Would you support the WEP if they defined women by sex and not by gender?

[dorade]

I used to support the Women's Equality Party but stopped when they made it clear thattheir policy is anyone who says they are a woman is one.

I'm really disappointed in this as in every other way I think they are just what we need (and they have the fabulous Sandi Toksvig as well). But by saying that anyone can be a woman - and by extension presumably any woman can identify out of sex-based opression - they have undermined the very thing they are supposed to be fighting for.

I'm interested to know how many other MNers would support them if it wasn't for this.

Good grief I've just read the web chats.

Sophie "I am old fashioned enough to believe that one is not born a woman but rather becomes one."

😲😲😲

I'm going to have to cancel my WEP membership, as they don't seem to believe that women = adult female human. Which is a spectacular fuck up for a party purporting to seek equality for women.

I might support them if they defined women by sex
As it is I actively try to dissuade my friends from supporting them

Given the number of posters here who say they've reigned their membership, I wonder how many members they actually have now and whether they are mostly trans women

It's a real shame that WEP have failed at this important hurdle.

I had high hopes for them.

Ugh, I'd never looked into them much but this sounds enough to put me right off. Wishy washy non-issues rather than stuff that woman really need tackling.

Presumably Sophie Walker believes there are loads of adult females who failed to "become a woman"?

Who are they? What are they called?

I too had high hopes for this party but in their rush to be achingly "inclusive" they are dismissing the very people the party was supposed to represent.
What is the bloody point?

The idea that one 'becomes a woman' seems to imply that it is a choice. It completely fails to acknowledge that you 'become a woman' by being female and being socialised (non consensually) into the woman gender role.
Men can never 'become a woman' because they don't meet either of those conditions. It's not a matter of choice.

I've been dissuading people from voting for them too. Both online and in real life.

I have no problem with the WEP's stance on this.

If the WEP can't define "women" beyond a vague "identifies as a woman" there's zero point to it.

And Gallavich is right about the becoming a woman quote. Simone de Beauvoir was examining the process by which female socialization does its work.

I would be more inclined to support them if they had a more logical stance on self identification, men competing as women in sports and didn't think that prioritising the rights of men in a stretched maternity service was a good idea. And if they were interested in protecting women in prison from violent criminals like that Tara person and their 'eight inch surprise'.

So, if they seemed in any way interested or knowledgable about issues affecting women in today's society then I would be right with them. Sadly it does not seem as if they are. They are also rude in web chats imo, they fail to engage and think that this is acceptable.

Yes to all that's been said.

"I am old fashioned enough to believe that one is not born a woman but rather becomes one."

That's the mis-application of the de Beauvoir quotation which Jenni Murray pulled apart in her Sunday Times interview.

No, I certainly wouldn't support this party with its current stance. Even if it did define women as, er, women rather than 'whatever you want', I'm not sure a party which is explicitly about the rights of one section of the population is a good idea. A 'mens' party would be entirely objectionable. So would (IMO) a Christian party, a Black party or any other exclusive grouping.