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.

Then you need to get on board with communism!

They are the only existing party afaik who have said no to this all the way.

Mind you personally I'd vote for them before I'd vote for the Tories!

And I mean well they aren't going to get in. It would be a protest vote.

Mind you if their votes doubled or something I suspect the media etc would be interested in why!

Oh just looking maybe it's not them.

Who the hell is it can't remember :(

SDP and the Communist Party of GB, NiceGerbil. IIRC, which I may not.

Might be the Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist)-

Google points that way but don't have time to read their whole site.

So there you go! A possibility?

Good shout @NiceGerbil. I'm off to take a look

If it's def them can you put on here?

I can't see many on here being tempted but you never know.

Maybe we need a protest vote thread! I mean any gains will be unexpected and of interest.

And I mean it's not going to change anything for the actual results.

SDP: sdp.org.uk/policies/transgender-and-biological-sex-based-rights/

Communist Party of GB: morningstaronline.co.uk/article/women-class-and-gender-%E2%80%93-communist-perspective

@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.

No it's not true. Spoilt ballots just go in the same pile as ambiguous ones. votingcounts.org.uk/spoilt-ballot Someone good at stats can probably show that the percentage of spoilt ballots can never make a difference (less than half a percent). Why a ballot paper is spoilt is not logged, they just end up in the same pile with all those where the cross was misplaced or misaligned.

These're interesting links @PurgatoryOfPotholes.

I'd stopped reading and subscribing to the Morning Star when the editorial at one point were supporting TWAW so I'm pleased to see, on first glance, that they may have changed tack. The Communist Party of GB website links to The Weekly Worker and has interesting reports on the Labour Party conference too.

I think a protest vote thread is a great idea to help focus thoughts and info.

Generally speaking IME the women who chant TWAW are young, middle-class and university educated. The likelihood of them being incarcerated or needing a single-sex shelter are vanishingly small so it doesn't affect them,

I agree with the above. I consider myself privileged and middle class. Although I grew up poor. I know many women my ages, late 30s, 40s, 50s and we all don’t usually say much about gender politics, but when we do it’s clear we are extremely wary and quite protective of women’s safety and our daughters, and not liking a lot of the forced gender identity. Maybe because no matter how privileged we all remember more overt sexism, and that being feminist is about fairness and not weird or extreme.

Yet with younger women I find that they don’t seem to join up the dots. Where is the outrage about the massive increase in porn use? Or the recognition that as women they shouldn’t be told by a man what to calm themselves (cis)? Or what about the outrage that the sector they want to be employed by, with low numbers of women, will no longer be making an effort to attract more women because they won’t even know the data - having ditched the ‘sex’ question in recruitment in favour of ‘gender’? Or that women are vulnerable sometimes in certain environments, such as young girls in changing rooms, women in domestic violence situations in the home, prisoners, and need safeguards such as services that dont demand they ‘educate’ themselves about TW (eg Scottish rape crisis).

Do they not know these things matter?

Call.. not calm!

But I really can’t vote for the communist party. Sorry!

Sorry I always bang on about this.

The idea that women who go along with it are so privileged they have never been in a situation where men could be dodgy.

That white MC girls have no idea. Or women who grew up fairly wealthy good schools etc. Have no experience.

It's a comforting thing to pin it on. Oh well they just don't get it. They don't know what men can be like. They're in a position that means they aren't exposed to any of this.

I don't agree. I also think this easy explanation means other reasons are not considered. And also there's for me anyway. A problem with essentially using the ideas about White women/ white feminism/ privilege of X types of women (who do things and say things that you don't agree with) as irrelevant. Well they're white and middle class. That's why they do it.

The fact is that no women or girls are immune to the things some (lots) of men do.

MC is an issue because I think that for years the majority of the population have seen themselves as MC.

The fact is that class/ wealth etc does not make anyone immune.

These girls and women
Get public transport esp in London esp the tube.
They go to bars clubs etc
They have no protection against CSA in the home or from family friends or sports coaches, teachers, etc
They walk to get to school if near/ get to the transport
They go to shopping centres and high streets

Recent news about girls being sexually assaulted / harrassed in schools. Started with really expensive private schools. It happens in all schools. Including the posh ones. And boys and men in those sort of circles are often massively entitled and feel untouchable. And they can be even worse because of it. And see it as their right. Why not?

The idea that women whether young or older. Will have no idea what men can be like because of their colour, wealth etc.

It's just very strange to me.

There are other reasons for it and we need to consider what they are. Rather than accepting the language and approach of the groups we disagree with.

And saying. White. Privileged. Can be disregarded.

IMO.

Perhaps it’s a different kind of discourse younger women have around issues that are important. Social media has changed campaigning which used to be far less immediate, far less driven by those with a presence on media.

For me I do think younger women who are middle class aren’t at the sharp end of most things. Less likely to be abused, assaulted. But still exposed to the general misogyny around but often it’s not until we are older that we think about the wiser causes.

For me it’s that they don’t join up the dots. I am amazed by how many women have no problem with cis. Eager to please, and not to offend, I see many using this to define themselves. It’s like the misogyny they’ve experienced isn’t linked for them with being told to change their own name. I think that takes maturity - to see that identity is important. For younger people a ‘new’ identity seems to be far more important and takes precedence.

'Less likely to be abused, assaulted.'

