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.

Another vote for Wildwildrosebuds!! Well put. None of us get through life without some sort of "issue".... suck it up and get on with it. Therapy can help, but in the end, you do you and leave others alone.

Oh I know. The leader of the Scottish Greens is utterly odious and openly contemptuous of women and the party has managed to make a 'co-operation agreement' with the SNP despite getting a tiny share of the votes. It's horrendously undemocratic. The Lib Dems in Scotland are scarcely better and the rest of the parties either are along the same lines or get far too small a share of the vote to make any difference whatsoever. Scottish politics is a shambles for anyone who believes in women's rights.

From what I see about English politics, it seems a two horse race down there but the rest of the parties hardly inspire confidence.

Anyone who is talking gender politics to me is not getting my vote. End of discussion. I have a child deciding how to work out a friendship with a non binary person to whom they feel the closest ever kinship. It is not my choice to make.

But I shall support the choice made.

@Marguerite2000

Another vote for wildwildrosebuds And why doesn't this forum have a like function like every other forum?

In case no one answered- it is requested a lot on site stuff for MN in site stuff.

The argument against is that the interest and richness of this forum is in the fact people post. So they will often say why they like etc and are in the conversation.

If you can just push a like button it would lose that wide conversation. And also the posts that say why they like. Agree? Well argued? Well put? Never looked at it like that? Eye opening? Etc.

Opinion is divided but for now no like button which I... Like!!!

@Wildwildrosebuds totally completely 100%
Just no time for this shit anymore - why the hell am I even politely engaging with mens fragile egos! As I sit here being called a ‘hoarder’ ‘transphobic’ ‘witch’ or whatever just for wanting to state that a man is not a biologically a woman - with my own body having been cut open, life at risk, (emergency c sections! just to bring children into this world!

I think I’ll hoard women because I bloody deserve to!

I don't agree with your reasoning though @BoredZelda,there's a lot more to this than just language being offensive.

"More" that is equivalent to removing vital support from disabled people?

Nothing being said will amount to a hill of beans in reality and the only result is the Tories will continue to fuck up the lives of people who don't have enough voices speaking up for them
already.

Tried looking but can't find it.

Boredzelda are you able to quote the post you're referencing, or cnp?

Or anyone else?

Sorry it's a long thread and I looked at the last handful of pages to find it and couldn't.

Don't worry!

Found it.

This is a bit of a different topic isn't it? I mean this is about kier saying only women have cervixes should not be said.

Rather than a broad political discussion.

Why do you assume that women who say they can't vote for labour when they are involved in the push to remove our words as a group. And label us according to parts of our reproductive parts and functions.

Are going to vote conservative?

That's a very big leap.

It also indicates that you view women's political stances beliefs loyalty etc as shallow. Easily changed.

So easily that when an ex labour councillor says they can't vote labour you think well obviously they're a Tory now.

Rather than the more obvious conclusion. That they are politically homeless. Very unlikely to vote Tory. (I mean maybe she will, I don't know. But the general point holds that it seems unlikely holds).

And thinking wow she must have been pushed so hard for them to lose her support.

also indicates that you view women's political stances beliefs loyalty etc as shallow. Easily changed.

Slightly off topic but actually it makes sense to be a floating voter. Far more intelligent than blindly pledging allegiance to any political party and never ever reassessing regardless of what changes (be it your own priorities and values or the party's).

A wise man may change his mind, a fool never does.

That's you view and you're entitled to it.

The point that firm long term labour activists will turn round and vote Tory (if they're women) is a totally different point though!

@Tealightsandd

also indicates that you view women's political stances beliefs loyalty etc as shallow. Easily changed.

Slightly off topic but actually it makes sense to be a floating voter. Far more intelligent than blindly pledging allegiance to any political party and never ever reassessing regardless of what changes (be it your own priorities and values or the party's).

A wise man may change his mind, a fool never does.

Agree, voting for who runs the country shouldn't be like supporting a football club.

Normally with football the main components stay the same. The club, the location, the game. If for example they decided to stop playing football and instead play rugby they would lose support, not because the fans loyalty was shallow but because a fundermental factor had changed.

If we didn't have floating voters nothing would ever change, there would be no need for manifestos as people would blindly vote for the party they were 'loyal' to. There would be no emergence of new political parties.

@BoredZelda

I don't agree with your reasoning though @BoredZelda,there's a lot more to this than just language being offensive.

"More" that is equivalent to removing vital support from disabled people?

Nothing being said will amount to a hill of beans in reality and the only result is the Tories will continue to fuck up the lives of people who don't have enough voices speaking up for them
already.

But it has already amounted to more than a hill of beans. We have no women's sports, women's wards, women's prisons or women-only refuges etc.

But it has already amounted to more than a hill of beans. We have no women's sports, women's wards, women's prisons or women-only refuges etc.

Except it hasn't because we do have all of those things and again those who will lose out are disabled and vulnerable people who are shafted by the tories but it's ok, eh, because Boris will call a spade a spade:

I'll happily vote tory if they are going to support women's rights.

I'd prefer the SDP (who also support women's rights) but unless they suddenly become a much bigger and more influential party, then there's no point. I don't think they even had any candidates in scotland last time around.

