It shouldn’t be said that “only women have a cervix”.

[Paddingtonsmarmaladesandwiches]

Watching Keir Stammer on Marr this morning scrambling to answer whether or not it is transphobic to say “only women have a cervix” was the final nail in the coffin for me this morning with Labour. In the aftermath of The Lancet calling women, “bodies with vaginas”, I think I’ve finally figured out that the current belief system is that transwomen are women, but women who were observed female at birth are “bodies with vaginas”. Clearly Labour aren’t in need of the votes of bodies with vaginas, brains and a spine.

@urbanbuddha

The Labour Party has a Policy Contact Form here so you can contact them and question this.

We had some bright eyed young Labour candidates come round recently. They're hoping to win this ward in next year's local council election and are canvassing hard. Faced with a question about this issue they tried desperately to steer the conversation back to local matters.
But I can't vote for Labour at all if it doesn"t represent my views on a subject as fundamental as this.

That’s very helpful @urbanbuddha I’ve tweaked what I sent to my local MP, and have just sent them a policy enquiry.

F*kn offensive. Disgusting cowardice and disdain of women. You've blown it Starmer. Shame on you.

I've decided to identify as "person not possessing a Y chromosome". I shall be campaigning for swimming pool changing rooms to be relabelled as "Y" and "no Y". I shall use the "no Y" facility. Anyone care to join me?
P.S. I found both Andrew Marr's question about this and Sir Kier's answer quite offensive.

Not everyone’s body is the same and not every experience of being a woman is the same.

True. But only women have cervixes and XX chromosomes. It's not wrong to say that.

I was “observed female at birth” and I am a woman. I also have a body with a vagina.

Yes, you HAVE a body with a vagina.

But now it's said you ARE a 'body with vagina'.

See the difference?

@Ninjawannabe

Just for arguments sake...

The Tories have been in power for the last 11 years. Is it really right to get all indignant at how you're never voting Labour given xyz when the entirety of this bullshit has come up under Tory rule? Why are Labour getting blamed?

OK fine, Keir isn't convincing anyone he'll make any beneficial changes, but Boris and his predecessors are the ones who have presided over all that has happened over the last decade +, and at least Labour won't be slash/burning UC, NHS, school budgets to the same extent? These all affect women too. And IMO these things affect natal women a lot more day to day especially poor women.

I'm donning my hard hat for this next comment but I think you're in a position of privilege if who shares the changing rooms at the local swimming pool is your most pressing concern rather than how to afford to pay for your children's shoes and food

I honestly think the tories don't give a toss about women, natal or otherwise, and are laughing all the way to the next poll that somehow Labour are being blamed for something which has happened on their watch. They've played a blinder

im non partisan but this is a decent measure of how things stand, I agree.

@Saltedcaramel78 head over the the Feminism:sex and gender boards.
There's a thread which will most likely answer your questions (sorry I can't recall the title) or there're a myriad of other threads which discuss women's rights.

If you start your own thread you'll likely find the answers you're looking for.

G'luck.

@LyingWitchInTheWardrobe

Agree, no more Labour voting for me now. Boris must be doing a little happy dance.

We really have no viable government options.

You're not wrong, there. I had voted Conservative all my life until the last election. At the moment, I'm pretty certain I'll never vote Conservative again because I loathe this government with every fibre of my being.

However, Labour is ruled out as a viable alternative by this body with a cervix (albeit a prolapsed one).

This is not about erasing women, it’s about expanding the category of woman in a way that recognises diversity and is inclusive.

Expanding the category of woman to include males does erase women as a sex class. We rely on the distinction to avail ourselves of the rights afforded us under the EA2010. I won't be getting the f over it anytime soon.

It's blimmin' awful!

There isn't a single political party which seems to wholeheartedly support women as a sex in their own right. . .except the Conservatives, and even they have their moments.

I'm hoping the Greens elect Shahrar Ali, but I understand that there has been some "difficulties" with voting for recently joining party members.

Otherwise, I want to try to find an independent who will support women's rights.

Many people have suggested spoiling ballot papers with "Don't resect my sex? Don't expect my X!" or 'Women won't wheesht", but that may end up with women inadvertently negating themselves.

It's a horrible dilemma.

I think you're in a position of privilege if who shares the changing rooms at the local swimming pool is your most pressing concern rather than how to afford to pay for your children's shoes and food

There's more at stake for women than just that. But also labour have overall been a crap opposition, if they also had any viable policy propositions that would genuinely make life better for people then people would probably be more inclined to be vocal about disagreeing and push for change, but still give them their vote. As it stands, that's not the case.

@Bizawit

1000x YABU but it won’t make any difference 😢😢😢😡😡😡😡. This is not about erasing women, it’s about expanding the category of woman in a way that recognises diversity and is inclusive. Not everyone’s body is the same and not every experience of being a woman is the same. It’s not the terrible concept you think it is.

You say “transwomen are women, but women who were observed female at birth are bodies with vaginas”. No no no no no. I was “observed female at birth” and I am a woman. I also have a body with a vagina.

Most people who have bodies with vaginas are women, a v small minority are not. Some people are women but don’t have a body with a vagina.

It’s really not hard at all if you choose to open your mind and teeny- tiny wee bit and accept that not everyone in the world is exactly like you.

Get the f over it.

I’m not going to engage with any personal insults, but it isn’t hard to understand that “redefining the category of women” to include bodies with a penis, may have an impact on women with regards to safe-guarding, sport, prisons, medical care, women only spaces and women whose religious beliefs preclude them from spaces with bodies with penises to name just a few. Your definition of inclusivity is not inclusive, it is by very definition exclusive of those who want to define themselves by their sex class. I agree with you. It isn’t hard.

