To think this is fantastic, of course. Now can we sort out women’s rights wrt women’s spaces, and stop this 1%Of women have penises nonsense?

[Lion400]

Respect biological women’s spaces or be sued, that kind of thing?

It'll be utopia.

Of course it won’t be utopia but hopefully there won’t be a million children living n destitution and some of the many facilities the Tories have closed might be restored. Anyone who thinks closing Surestart and rape crisis centres is good for women needs their bumps felt.

The thread was not about ‘menopause rights’. I was extrapolating from that decision to say why can’t we have a decision such as this to say eg. People get sued for not respecting women’s rights. Of course we would need the biological female definition of women defined in law. Even that seems too hard for some.

With reference to the ‘1%’ in the OP I should have used quotation marks ‘1% of women have penises’ because it is referring to something Starmer said about women. It is not my figure of speech or nor is it my view (nor is it most women’s). I would say men. And I would say women. Hence the reference to ‘nonsense’.

Wrt the tories yes agreed awful. I would much rather Starmer tells us he understands the realities of science and biology. I want him to tell us he understands that no women have penises. As it is stands, no vote for him. Could so easily be sorted out.

I am talking about women and women’s rights (saying again and again because people continuously and purposefully redirect). If the leader of the Labour Party ‘believes’ that some women have penises what does this mean for women’s rights? Be interesting to see him as an ex barrister, argue it in a court of law.

As another poster asked on a different thread - who benefits from the destruction of the social norms protecting women?

Clue: It is not women.

As it stands no vote for him

Your vote stands entirely on that single issue. You have to accept that other people make their decision on a range of issues and that's a perfectly valid viewpoint.

Not really a compliment when I think "You again, banging the same old drum any chance you get." Or didn't get, in this case. It's jeans - have a day off.

I notice lots of people for negative reasons.

Women’s rights are not ‘a single issue’.

If males are unquestionably allowed to enter any and all female spaces (spaces used as defined earlier, for ease of ref), this has a potential impact on all of the females in all of those areas. Be it schools, hospitals, prisons, sports, sports centres, any competition that has a female category, domestic violence facilities, work places, any public facility, any literature referring to women, the list is endless.

That is the way we would be heading with that ‘single issue’. And that is why it is important to me. And that is why it is important to many other women.

I assume you mean "ultra GC" by the right side.
😴

Women’s rights are not ‘a single issue’
No, they're not, that's the point!
Yet still you get people voting on just this issue, or dismissing other important things like menopause (can't be discussed without conflating a thread with yet another trans one)
Or childcare costs etc, making it easier for women to go out to work
Or anti abortion protesters harassing women outside clinics despite being promised buffer zones so they feel safer.
Or Sure start centres closing which were so good when mine were small, toddler groups and a community hub, somewhere you could go and get yourself out of the house and feel more human some days.
Etc
Womens rights are not just one issue and so it's madness to me that people would vote on one single issue even if it means maybe threatening several other rights for women.

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

That's the way you feel. Other women might come to their decision differently.

Not particularly. It happens to anyone who goes even slightly against the grain in any topic. But to continue in the GC vein, I've noticed it happening to you an awful lot on FWR, even though I think you've made some excellent points. You're just not quite in line with the majority view, therefore your posts must be policed (except it's not policing when the right posters are doing it of course, only the wrong ones).

Well said.

@NoMoreFalafelsForYou

‘Womens rights are not just one issue and so it's madness to me that people would vote on one single issue ..’

This doesn’t make any sense.

Thank you :) Apologies for misinterpreting your post.
I think in this case the OP often starts threads in the same vein and some of us are a bit bruised by it.

All women’s rights are impacted if ‘men can be women’. It’s not hard to understand.

If men can be women there is no such thing as women's rights. They cease to exist.

‘You have to accept that other people make their decision on a range of issues and that's a perfectly valid viewpoint’

Absolutely. People make their own decisions based on the information they have and the way they interpret / use / analyse that information. That is the great thing about living in a free country.

Exactly. Thank you for being so succinct 😂🤗

Womens rights are not just one issue and so it's madness to me that people would vote on one single issue ..’

This doesn’t make any sense

How does it not make any sense?
I couldn't have been clearer, did you read my post properly? (Genuine question)
There's other women's issues that are important (I mentioned just a few) as it's just not a single issue but you get people voting on just one - trans /women's issues.
Even if that's to the detriment of other women's rights.

No they aren't. To go to the list of "Human Rights" - Right go Remedy by Competent Tribunal is arguably one of the biggest rights women don't have today, because rape is effectively decriminalised, as is stalking by a previous partner, as is living free from flashers or harassers.
The government could take action to address violence against women and girls now, today, without needing any extra definition of what a woman is.

That's just one example, I can think of plenty more "womens rights" issues where the definition of woman is irrelevant. Tackling maternal death rates would be another. Dealing with poverty, which disproportionately affects women.

Arguably this crazy focus on "what is a woman" is deflecting from the actual real life harms women live with every day.

They cease to exist

Nope, I'm still here....
Or am I
"Help I've disappeared!"
"Who said that?!" 👀

Arguably this crazy focus on "what is a woman" is deflecting from the actual real life harms women live with every day.

I think you could dispense with the arguably.

Nope, I'm still here

Did you actually read my comment? Your rights won't be. How can you have women's rights if they apply to any man who wants them?

The government could take action to address violence against women and girls now, today, without needing any extra definition of what a woman is

Exactly

Because human sexed bodies still exist, with all the implications of that.
Discrimination against women doesn't happen because of our identity. It happens because of our sex. Therefore changing definitions doesn't magically get rid of the issues. And any actions taken will still benefit women, even if we've started calling them something else.

Look, I am strongly GC. But this argument that "womens rights cease to exist if a man can identify as a woman" is just plain wrong. Womens rights to single sex spaces, yes. Womens rights to live free from violence and poverty, to be able to access appropriate medical treatment for womens conditions, to be protected from discrimination due to menstruation, breastfeeding, menopause or childbirth can all be protected regardless of definitions.
You are being overly simplistic.