To think Labour are not a party for women/girls

[Ikeasucks]

Long-Bailey, Rayner and Nandy have all made public their support of a statement that demands the expulsion from the party of anyone who doesn’t agree with basically replacing current sex based rights/laws/social norms with gender/identity based rights - so if you think women are female, that female sports and prisons etc should be for females etc -then you are a transphobic bigot and should be thrown out of the party.

There's going to be a teacher in there then so not really a problem.

If a girl who has been previously seriously assaulted thinks it's a problem to share with males, then it's a problem. It affects her comfort and her school experience.

I agree that enforced contraception is a crap, misogynistic idea worthy only of a fifth-form debating position between dimwits.

Why does that make it any better that girls are sharing facilities with teenage boys when they don't want to?

Enforced contraception is a red herring. It is not being presented as a serious policy by someone who aspires to lead this country.

A eugenics opinion didn't hold Churchill back,

In the 1950s.......

Anyway, given that the current government had just hired someone who supports mandatory contraception for the lower orders, I think there are other battles to fight.

Hmm, a temporary contractor to an aide, for specific projects, who made some idiotic and unpleasant comment in his personal capacity in the past;

vs

3 (4 if you include KS) people, one of which will become Opposition leader. All of who have publicly stated and reconfirmed their promise to give any males who identify as feminine, the legal right to access female single-sex areas should they gain power.

Yeah, totally the same.

I actually think it is evil for these middle class women to throw working class women under the bus.

Their class doesn't get sent to prison, on the whole.

It’s all women who are being thrown under the bus, this isn’t a class issue.

I think there are other battles to fight.

You cannot fight any battles for women and girls if you cannot accurately name them or count them or record data about them.

We're over fifty percent of the population. The addition of a tiny number of trans women isn't going to change that.

Storm in a Twitter cup

@bingbangbing does the addition of a couple of transwomen in a changing room who haven’t had surgery making a rape survivor feel traumatised mean nothing?

Does a brutalised woman feeling unable to access women’s refuge because she is scared she might encounter a male there and is unable to cope mean nothing?

Does women’s sport being dominated by those with a physical advantage mean nothing?

Does an all woman list being filled entirely by transwomen mean nothing?

I’ve said this before a trans woman can know nothing about being born female, periods, maternity discrimination, being sexualised at a young age, the prevalence of cat calling and being told it’s our duty to protect ourselves from rape.

Transwomen are transwomen. They have their own issues and deserve a voice but not at our expense. It has to be in addition not making women move up.

Alsohuman there is a class dimension. There are not many people in parliament right now who are from a family of 6-9 kids from a Northern housing estate, who think the next town is an alien planet. These people in Westminster’s comfy seats making these statements are not living in the same world as the former.

If the addition of a tiny number of trans women is going to change nothing, why do we have to talk about men taking women’s prizes at all? Why is that percentage representation so much higher?People who make it to the top of sports are limited in number so a similar proportion of trans women getting there should be practically non existent, no? Could it be something to do with the real reasons why they’re vocally screaming to be admitted? One male rapist housed in a female prison is an increase of infinity%, and the percentage of his victims in prison has similarly increased.

We're over fifty percent of the population. The addition of a tiny number of trans women isn't going to change that

How many rapists do you imagine, on knowing that they have the opportunity to self-ID as a woman (and all it will take is signing a declaration, under such a law, no process at all beyond that) might decide that they would prefer to serve their sentence in a female prison? I mean, can you think of a possible reason why a rapist may prefer to be in a cell with a woman rather than a man?

I am not a labour supporter and never have been but I believe in effective opposition.
I can’t get my head around this insanity. They are pandering to a very small number of people . Why? What is to be gained from this ? Apart from turning away millions in the process

The most immediate motive for TRAs is jumping on the bandwagon of being allowed to express whatever opinion or sexual fetish they like, with women being able to do nothing but smile and be kind. It has also been observed that the left, with its general need for ‘somepne’ To do unpaid care work for others, is often highly misogynistic. It’s interesting that it comes to public attention at a time of economic contraction, akin to the general backlash against women following the Second World War when the men wanted “their jobs” back.

It’s also interesting that someone mentioned forced sterilisation. It occurred to me that that is one of the practical effects on girls seeking to change to the male estate (until they start asking for inheritance rights of course), which constitute the silent majority of trans people.

There are not many people in parliament right now who are from a family of 6-9 kids from a Northern housing estate, who think the next town is an alien planet

The relevance of this is completely lost on me. I certainly don’t fit into that very niche category but my middle class women’s rights are being thrown under bus along with those of every other natal woman.

I tend to think that middle class women are more likely to be in contact with middle class men, and are therefore less at risk of violence of all sorts. They live in nicer areas and are given more respect and taken more seriously than lower class women anyway. Also that they are less at risk of economic hardship and less threatened by any economic challenge. Basically they enjoy greater social protections, which is partly why some are so unaware of any need for them. It’s a general tendency, not a hard and fast rule that will always apply.

@ThrowingGoodAfterBad, sorry but that’s all kinds of bollocks. Middle class men are just as capable of dishing out domestic violence, financial and emotional abuse as any other man. You really have no idea.

Maybe. You certainly never know what’s behind closed doors. The lack of economic threat is true though.

Not necessarily. Middle class women can lose their jobs, fall ill, have life changing accidents, nobody’s immune from shit.

ThrowingGoodAfterBad that is truly bollocks. You are basing your statements wholly on stereotypes.

I mean, can you think of a possible reason why a rapist may prefer to be in a cell with a woman rather than a man?

Child rapists should have the right to be housed in womens prisons too. Some womens prisons have mother and baby units.

Nothing to see here though, bigots.

I worked in a male prison who had a male prisoner transitioning to female, he coped fine

Doyoumind, no I’m basing it on a long term familiarity with socioeconomic statistics which broadly agree with my general class trends, and also my personal experience of both groups and areas as I’ve wandered around. That they happen to fit stereotypes simply shows that stereotypes are also based on observed groupings.