Labour party invents new bollocks made-up non-existent definition for woman

[pisacake]

labour.org.uk/members/get-involved/national-youth-elections-2018/

Sixteen uses of the word 'self-defining woman'. Zero uses of 'female', 'biology', or plain 'woman'.

'Woman' is now literally meaningless. A woman can be a bog-standard heterosexual teenage male (Lily Madigan), if he says so.

And obviously with half the places reserved for 'self-defining women' (not 'women', 'self-defining women'), then there's not really any reason why men wouldn't define themselves a women, is there?

If misogynistic shits like Lily Madigan can 'self-define as a woman', well ALL men are women, aren't they?

The whole bloody human race is 'self-defined women'.

Stupid Labour.

I’m not a Labour member so is it worth writing to my MP to tell them that, even as a lifelong Labour voter, I’ll longer be able to do so while they continue with this nonsense?
Absolutely. And for people without Labour MPs, they should write to their local party.

faceicle is absolutely right. They need our votes.

The alternative I guess is to sit tight and wait for the penny to drop when the party realise that a disproportionate amount of the women taking up places are trans women, not the cunty type (whoever said that upthread is a genius).

I think the first cohort of the Jo Cox women in leadership programme had 2 out of 20 trans women. And there is the lovely Lily of course.

I would never vote labour now after the mess they have made. It has actually been an interesting year or so for me. The things that have happened are an enormous step backwards for us but it has enabled me to see very clearly that the labour party is not supportive of women and that in itself has been enlightening. It has also helped to clarify that they simply jump onto bandwagons and say what they think the populous wants to hear.

I'm not sure what is next. I'm anticipating an enormous rise in support for the lib dems.

The thing about 'defining as a woman' is that you need a definition so you know what you're defining as. Sex based is what I would go for, since it's pretty clear for > 99% of people. BUT, TRAs/Genderists don't like that one, they want a gender-based definition - but then don't provide one.

Perhaps we could work towards that and I could understand why TIMs want access to women's toilets? (other than my experience that it's as a validation station). If we could come up with some list of attributes that covers the vast majority of (sex defined) women, and the vast majority of self-defined (ie. gender based) women - preferably to the same level of certainty as the traditional sex based description - then we would know that at least someone has thought this through.

Can someone who believes in the gender based definition of woman give me 5 things that 90% of transwomen and sex-defined women have in common, but that 90% of transmen and sex-defined men don't? Once we have an initial 5, at 90% accuracy, we can start to refine it.

I've said repeatedly that some of these things don't bother me personally e.g. shared toilets but I'm asking questions to try and understand other views, which I thought was encouraged in debates.

Thanks to those of you who've been happy to chat but tbh being accused of gaslighting is probably my cue to remove myself from this thread! It was absolutely not my intention and it's really upsetting to hear my post has been taken that way. Sorry to anyone who feels that's what I've done and thanks again for the few constructive discussions I've had.

I've said repeatedly that some of these things don't bother me personally e.g. shared toilets but I'm asking questions to try and understand other views, which I thought was encouraged in debates.

If we stick to toilets, then here's the dissonance.

Transpeople want to redefine single sex toilets to be single gender toilets (skipping over the fact they can't define what woman as a gender is). Many women don't like that, you are fine with that. Women who don't like it no longer have a facility to use.

Women want to keep toilets as single sex toilets. This is also fine for you, and for women, but transwomen don't like it. Transwomen use the men's toilets.

Ie. keeping it single sex, everyone still has somewhere to pee, a small number of transwomen are unhappy. If you make it single gender, then women who are uncomfortable sharing toilets with men have no-where to use the toilet.

Do you see where that feels like a problem?

If you look at danger, then it goes similarly, given that men commit most violence:

Sex based - men are at medium risk, transwomen (according to them) are at high risk, women are at low risk, transmen are at low risk

Gender based - transmen are at medium risk, men remain at medium risk, women are now at medium risk, trans are at medium risk (since men are now allowed in either toilet)

ie. by switching to gender based, transwomen are forcing women to increase their safety, to lower the risk to transwomen - literally sacrifice themselves.

And this is all assuming that you take the TRA's assertion of transwomen in the men's being at high risk (which is entirely unsupported) - if transwomen in the mens are only at medium risk, then then nobody is benefitting risk-wise, and women and transmen have increased risk with no justification at all, except that transwomen want to go in the ladies.

ie. by switching to gender based, transwomen are forcing women to increase their RISK LEVEL, to lower the risk to transwomen - literally sacrifice themselves.

