US erasing Women - Janice Turner

[feelingquitehopeful]

It was totally shocking to me this week as a supporter of the Democrats to see Biden choosing his moment carefully on day one to wipe out women's and girl's rights in the states in one fail swoop. There was no discussion, no consultation. No warning. Just like that he removed centuries of our rights as women.

He will now go down in history as the first President that abolished womenhood and Motherhood and women's rights. I am astonished and horrified and reeling actually, even this morning. I have had a few days to process the shock, but no, I am still reeling.

It is now punishable to describe a woman as a mother for instance, or to stop a man/boy with a penis showering with your pre teen daughter at school.
Prisons can no longer keep women safe, they will now lock up male rapists (Identifying as women, which anyone can now do no questions asked) with trapped female prisoners in cells. Can you imagine being in that position? The horror of being trapped in that situation, as survivor this actually keeps me awake at night.

Men can use lavatories, locker rooms and showers with young girls. It is ILLEGAL to now stop them. It is also illegal to stop a man competing in women's sports, making women's and girls sports now obsolete. What girl is going to outrun a biological male?

We have literally, as a sex been erased completely from the legal framework and with it all of our protections thanks to Biden. Men can still be men, because that doesn't offend anyone apparently - they will not be called 'testicle havers' or 'ejaculators' it will only be women subjected to this. So that says a lot of modern equality and where we are with it today in the US.

Women have been reduced to 'Menstruators' and the highly offensive 'black birthing bodies' if you are describing a mother from the BAME community. That is what we must all be called now.

That is the new healing landscape Biden describes as he cuts out the rights of half the nation.

Janice Turner as always is an absolute legend, and her excellent article 'War of words risks wiping women from our Language' in the Times this morning is outstanding, and covers the grave situation we ALL now face. For anyone thinking it could never happen here, think again.

Read it for yourself:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/war-of-words-risks-wiping-women-from-our-language-djhp2mwjg

Jetatyeovilaerodrome

Same point to you. Why are the principles you agree with worth sacrificing mine? Why is it okay for Starmer to mislead the electorate on one issue (if you say he isn’t really ‘woke’), but we’re willing to give him the complete benefit of the doubt on the others, and assume he won’t betray any other ‘principles’ he can be assumed to genuinely hold?

Truth matters. Political principle matters. If Starmer is willing to compromise his principles to placate the woke (an assumption I haven’t actually accepted) then what else will he compromise?

Because from my perspective, he is just throwing women under the bus. He’s prepared to take a stand on anti-semitism, BLM, children, the poor, the disabled... and stand up to the ‘wrong’ elements of his traditional electorate. But he won’t stand up for women.

I’m expected (by people like you) to lend him my vote and my trust, as a woman.

Why?

Yes, women must always wait till everyone else has been given their rights hmm

Exactly. How dare I choose who to vote for based on who is most likely to fuck over principles I care deeply about?

Do you think when you make insane statements like all bame mothers must be called "black birthing bodies" you alienate any part of your message that had any sense?

Brilliant article - compare that with the way that the Guardian chose to run it:

"Joe Biden's gender discrimination order offers hope for young trans athletes"

Basically celebrating the end of women's sports.

@AStudyinPink

Otherwise feel free to bang on about your unwavering principles and continue watching self-righteously from the sidelines while children’s services are abandoned and the poor and disabled are thrown to the dogs.

Oh yes, principles. Those outdated things. Do you think Starmer has principles? You must, or surely you wouldn’t think he could do anything for the children, the poor and the disabled.

Your subtext: the categories you mentioned are more deserving of rights than women, so his principles are important and mine are something I’m ‘banging on about’.

A very old and cliched story.

This all started because you claimed Starmer was ‘in hock to woke’. I haven’t seen strong evidence of that yet (wasn’t he the only one out of Nandy, Long-Bailey and Thornberry to not sign the pledge against WPUK?)

Mental that people would rather abstain from voting at all even if it means the tories stay in power because of this niche issue. Yes i know all the arguments, i was a strident gender critic at one point and then covid took over and suddenly - well some things are just more important. Yes i know i will get flamed for saying it.

YANBU OP but he was very clear about what he planned to do in his manifesto: he committed to bringing it in within his 100 days in office.

