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.

Yeah...women hoarding rights... Next joke.

That is very annoying. Imagine him being OK about a white person being demanding to self identify as a black man - let alone be factually identified as black despite DNA to the contrary. Women are not saying that no man can want to be seen as a woman, they just can’t factually be a woman. So not hoarding rights - just facts!

While we're discussing Lammy's remarks, I'd like to bring up a few points.

Lammy told the event that the “great story of the 20th century is “people who had no rights claiming those rights” – including the working class on the factory floor, and those fighting for LGBT rights and BME rights.

&“I will always be on the side of minority communities kept out of the mix for having the freedoms everyone else has enjoyed,” the Labour frontbencher said. “I’m not in the business of inflaming a very small minority group.”^

This in interesting phrasing, because women aren't a minority. Without sex-selective foeticide, and so on, we would be a majority. With it, we're 50% of the globe. Women are raped, enslaved, systematically banned from education, and there is no drive from the male Left to end it because these are not crimes being directed against a minority.

He also spoke in support of “a degree of positive discrimination” to help increase the number of Black men in the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP). He said Labour has historically been “too slow” to understand the structural barriers preventing the selection and election of Black men, and called on the party to do “considerably more”.

So he does understand that sometimes discrimination to achieve a proportionate aim is okay, then. When it's his group benefiting from it. He just doesn't get why we would do it so that women can benefit from it by feeling safe from rapists.

I think this terminology is becoming quite divisive. Like pp have said trans are considered women but women who were born and still are women are known as bodies, from what I have seen it's beginning to cause resentment of trans and this heavily pushed terminology. I know that is not the aim in the slightest and not how I feel but just what I've observed. I think just to include all and not reduce women to being known as bodies they should have just said women and those born with a vagina.

He said Labour has historically been “too slow” to understand the structural barriers preventing the selection and election of Black men

But even mentioning that there might be very specific structural barriers that only affect women (e.g. tendency to pop new humans out of their vaginas) is heresy.

It's so difficult really. I mean men have been pondering the ineffable nature of women and girls for centuries (at least).

And still so much debate for men to have about what we are-

Dinosaurs
Temptresses with power over men
Non sentient meat bags with dick holes
Breeding stock
Formless
Naturally subservient/ existing to serve men (sex babies)
Uncomplicated and fragile
Etc.

@merrymouse

He said Labour has historically been “too slow” to understand the structural barriers preventing the selection and election of Black men

But even mentioning that there might be very specific structural barriers that only affect women (e.g. tendency to pop new humans out of their vaginas) is heresy.

Isn’t that discriminatory? Why didn’t he say ‘black bodies with penises?’

Isn’t that discriminatory? Why didn’t he say ‘black bodies with penises?’

Depends what he meant. It’s fine to use ‘man’ and ‘woman’ to endorse a stereotype. What you can’t do is use ‘man’ or ‘woman’ to refer to sex.

The rules get very confusing. This is a clip of a Labour speaker at conference saying that There are too many white men putting their hands up.

twitter.com/kwilliam111/status/1442132670813597700?s=19

To be fair, I find it very plausible that the subset of people putting their hands up was not a representative sample of the people attending the event.

But how does he know the people putting their hands up were men?

I see that the usual "MN is full of transphobic bigot TERFs" brigade are suddenly very quiet.

Funny, that.

See, this is what us gender criticals have been warning you about for all these years. Now it's all writ large, it's becoming very obvious that this movement was never about trans rights. It's pure misogyny and homophobia financed by big pharma.

Is Lammy saying that there are a finite amount of rights that 'non men' are allowed or permitted to have so women need to share their rights with/give them up to any males who want them? WTF?

I saw another Labour MP squirming under similar questioning from Adam boulton on Sky News this morning.

She also got extremely flustered and said that she didn't see the point in 'debating this'. Clearly wanted to get off the subject ASAP.

Politicians are basically petrified of offending the trans lobby, or Twitter. It's obvious.

I think they've been lobbied so hard by various trans orgs and for so long that they, most of them. Do believe that trans people are the most marginalised, at risk group.

And they have had the slogans sold as justification. Along with false/ poorly derived/ misleading stats.

And that was the whole reason for no debate. None of it makes sense from any angle. I mean the stuff where it means our words and spaces become meaningless as male people can use them. Any old male person as internal gender ID is invisible.

So now questions are being asked, in more visible situations, and decent answers are being pressed for. And party leaders are being asked. So much more widely reported.

They all flail.

Because very few of them actually believe it. They have been convinced that it's kind. And when pressed of course the slogans are no use for anything.

Note the playbook is always the same.