I just dispute this. Sorry. And it's so vague. Less than who? All other women and girls? Women and girls who are in certain situations that make the risk higher than the general population? Because those groups are specific and what is going on needs to have focussed attention. And if it's comparison time then it's also true to say that girls and women who are not in those specific groups are less likely to be assaulted. Not just the ones who are wealthy etc.

Where does this idea come from about this low incidence compared to rest of population? It's said a lot. But where's it come from?

...

The incidence of CSA in the home, by a teacher, sports clubs etc doesn't change. Money can't protect you from a person who is trusted, abusing.

As I mentioned the incidence of girls being sexually assaulted in expensive schools was recently in the headlines. Nothing done. Boys and reputation protected. Widespread.

Posh girls often hang out with posh boys. IME admittedly a couple decades back. There was a LOT of freedom. Having partied in empty houses. No problem with going to clubs young. Drugs, loads of booze. And posh boys aren't less likely to assault girls. And with the sense of arrogance and untouchability the boys tend to have. Well. It's not a good mix.

Rich girls have boyfriends who sexually coerce same as other girls. Why wouldn't they?

When awful things happen to these girls. They either keep it to themselves for the same reasons we all do. And if they tell it is hidden. Dealt with in the family. Made to go away. SS won't be anywhere near. Police will be encouraged to leave it, if reported. Abortions will be procured. Etc.

But yes it's maturity.

For girls and young women full stop.

The eagerness to keep in favour with the group you fancy (if het) is strong. And that is across the board as far as I've seen in my life. And I've got around a bit, as it were

I think it's a combination of-

Wanting to be seen as a girl that they can hang out with.
Not having had the years of it all grinding you down till you think that's it. It's still black and white at that age. These blokes and those blokes are not the same species.
Optimism that it can't be that bad! When it comes to being a girl/ woman. I mean. That's too much. My friends are all lovely! Something can be done about the bad ones. NAMALT.
The way blokes bulldozer their arguments, get fucked off at disagreement esp a girl. They lecture. Are you with me or not? You're not one of those awful types everyone hates surely.
If political, seeing this as like homophobia and that's shouted in all the things you go to for leftyness.

So in the end I suppose that's why it seems to be certain types of girls and women. But it's not because they're protected etc. It's because if they are teen / young women and into politics and left wing. Then the men they are friends with, the groups that are in, the people they listen to and support are all hammering one message.
And they are too young, too black and white etc to not accept it wholesale. And even questioning would lose your entire friendship group etc.

So in the end it's a function of girls from certain backgrounds and in certain social groups that end up with bonkers ideas.

And IME the place to find politically engaged fervent lefty girls. By no means always obv. But IME usually. I'm from North London. I'd say certain expensive more bohemian areas with a strongly left population and going to any local school because the area means the students have that background.

So there's the error.

It's not about not having bad/ terrible experiences with men.

It's to do with those boys and girls being immersed in a certain scene completely.

It's why they're known in some circles as the "pick me" girls/women. The "oo I'm not like other girls/women, me".
In days gone by they were the "ladettes".

They want to be in with the blokes because they see it as a way to give themselves a leg-up over those other girls/women, who aren't cool, who don't watch porn, do anal, pander to the male gaze, keep quiet, be kind etc. etc.

I have no time for any of that nonsense. If they're happy to sell out the rights of all women just so that men will find them cool and willing, then I'm sorry for them - because it WILL come back and bite them HARD.

And the whole 'not like other girls' thing in teenagers is hammered home by teenage boys. Think of the language they use - don't want to have sex = frigid, don't want to watch porn = prude, don't want to be choked during sex = vanilla.

yep, exactly. The boys/ men use it as encouragement to make the girls/women feel special about themselves.

@EmKayEm

Labour, Lib Dem, and Greens are all as dead as disco in terms of me ever voting for them again.

A person with a penis can be called a woman, but a person with a cervix is not to be spoken of?

Get to fuck. And keep going.

Yep!

There is quite a lot of literature on poverty, inequalities and rates of domestic abuse and sexual assault. Women’s aid has a short summary and this is a quote:

Women in poverty are particularly likely to experience the most extensive violence and abuse in their lives. One research report found that 14% of women in poverty have faced extensive violence and abuse, compared to women not in poverty (6%). (From a sample of 1185 women in poverty and 2884 women not in poverty.) (McManus & Scott with Sosenko, 2016)

www.womensaid.org.uk/information-support/what-is-domestic-abuse/the-nature-and-impact-of-domestic-abuse/

In no way is this taking away from the fact that we as women are universally affected by patriarchy and unwanted sexual attention, assaults etc. It does impact on us all. I am making the point that women who are in the lower SES are more likely to be assaulted or victims

A) because it’s true
B) because a criticism made in this thread and in RL is that highlighting safeguarding in things like women’s changing rooms is somehow trivial and something that middle class and privileged women do - when there is no real impact on women.

My argument is that it doesn’t matter who is calling for better safeguards for women, be that safeguarding female only spaces or domestic refuges, because this really is an issue that impacts poorer women more. Just because a middle class person is calling for it, doens’t make it any less of an issue for those who are not middle class.

@Gagagardener

He did say it is WRONG to say only women have cervices. Men can, of course, be both pricks and cunts.

Particularly since most trans are female to male

And are almost all male-bodied "lesbians".