IMO the Dems are absolutely worse than Republicans atm (this and anti-semitism are the hills I would die on) and it's why I was Trump agnostic but absolutely dreading a Dem win. And just to be clear I'm a Dem on every other major issue (universal healthcare, abortion and gun control).

You know progressive the Dems are now? So progressive that a white trans woMAN beat two black female candidates who were vastly more qualified for the role in local NY elections last year.

https://thevelvetchronicle.com/decaudin-dismantled-1-male-1-female-rule-now-runs-for-district-leader/

We. Must. Fight. Back.

*sorry just to clarify the above - the TRA beat the two black women to winning a political seat that was supposed to be reserved for female candidates.

This all started because you claimed Starmer was ‘in hock to woke’. I haven’t seen strong evidence of that yet (wasn’t he the only one out of Nandy, Long-Bailey and Thornberry to not sign the pledge against WPUK?)

He was. But he also committed to the reform of the Gender Recognition Act, specifically supporting legal self-ID and non-binary gender recognition. He failed to stand up for Rosie Duffield when she spoke according to her beliefs and received death threats for it.

Mental that people would rather abstain from voting at all even if it means the tories stay in power because of this niche issue

Mental that you think it’s a niche issue.

@AStudyinPink

Jetatyeovilaerodrome

Same point to you. Why are the principles you agree with worth sacrificing mine? Why is it okay for Starmer to mislead the electorate on one issue (if you say he isn’t really ‘woke’), but we’re willing to give him the complete benefit of the doubt on the others, and assume he won’t betray any other ‘principles’ he can be assumed to genuinely hold?

Truth matters. Political principle matters. If Starmer is willing to compromise his principles to placate the woke (an assumption I haven’t actually accepted) then what else will he compromise?

Because from my perspective, he is just throwing women under the bus. He’s prepared to take a stand on anti-semitism, BLM, children, the poor, the disabled... and stand up to the ‘wrong’ elements of his traditional electorate. But he won’t stand up for women.

I’m expected (by people like you) to lend him my vote and my trust, as a woman.

Why?

I think the point that the PP was making is that Starmer has to play a careful game if he wants the Labour Party to ever get back into power. It was effectively destroyed by Corbyn and his 'principles' and there are still plenty within Labour who dislike Starmer because he might be willing to 'let things go' in order to find the path to power for Labour. This doesn't make him a 'turncoat' I don't think, it makes him a sensible man who knows that if we are ever going to get the Tories out then it will take a certain strategy, including not alienating most of your core electorate because of 'principles'.

I still hold onto the hope that Starmer doesn't truly believe that a male rapist should be allowed to be house in a female prison if he identifies as a woman. I hope for the next election Labour will focus on getting back all those people it has alienated (including women).

I won't be able to vote Labour whilst they have GRA reform as a policy though, and I hope that Starmer realises in time that its not a vote winner!

I think the point that the PP was making is that Starmer has to play a careful game if he wants the Labour Party to ever get back into power. It was effectively destroyed by Corbyn and his 'principles'

I could read the point. Corbyn didn’t have ‘principles’, he has principles. I admire that. I want a leader with principles, including not screwing over women. Sue me.

I still hold onto the hope that Starmer doesn't truly believe that a male rapist should be allowed to be house in a female prison if he identifies as a woman.

Me too. But he will have to say so, if he wants my vote.

Let's not forget Keri Starmer was director of public prosecutions when they made the decision not to pursue black cab rapist John Warboys for all the rapes they had on record, which resulted in him being eligible for parole in 2018.

A bloody chair would have been better than Corbyn but I have no faith in Starmer.

My FB has been filled with posts from great women celebrating the new administration in the US and I just can't join in. Presumably this news will come as a profound shock to many.

I think one of the sad issues is that for elite/wealthy women in the USA they are unlikely to be much impacted unless they are elite athletes. With private healthcare they can choose healthcare professionals and will have use of single rooms in hospitals so they won't have some man claiming to be a woman doing their smear. They probably won't go to prison or a domestic abuse shelter and have to share facilities with a man. They won't be a surrogate mother and called a gestational carrier.
If they are too stupid to care about things like being called a menstruator it won't much affect them.

Otherwise feel free to bang on about your unwavering principles and continue watching self-righteously from the sidelines while children’s services are abandoned and the poor and disabled are thrown to the dogs.

