Starmer, JKR, what's most important to most women 2?

[PupInAPram]

@pleasehelpwi3 said it best.

So ... if you think women on here are not real, somehow, why on earth are you trying to persuade us to vote for a particular party?!

Schroedinger's voter.

These are not the words of a man who has “long wanted Labour to win the election” . His previous columns also belie that.

I should perhaps say at the outset that I have long wanted Labour to win the election (I don’t think I’m alone in regarding this Tory administration as woeful), but my fear all along has been that this front bench is flaky and willing to bend to the latest manifestation of progressive opinion. It appears to be packed with chameleons who don’t really have solid foundations and can therefore be cowed by a transitory mob, as long as it is co-ordinated and determined, like the extreme end of the trans lobby during the high point of its cultural power.

Plus, I don't know if you've noticed that wome have lost their jobs for talking about these issues? Received death threats, rape threats, abuse, violence, etc?

In case you were wondering why perhaps many women don't talk about/raise these issues 'in real life', but are happy to do so when posting anonymously/pseudonymously online.

Women’s rights is definitely one of them.

Such a mystery, isn't it?

I'll ask you again as we ran out of space on the last one: were you OK with people being single issue voters on stopping Brexit in the last election?

It's not about "trans women". The only reason they come up in this is that these are the people who are insisting our rights (and reality) are dismantled in order to accommodate their wishes. I think it was thought that being supposedly "naturally submissive cis" types (as we are in gender identity ideology) we'd just roll over and capitulate.

It's about women. It's about whether or not we, you, every woman on this thread, their daughters, their mothers, are permitted to say no to men ever and whether or not we are allowed to participate in discussions when men, aided by naive women who think they're being "cool", decide to dismantle the legal rights to boundaries and spaces and even being recognised in law that were hard fought for in generations before ours. If you replace sex (material reality) with gender (sex stereotypes which according to gender identity idealogy you are a woman if you sufficiently fit what conservatively minded people think are "feminine" traits), for instance, you have effectively wiped out the entire historical basis of the Sex Discrimination Act 1974, which was incorporated into the Equality Act 2010 along with other historical anti discrimination legislation.

The ONLY characteristic of the nine that has been removed, the meaning changed or added to, is "sex". Literally only women's rights are being overtly erased like this, although it impacts sexual orientation equality laws too. I can't believe people really can't see this and handwave it away. This is a big important issue that will eventually affect EVERY female person in the country, whether she recognises it now or not. The blindness is absolutely astonishing. It stands alongside all the "big important issues" that YOU think are important in my mind. It underpins them all. I'm not sure why you imagine that we need to "choose" between them. They are all important.

I'm not trying to persuade you.

You are, of course, free to think what you please, but he has stood as a Labour candidate in the past which lends some weight to his claim.

Is that why you've now started a second thread on this then?

Although I see your point, and believe what happened to that poster was obviously dreadful, she did volunteer that information in order to make a point about what I said, that you’d never know if your brother was a pervert. This was said in response to another poster who said she knew her brother and father were not a threat to women. My point was you can’t know that, and it has nothing to do with their trans-ness or lack of. This poster’s comment although very awful does not make the point she’s trying to. Men are the problem. Not trans women.

Men do not need to pretend to be trans to attack us. They are the most privileged in our society. The can come and go as they please. Men have attacked women in toilets, hospitals, shopping centres, their homes before and will do again. They don’t need to put on different clothes to get close to women. But telling us that trans women are the risk is a good way to distract us from those facts while they claim “not all men” (they never say “not all trans women” I notice)

A few posters like to do this, insisting ‘MN isn’t representative, ALL women don’t care, no one cares or is speaking about this stuff in real life’.

Yet here they are, starting threads on Mumsnet, engaging (ha) in discussion on all threads that mention women’s rights.

Why? Desperation to turn it as a trans issue.

Women can vote for whoever best addresses their concerns, whatever they may be

Absolutely.

YY @AccidentallyWesAnderson

Sunak interviewed by Piers Morgan answered the "What is a woman?" question with "Adult human female".

Yes they are slow to get a grip on it, but I'd prefer someone to belatedly do the right thing over someone who is eager to do the wrong thing as soon as they can.

Go on then.

Explain what the difference is between a man and a trans woman, and how we can allow the latter into women's spaces whilst keeping all of the former out of them.

while they claim “not all men” (they never say “not all trans women” I notice)

Probably because many women here don't actually make that distinction. "Not all men" covers all men.

But telling us that trans women are the risk is a good way to distract us from those facts while they claim “not all men” (they never say “not all trans women” I notice)

its said on many threads

Transwomen are men. Saying 'not all men' includes transwomen.

But when men identify as trans women they can and DO get to access spaces where women are and even get to punish them for not complying. And we're not allowed to question whether they're "really trans" or not. They're men, Dawkins. Why are you making some men untouchable and an exception to the rules when there is zero evidence they are any less risk than other men, and quite a bit suggesting they are more so (cross dressing, after all, is one of the most common paraphilias among sex offenders. With self ID there is not "tru trans" - anyone gets access on their say so).

Are you really this naive? I notice you don't seem to have answered previous questions about why it is that single sex spaces were fought for historically as a human rights issue for women and girls?

Ive asked this on threads before

is it ok for me to not vote for the tories on a single issue (i have many issues with them but there is one thing in particular)

is it ok for someone to not vote for a party because they believe they are racist, or homophobic or anti semetic or transphobic (or all at once like reform)

You know they’ve spent over a decade making life harder for women though don’t you

You do know that most of us have said we're politically homeless over this and have potentially no party to vote for. Are you making the lazy assumption that not voting Labour = voting Tory?

And yet not as much harder as for women in Canada, Australia, or even Scotland