To think the article about Angela Raynor demean all women.

[PupInAPram]

I don't care what shade your politics are, you should be disgusted by the Daily Fail article claiming that Angela Raynor 'distracts' Boris Johnson by crossing her legs because her debating skills aren't as good as his.

👏🏻@Thatswhyimacat.

if the definition of women includes men how will you possibly tell which group of people the Tories policies are affecting the most

actual women or men who say they’re women?

If they’re bad for women, they’re bad for both. 🤷‍♀️

Thing is, as men who say they are women are men and have male privilege, the more of them who we include in the category of women, the less the impact of the policies appears to be. So it will look like we are moving forward when we are not. So yes I agree completely, we need to keep the category of women to describe actual women or the costs are massive.

men who say they are women are men and have male privilege

You’ve never heard of intersectionality then?

Could this be a dead cat strategy? Is there another fine looming?

No I think it's more like this

Political party: we want to do something to make women's lives better
MN: that sounds fantastic. How will you check whether women's lives are being made better?
Political party: we will categorise people into men and women based on their internalised sense of self and how that aligns with an undefined concept of gender. We will compare the outcomes for those who say they are women with the outcomes for those who say they are men.
MN: but the data to date shows us that the poorer outcomes experienced by women have nothing to do with identity and everything to do with biology. Your categorisations won't change the basis of that inequality but will mean that an increasingly large number of males are in the female category.
Political party: we don't really care about that research we just want to make sure that those small number of people who believe identity trumps biology are not made to feel uncomfortable
MN: even if that means that actually the outcomes for women continue to be poorer and even if that means that we can no longer track or monitor those outcomes?
Political party: yes, the actual outcomes for biological women are less important than making sure a small number of largely male people do not feel like they can't live their lives how they please
MN: But this could mean that the outcomes for women actually get worse. How could we know that if there are lots of men in the female category? Won't that make it look like our wages have gone up, for example, when they've not?
Political party: well that could happen that's a price we're happy to pay
MN: so the wage gap could appear to close but actually increase and you think that's OK
Political party: stop making a fuss
MN: Hang on, does this mean that you think a man who identifies as a woman can be in any female space then?
Political party: yes, anywhere he wants to be
MN: I'm not comfortable with that. I recognise the privilege in my life which means that I am unlikely to go into prison but I don't want to cast a vote which makes it more likely that a woman will be locked in a cell with a biological man
Political party: that's because you're a bigot. You're as bad as the bad TRA activists
MN: I'm a bigot for not wanting a woman to be locked in a cell with a male? me asking these questions is as bad as the death, rape threats and actual physical violence which some TRA use to try and force people to do things their way?
Political party: yes both sides are as bad as each other. Stop making a fuss about this.

Yep heard it lots. You have and don't have privilege in lots of different areas which intersect. Males of all sorts have male privilege. They may also experience disadvantage. These are not either/ or positions. What does it mean for you?

@Whatiswrongwithmyknee OK so in your view are men currently, right now, being put in women's prisons? Then remind me again who is in government?

All this "At least the Tories know what a woman is" is a massive con.

@Whatiswrongwithmyknee I'll be waiting to see what Labour say in their manifesto, rather than out of context remarks, mostly published by tory supporting press.

But atm all we have is the Tories record on protecting women, opportunities for girls and womens spaces... which is utterly appalling, esp on single sex wards, rape and domestic violence.

The tories are filled with abusive shitheads who think they're above everyone else because they went to Eton. And that's not male supremacist? Get a grip.

100% this.

Labour are 'anti-women' (if that's how you see it) and will actually do something about austerity, poverty, and equal rights.

Tories are very much anti-women all round and will only make things more difficult.

I know what I'd choose if I were to vote either of them.

It's shocking. Tory voters on MN -
"I WILL vote Tory because: it does not matter to me that poor people are having to decide between heating or eating.
It doesn't matter to me that disabled people suffer.
It doesn't matter about the super low conviction rates for rape/DV which mainly affect women.
Party gate doesn't matter.
Cost of living crisis doesn't matter.
KIER STARMER DOESNT KNOW WHAT A WOMAN IS!!"

Priorities....