@Circumlocutious

I dont deny that the Tories do, and will continue to do all of these things and more. However, a couple of points.

Firstly, the fact that Labour is unlikely to undo most of the damage to the public sector and services, especially in the wake of the worst recession times that our country is about to see. I do not believe that if Labour came into power tomorrow, that the NHS, police, teaching, social services would see a sudden miracle revival. The benefits situation may be reviewed, but again most of what's already implemented won't be reversed (like most of the UC system over the old multiple credits one, the 2 child limit on tax credits, disability reviews etc).

Secondly, I dont think many people realise that gender politics have a futher reach in terms of negative consequences beyond just women's rights. It further complicates matters in terms of children safeguarding, mental health care (you know, that service that's already non-existent), medical practice, pressures on the NHS, on social ssrvices, never mind the complications from 'women's' services and shelters being changed to 'people's' ones.

And for all those saying ‘principles’, what would you think of Starmer if, having won the election in 2024, he turned round and said, “Nah, I didn’t mean it about the GRA”, and all those Labour women who voted for him as leader in the sincere belief that he supported their (ridiculous but sincerely held) woke beliefs were just...discarded?

Does anyone really think that sort of amoral posturing is okay?

@ShesMadeATwatOfMePam

Mental that people would rather abstain from voting at all even if it means the tories stay in power because of this niche issue. Yes i know all the arguments, i was a strident gender critic at one point and then covid took over and suddenly - well some things are just more important. Yes i know i will get flamed for saying it.

The rights of 51% of the population is not a niche issue.

He was. But he also committed to the reform of the Gender Recognition Act, specifically supporting legal self-ID and non-binary gender recognition. He failed to stand up for Rosie Duffield when she spoke according to her beliefs and received death threats for it.

But its a long time until the election. Also, whilst I think it's shit that he hasn't publicly supported RD, it's also telling that he hasn't sacked her/removed the whip over it, or said anything at all about it, especially given what happened with Long-Bailey.

It's no good losing support of certain people at this stage and then ending up losing his leadership position and it going back to someone like Lisa Nandy. Because then we truly are fucked. And I know that is shit for women, but I honestly want to believe he is looking at more of a long game here. Meh, maybe I'm just deluded!

And I know that is shit for women, but I honestly want to believe he is looking at more of a long game here. Meh, maybe I'm just deluded!

Shit for women. Just for a change.

People are trying to say that they are shocked by this? Really? I guess they don’t know much about the modern Democrats then!

The rights of 51% of the population is not a niche issue.

If anything is a 'niche issue', especially in these times, it's gender recognition not women's rights.

@AStudyinPink

I think the point that the PP was making is that Starmer has to play a careful game if he wants the Labour Party to ever get back into power. It was effectively destroyed by Corbyn and his 'principles'

I could read the point. Corbyn didn’t have ‘principles’, he has principles. I admire that. I want a leader with principles, including not screwing over women. Sue me.

I still hold onto the hope that Starmer doesn't truly believe that a male rapist should be allowed to be house in a female prison if he identifies as a woman.

Me too. But he will have to say so, if he wants my vote.

So what you are saying is you are waiting for someone to come along who has the exact same principles as you on everything? Because I feel like you will be waiting a long time.

I mean, the Tories have thrown out GRA reform, great! But I can't vote for them, because of the way that they have shown complete contempt for people (including women) on other issues.

Politics and power in about appealing to the most people, and given the ahem, rich tapestry of opinion in this country, it is very difficult to do that with a very static unpragmatic set of principles.

Baffled that people think the erosion of the rights of 51% of the population is a niche issue

It’s not about the rights of trans people, they have the same human rights we all have, what the TWAW brigade want are women’s sex based rights and they can’t have those because they’re not women

So what you are saying is you are waiting for someone to come along who has the exact same principles as you on everything? Because I feel like you will be waiting a long time.

No. I am waiting for someone who says what their actual principles are, and I will then decide whether or not I can live with the compromises. I’m not voting for someone who - as is claimed here - is happy to change their views like a weather forecast.

Politics and power in about appealing to the most people, and given the ahem, rich tapestry of opinion in this country, it is very difficult to do that with a very static unpragmatic set of principles.

And yet Biden just did that. He made no secret of his wokery. People just decided he was better than the other guy.