Women's rights are also children's protection. We shouldn't forget that. I am NEVER going to vote for someone who wants predatory adult males to have access to children. I'm never going to vote for anyone who calls us menstruators, bodies with vaginas, uterus-havers, or any other dehumanising and misogynistic terms. I'm never going to vote for anyone who takes away my right to single sex health care, intimate care, bathrooms, changing rooms. Or anyone who thinks it's okay to put rapists and child abusers in women's prisons. Or anyone who wants to destroy women's sports.

If the tories are the party protecting women's rights they WILL get my vote. I don't care if that makes some people explode with outrage. As pp said, political parties are not football teams. You don't have to pick one and stay with it forever.

Except it hasn't because we do have all of those things and again those who will lose out are disabled and vulnerable people who are shafted by the tories but it's ok, eh, because Boris will call a spade a spade:

Everyone’s rights depend on the ability to call a spade a spade.

I don’t think a leader who can’t acknowledge the existence of the female sex will be able to create helpful policy on anything.

@BoredZelda

I don't agree with your reasoning though @BoredZelda,there's a lot more to this than just language being offensive.

"More" that is equivalent to removing vital support from disabled people?

Nothing being said will amount to a hill of beans in reality and the only result is the Tories will continue to fuck up the lives of people who don't have enough voices speaking up for them
already.

Disabled people might need personal care in their own home. Should a disabled woman be allowed to request that only a female carer attends to her?

"More" that is equivalent to removing vital support from disabled people?

Sylvias point about carers. Tanni Grey's point about women's toilets and her problems as a disabled woman if males are present. Female health services becoming mixed sex and therefore even less accessible to women who already are known to be in the low uptake and struggle to access category, which will include disabled women, especially disabled women with other protected characteristics. Known issues already having happened about women's health services having to spread their funding even thinner as male people are using their service and often needing to take up a lot of it, sexual health in particular, while the men's service funding goes unaffected. Again, biggest impact on most vulnerable groups of women, which will include disabled women.

Plus can't you see where self ID will obviously go next? Spreading funding and resources even thinner, while public tolerance is affected and legal protections weakened?

If you actually have an interest and care in disabled women then no, any politician stuck in this male supremacist thinking is no friend to them at all.

I also think Johnson’s inability to call a spade a spade - whether it’s Covid or the NI border - has caused many problems.

But if KS is the sensible, pragmatic barrister in the Labour Party and even he can’t acknowledge the existence of something as basic as sex, I don’t have any faith in the rest of the party.

I'm not voting for any party where they openly call people 'scum' and one of their leading lights thinks men can grow cervixes.

Those are not people I'd employ in any role at all, never mind to run the country.

No woman should vote for any party of any hue that cannot define what a woman in order to curry favour with the trans lobby.

That's as basic as it gets. That's the foundation stone.

If you can't vote for the Conservative party, then vote for an Independent or spoil your ballot-a legitimate choice-and make sure you tell the Labour/Lib Dem/ Green candidate why.

www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwisn7uGqKbzAhUSY8AKHZCcAJMQFnoECAIQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lbc.co.uk%2Fradio%2Fpresenters%2Fnick-ferrari%2Fliz-truss-defends-student-who-faces-disciplinary-action-for-saying-women-have-va%2F&usg=AOvVaw2eV-ItLiUDOhrshs05j8gu

I'll just leave this here. I've never in my life voted Tory, in fact I've never voted for anyone other than Labour, but it seems like the Tories are the only ones who can articulate clearly what a woman is and is not.

@BoredZelda

I don't agree with your reasoning though @BoredZelda,there's a lot more to this than just language being offensive.

"More" that is equivalent to removing vital support from disabled people?

Nothing being said will amount to a hill of beans in reality and the only result is the Tories will continue to fuck up the lives of people who don't have enough voices speaking up for them
already.

The "more" I'm referring to is the removal of sex based rights in that post as this is the focus of this thread although I've pointed towards the consciously cruel attitude towards the ill and disabled in a previous post. In general I agree with you and I also agree with a previous post that it was the Tories who pushed for reforms to the GRA and then removed themselves from the awful situation which has now developed,leaving any left leaning party to squabble and implode.

@BoredZelda

But it has already amounted to more than a hill of beans. We have no women's sports, women's wards, women's prisons or women-only refuges etc.

Except it hasn't because we do have all of those things and again those who will lose out are disabled and vulnerable people who are shafted by the tories but it's ok, eh, because Boris will call a spade a spade:

Disabled and vulnerable girls ARE affected by Identity Politics @BoredZelda 4000% increase in girls many of whom are autistic are identifying as boys and starting on a medical pathway that will leave them infertile.

I am the parent of 2 disabled children. It is too simplistic to say we must vote Labour when their policies will actively harm disabled women and girls too.

Removing women and girls as a sex class will have a disproportionate affect on vulnerable women and girls. The ones who need rape crisis centres or are imprisoned with male bodies.

I have never voted Tory in my life but I CANNOT vote for a party that has a policy which will remove protections for the most vulnerable women in society.