@Evenstar

I joined the Labour Party and voted for Keir Starmer as leader, I feel very let down. We need to get the Tories out but that will never happen whilst Labour spout this nonsense.

I will never vote Tory,, but Labour and the Lib Dem’s don’t seem to want women to vote for them, which party can we go to escape this nonsense and be respected as women?

This is exactly how I feel. I feel completely politically homeless.

I'm donning my hard hat for this next comment but I think you're in a position of privilege if who shares the changing rooms at the local swimming pool is your most pressing concern rather than how to afford to pay for your children's shoes and food.

Yep, I entirely agree. However, the ramifications don't stop there.

Would you be happy for your 11 year old daughter to walk past 16 year old boys using a urinal to access the toilet cubicles at school?

I'd also really like you to read this thread on pages 1 and 2, until you get to my posts there, at least.
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4356627-Womens-Wellbeing-in-Prisons

Speaks volumes that they’re running more scared of the small yet vocal trans lobby than 51% of the population.

Out of interest does anyone know if Johnson has been asked this and what his response was?

Firstly, how does Kier Starmer propose that we have reasoned debate when an MP in his own party is not safe enough to attend the conference for stating that only women have cervixes? Is he oblivious to all the ‘die in fire TERF bitch’ abuse that high profile women have received?

Secondly there are PLENTY of braver women than I am who have begged for reasoned public debate. It hasn’t been for the lack of asking. So yes, please, get Helen Joyce/ Jane Clare Jones/ Maya Forstater around the table and chat to Nancy Kelly or Owen Jones and yourself Kier. Go on.

Thirdly, how about as a man you don’t get to tell women how we define ourselves or talk about our bodies? How off the scale offensive is it to decline to discuss issues that affect women as a sex class. What he means by ‘we need reasoned debate’ is ‘oh do shut up dear.’

Oh and this really is the last thing:
Trans people are the most marginalised in society? How dare you say that when wave after wave of statistics are coming out about the sheer scale of VAWG? Daily, weekly there are reports of women and children murdered by their partners and by strangers.
Rape prosecutions are low.
Women are locked up in prisons with rapists.
Fuck off Starmer just FUCK OFF.
I’m so angry it hurts.

I’m donning my hard hat for this next comment but I think you're in a position of privilege if who shares the changing rooms at the local swimming pool is your most pressing concern rather than how to afford to pay for your children's shoes and food.

Standard way to shut down gender debate is to say it’s not as important as x, y, z.

I’d say you’re in a position of privilege if you don’t even have to think about who shares the changing rooms with you.

I've left the party since Keith became leader. Terrible leader

Thirdly, how about as a man you don’t get to tell women how we define ourselves or talk about our bodies? How off the scale offensive is it to decline to discuss issues that affect women as a sex class. What he means by ‘we need reasoned debate’ is ‘oh do shut up dear.’

Yep.

This is, as so many of you say, deeply depressing on so many counts.

I know only one tw (now moved to another part of the country) and not well enough to ask: 'Why did you want to do that?' This is a genuine question. What makes penis-havers think they will be happier if everyone they meet treats them as if they were cervix-havers? Viewed in thise terms, it seems ridiculous. Does intensive cultural gender-specific indoctrination (think pink plastic toys) in early childhood play any part? It is now pretty much accepted that plastics affect brain and reproductive system development: does that play into it?

As fir Keir Starmer and Ed Davey: despair.

This is going to get moved out of the public eye into the Feminism board, for sure.

But it shouldn't. It's an absolute disgrace that the Lancet is downgrading women to "bodies with vaginas" while men are still men, not bodies with prostates.

And Keir Starmer has fallen under the spell - so Labour is as no-go as the Lib Dems, Greens and SNP.

What a world, where the Tories are the only party left not seeking to erase women as an entire class of humans.

What an idiot. Losing the votes of actual women (51% of the voting public) to gain the votes of woke and trans people (? but very small percentage of the voting public). Twat.

If all 51% of us told Starmer, that no only women have cervixes then he’d shut up soon enough.

We need to get more organised.

Veryverycalmnow

I've left the party since Keith became leader. Terrible leader

I started calling him IKEA kneller.

It’s really not hard at all if you choose to open your mind and teeny- tiny wee bit and accept that not everyone in the world is exactly like you.

That is actually an impressive ability to totally miss the point. Your comment is completely pointless as it could be applied to any side of the 'debate'. It makes no more sense to say that women who are worried about the implications of this are not opening their minds than it does to say that people who think this is fine are not opening their minds. As well as suggesting an inability to discuss things in an adult way, it does absolutely nothing to address the concerns which women have been clearly outlining. There is nothing inclusive about 'expanding' a biological category into an identity. Indeed, it's not even possible - you are actually suggesting a fundamental change of definition rather than an expansion. Rather than tantrumming and telling people to 'get the f over it' why don't you open your eyes and try and see beyond your virtue signalling? Or even just engage in conversation about an issue which is actually much, much more complicated than you want to reduce it to? If you say you want others to accept that not everyone is like themselves, why don't you try this yourself? You might consider yourself to be 'assigned female at birth' but most women don't. Clearly there is no way that this can work for everyone. If it's inclusive for you, it's not inclusive for most women and don't stat spouting about that being due to phobia or bigotry as again that is a childish slur which just shuts down conversation. Women could clearly say the same about people appropriating their language so that gets no-one anywhere. So tell me why you should get to dominate the decisions?