TWAW and trans men are men.
Suicide violence massively vulnerable. More vulnerable than any other group in the UK. (Rough sleepers? Care leavers?). I think this is the first group to really hammer the oppression Olympics approach.

And also a certain amount of confusion. Women are for many esp the men not something that really care about. Not really. So they don't understand what this has to do with women and girls, female ones. And they don't see why there should have to answer questions that link totally unrelated things together.

For some/ many there's also a fear/ follow the easy side. They've seen what happens to blasphemers.

If the definitions of male and female become 'person with a penis' or 'person with a vagina' as the new terminology then isn't that completely counterproductive to what the trans community wants?
How can a biological male identify as a woman and if the word woman has been replaced with 'person with a cervix'? The change of terminology erases the ability to self identify into the other category

The bit that really frustrated me though is the inconsistency.

They say TWAW and next second another woman murdered it's awful. VAWG needs to be tackled. And I'm sure they mean female.

And they don't see the hypocrisy.

They would never say we need to tackle violence against people with vaginas.

So on some level that know the new language is in fact offensive and the general public would find it outrageous if they put their money where their mouths are and referred to us by our sex organs / processes all the time.

Name- No it's fine.

TWAW
So they should be called women.
If anything is referring to our female reproductive biology. That reminds trans women that they are not a woman in very way. So when it's about female people then it's ovulators etc. Strangely the obvious word, female is never used. The train given is it's about trans men but that assertion is extremely questionable.

So transwomen are women.
Women when it's female are meat sacks with dick holes.

Simple.

@DisappearingGirl

54Ninjawannabe I do have a lot of sympathy with what you're saying. I'm so angry with Starmer and Davey about this. However I still think a Tory government will do more harm to more people (including women) than a Labour or Lib Dem government. And it just feels wrong not to vote at all. And does anyone even look at spoiled ballots? So I may end up voting for Labour again simply because there's no better alternative. I just don't know 🙁

Spoiled ballots are shown to the candidates to ensure that there are no disputes. So if you do find yourself without any candidates who believe in reality, scrawling a message across it will be seen. Even better if you're not the only one.

Is that definitely true? That they all get looked at by the candidates?

I mean I have no idea but there's a lot of conflicting info.

I am politically homeless as well.

I cannot vote Tory under any circs.

In practice I think labour have worked hard to fuck their chances with so many people for so many different reasons that they don't stand a chance anyway. Libdems are sunk as well.

So in the end imo it's a bit moot imo.

Ages ago there was a just vote for women thing. Irrespective of party.

I couldn't stomach that at the time but now it's an idea. I mean unless they are utterly unpalatable as an individual.

I still think that women are always more likely to have our issues on their radar. Even Tory women in general care more. They have kids, know what men can be like etc. With this issue I think women will come round faster.

With men they don't instinctively generally see us as any kind of priority. Too many view us with various types of negatively. They have no skin in this game. So I think women are a better bet in the medium/ long term.

Just my thoughts obv.

He [Lammy] said Labour has historically been “too slow” to understand the structural barriers preventing the selection and election of Black men.

The Labour candidate (now MP) for my constituency was selected from a shortlist from which black men and jewish men were banned.

I can’t vote now. There is no one and no party that I could vote for.

They all get seen by a candidate or someone acting for the candidate, before they can be officially designated as spoilt votes.

In practice, I imagine that people with a high political profile don't do the checking. Someone does it for them. For example, Jeremy Corbyn probably never looked at any spoilt votes in 2019. None of the leaders would have, with the exception of Jo Swinson, former TWAW Lib-Dem leader, who lost her seat by a very narrow margin. She probably took a personal look at all the spoilt votes during the recount!

@jcyclops

He [Lammy] said Labour has historically been “too slow” to understand the structural barriers preventing the selection and election of Black men.

The Labour candidate (now MP) for my constituency was selected from a shortlist from which black men and jewish men were banned.

Do you mean it was a women-only shortlist?

@Ludicrisp

Yeah...women hoarding rights... Next joke.

Quite a u-turn from "rights aren't pie"

@NiceGerbil

Is that definitely true? That they all get looked at by the candidates?

I mean I have no idea but there's a lot of conflicting info.

Yes it's true. All potential spoiled ballot papers are seen by all the candidates and their agents, in a huddle with the returning officer or deputy returning officer.

Some of them are the usual knob pics, others are heartfelt messages. In elections that go down to the wire - especially in local elections in hung councils - they are scrupulously scrutinised for any intention to vote.

I've seen council wards won on two votes after two recounts. Two votes! And a parish council result decided by names out of a hat.

I've been at many actual election counts.