The remarks I am judging this on came out of Kier Starmer's mouth. Yes the tories record is appalling. But we only know that because of data which differentiates men and women. I hold this as the most important principle as without it women are much more vulnerable.

I'm not defending them. They're a shit show of a government. Question is do we want people to wake up, smell the coffee and re-gain female spaces or do we want to just carry on further down the road of pretending that this is OK? Personally I think things can sadly still get a lot worse for women and the best way of 'achieving' that is stop measuring any sex-based differences. I see tory as less actively anti-women. Labour are sadly proud of their male supermacist stance which is what makes it all the more shocking. You'd be naive to think they are a party of equality given the nonsense coming out of their mouths right now.

Yes the tories record is appalling. But we only know that because of data which differentiates men and women.

But it doesn’t exist now. And you’re still prepared to vote for a government with an “appalling” record. There really is no hope for some people.

www.gbnews.uk/news/hospital-staff-told-police-their-patient-was-not-raped-as-alleged-attacker-was-transgender-despite-cctv-showing-assault-in-ward/250941

Look I really think this issue is complex and I respect people who are coming to different conclusions about how we continue to fight for women's rights and for equality for everyone. I think it's unpleasant and unhelpful to start throwing mud around 'there really is no hope for some people'. It's a nasty tactic and whilst you might disagree with my conclusions you don't get to insult people when they see things differently to you. I actually think we want the same outcome we just have different ideas on how they will be best strived for. I think labour need a wake up call to stop ignoring women's rights and without that we are ultimately doomed in a much more significant way.

@Whatiswrongwithmyknee

Question is do we want people to wake up, smell the coffee and re-gain female spaces or do we want to just carry on further down the road of pretending that this is OK?

Very good question.
But you want to continue with the the Tories, who have been in for 12 years, under whose stewardship all of this has happened.... which is a v strange position to take.

Did you listen to all of Starmers speech? in the context of Labours other policies?
Did you also listen to Rachel Reeves on how she will preserve and enhance womens rights/spaces?

...and yes you are very much defending the Tories.

You're not going to fight for anyone's rights if you vote Tories, especially not women, that's for sure. The party is headed by a man who has excused abuse, cheated on and disrespected his partners and generally been a massive idiot when it comes to women.

"...and yes you are very much defending the Tories."

I'm really not. For me there is one thing they are doing better than other and a whole heap they are doing much worse. Thing is, that one thing is, to me, central to all future protections for all females alive now and in the future.

I've voted labour all my life.

But tories aren't going to protect women so where is this logic??? They're literally saying whatever they want to keep folk they know align with them already happy. I wouldn't trust a word that comes out of any of their mouths - they could completely see trans women as women and just say otherwise to keep their votes.

Fact is, these days (for good or for bad), seeing trans people as their assigned gender is seen as a right-wing thing to think. The tories stand for right-wingers therefore they will use that rhetoric to get back into parliament time and time again. If you'd like to fall for it that's fine but just apply a little bit of logic to the situation.

Them saying that doesn't mean they're going to protect women. It doesn't mean they're going to stop harming women in their personal lives or give funding to women's aid or anything like that. It's just another thing for them to say to get their votes. They literally do not give a shit.

Did you also listen to Rachel Reeves on how she will preserve and enhance womens rights/spaces?

Rachel Reeves was not clear on who is a woman rendering everything else she says about protections for womens rights/ spaces invalid. If we protect spaces for 'women' but include some men in that category we are not protecting anything for women.

Let me rephrase that for you "For me there is one thing they are saying better than others"......

BUT as you wish to have a fair hearing and don't want to be ridiculed, then name the specific things the Tories have done to improve womens rights/spaces etc

Shouldn't be hard to do, should it? or maybe it will be as they can't even get right the supply of HRT meds.

Ms Reeves said "biological characteristics" were what defined most women but also would not want to exclude people who are born a different gender and go through a gender recognition process from living "the life they choose"

She added that it was also important to ensure that there are "single sex spaces in prisons, in refuges and in sport, which is obviously an issue of topical debate at the moment"

So she recognises a woman (no surprise as she is one) and wants single sex spaces returned, again wouldn't need doing if the Tories hadn't removed them....