman and get a birth certificate just because he said so is wrong and dangerous, is not hateful; it is about protecting women's hard won rights.

Why do women need these rights and protections in the first place?

We all have choices, I choose to have a woman carry out my smear tests and mammograms. If I am ever in a position to need personal, intimate care carrying out, I have the choice to request a woman to do this.
I don't want to lose these choices.

Surely the hysterical ones are the ones forcing the removal of the poster, not the ones objecting to its removal?

I think most, if not all, of the handmaidens are men.

I agree with Dworky.

Tortoise, if you are feeling brave, google girldick.

Lots of illuminating stuff including many invitations from transwomen to women to suck on their girldick.

One that particularly stands out is a 15 year old being told she would be raped with that particular TW's girldick.

But yes, the most oppressed and marginalised group of people who ever lived.

Interesting how the billboard was frightening enough to be taken down, despite the fact that it simply gave the dictionary definition of a woman. Six words. Consider the way biological women are portrayed in the media, how that may make them feel, & how frequently the (often offensive) adverts are pulled. We are expected to just get on with it, because we are used to being objectified. It's all part of being a woman - you don't get to cherry pick the fun bits.

Surely the hysterical ones are the ones forcing the removal of the poster, not the ones objecting to its removal?

Testerical.

It was a gay man who objected to women being able to post a definition of women.

I realise we're on the same side, DonQuixote but I am going to disagree. Yes, our opponents want to have "woman" as a social construct rather than a biological reality. But even social constructs are not arbitrary. Take "being a Christian". People were killed in their tens of thousands in the Middle Ages over being the "wrong sort of Christian", i.e. a heretic or schismatic.

Social construct doesn't mean "arbitrary, anything goes."

Which is one of the central flaws in self ID legislation. Its supporters say "well, making a false statutory declaration would still be a crime" - but without an actual definition that goes beyond "because I self ID as one", there is no basis under which it could be deemed a falsehood. Yet at the same time they're almost always the first people to dismiss the Karen Whites of this world as "not true trans." Again, without a definition.

Contrast this with another social construct with real world consequences - nationality. I can't rock up at the passport office and say "I self ID as British, give me a passport." I have to show that I meet the (socially constructed but nonetheless verifiable) criteria for having a British passport.

"Social construct" does not equal "anything goes" so those in favour of self ID need to supply society as a whole with a workable definition which makes it fit for purpose in legal contexts.

Do you think that tarring all transwoman with the same brush, basically as ‘dangerous’ to women and their rights are actually doing your cause any favours?

Do you ever stop and think that maybe you would be taken more seriously if you were more accepting and understanding of dysphoria as a whole and genuine trans people but we’re against self ID or campagned for the right to be able to request a biologically born woman in intimate situations instead?

By simply putting constantly that all trans woman are dangerous, you are ultimately being seen as transphobic to others as many people (myself included) will have childhood friends for example who are trans, who will see the billboard and the obvious meaning behind it as hurtful and upsetting to them and be unable to understand why you’d want to inflict that pain on someone who’s gone through a terrible time and just wants to get on with life and be accepted.

That posie did the cause no favours, that’s for sure. I hate India willoughby but found myself on her side on this morning for once.

Earlywalker, where were the posts tarring transwomen with all the same brush, please?

The emphasis has been on how women are defined. The current question though, and the one the Government are currently consulting on, is who should legally be considered a woman.

It would be interesting to understand how babysharkmother, Ocado and other describe "trans" and hence "transphobic". For starters the Stonewall definition is:

Trans people may describe themselves using one or more of a wide variety of terms, including (but not limited to) transgender, transsexual, gender-queer (GQ), gender-fluid, non-binary, gender-variant, crossdresser, genderless, agender, nongender, third gender, two-spirit, bi-gender, trans man, trans woman,trans masculine, trans feminine and neutrois.

Many reasonable people are OK with the idea that those with those with genuine, professionally diagnosed, gender dysphoria might in many/all situations be considered as women. However quite a lot of people will struggle with the idea that anyone on the Stonewall list above would be able to self-ID as a woman to gain access to women's protected spaces such as prisons (Ian Huntley apparently now identifies as a woman ffs), womens refuges, Girl Guides and so on.

For whatever reason though, people like Ocado and babysharkmother seem to want to shut down through denial or insults. This is is a huge topic for society, and one that needs to be debated. Even on a small scale, for every transgirl who might join the Guides, there will be lot of girls wanting female only spaces (those from conservative communities, teenagers who are not body confident to share sleeping spaces with male bodied peers, victims of abuse etc) who don't. It really is not for a food delivery service to occupy a moral high ground, deny the dictionary definition of women, and to try to shut down the debate.

The Government consultation is here

www.gov.uk/government/consultations/reform-of-the-gender-recognition-act-2004

Tortoise - while you're at it have a look at the cotton ceiling. It's the reason for the lesbian protest at pride.

Here is Dr Adrian debating with Posie Parker, who put the billboard up.

Ladies, pray that Dr Adrian is never your gynaecologist. He does not seem to know what a woman is, unfortunately.

All transwomen are not being tarred with the same brush. Transwomen have been accepted into women's spaces for many years.

The right to sex self ID is what is problematic.