Switched the direction of the sentence mid way.. sorry.

Right so.

If ALL women overnight identified as men, would rape automatically stop and domestic violence all end?

I am guessing not, as men who are violent and/or rapists still know what a woman is. A woman is someone who has a vagina and is in a position of less physical power and presence than a man. So if women cannot identify as men and be believed, why can men identify as women and everyone has to accept this as fact?

Hint; because we live in a patriarchy where women are not seen as equitable, hence there being opportunities originally open to women. Which the Labour Party have switched to only being open to men, as women do not 'self-identify' as women, as they ARE women.

I don’t think that you personally are gaslighting anybody and certainly not on purpose. However women know they need to be careful around men, we know that there are men out there who rape, murder, attack, assault, and brutalise us. We know this because it’s been drilled into us from a very young age that we need to modify our behaviour to reduce our risk of this happening, we shouldn’t walk alone at night, get drunk, get in cars with strangers, leave the club without our friends, we have to be careful not to just look out for our own behaviour but also look out that our behaviour is not responsible for men’s behaviour too.
We are taught not to take naked pictures of ourselves because some men will publish them on revenge porn sites, we see again and again in the news of men who have got jobs as caretakers or drs to abuse their privileges and powers, we see #metoo where literally thousands of women open up about their harrasement from men.
We can see this with our eyes, we live and breathe it.
But we are also expected to believe that no man would ever go to the extent of ticking the box female in order to access women to abuse, that no man ever would get off on the idea of pushing women’s boundaries and having an all access pass to womanhood. I mean no man has ever found the idea of secretly watching a woman undress or have a wee a turn on has he?

Then the real twist in the knife is when another ingrained piece of socialisation is used against us, that we have to be kind and put other people before ourselves.
Male violence is awful, I think it’s horrendous that trans women might not feel safe in the men’s toilets but how is that women’s fault?
We should be fighting to end Male violence not our women at risk because it’s just easier to ask women to budge along.
Heaven forbid we try and ask men to be more tolerant. We are actually normalising and excusing Male violence when we say ‘men can’t help it, so women it’s your job to protect everyone’

Fuck that.

• we have to be careful not to just look out for our own behaviour, but also that our own behaviour is responsible for men’s behaviour too. ‘

Sorry I should have read through that before I hit send

but1sttea, what a surprise! You still haven't answered beach's question.

You're "removing"yourself because you CAN'T answer it, not without admitting that you're wrong.

OMFG. Labour Party activist for years. There is no political party for feminists anymore. What do we do?

Is there a particular risk to transwomen in men's toilets? Or is it like the claim that transwomen are literally being murdered in their droves (in this country anyway)? Completely unsubstantiated but repeated often enough it works it's way into the narrative as accepted fact.

Deadlylampshade your post really resonates with me and gets to the whole issue. The problem for transwomen (and indeed women) is toxic masculinity and the associated violence. You're right that, as usual, women are being asked to change their behaviour on account of the violence of men. Depressing but completely standard in this world.

And if we don’t then we are the problem.
A woman saying no it’s more violent than a mans fists apparently.

Thinking about Topshop Travis, would he be able to apply for the women only shortlists? He identifies as 'non-binary' which, in his own words means he should be able to use women's changing rooms when he 'decides', so presumably he would say that when he is in that sort of mood he 'self identifies as a woman'. But he doesn't identify as a 'trans woman', he reckons he is 'non-binary' so neither male nor female - I think trans women are a little too 2016 for him, non binary is where it's at right now.

So he wouldn't be eligible for women only shortlists but he doesn't identify as a man. Isn't that terribly.... Exclusionary on behalf of the LP? I wonder if someone will point this out to him and he can start a new crusade.

I think transwomen probably don't realise that they're trampling all over women because they're approaching it from the typically male view point of "women, change yourselves to accommodate me" they don't ask men to change themselve to accommodate them because, as a man themselves, they know the answer is "fuck off telling me what I can and can't do whack "

I have no doubt trnswomen are at risk in mens toilets. Men are dangerous. No more at risk than say a gay man. Or a "cis" man who doesn't conform to gender and wears dresses. They won't be sexually assaulted though and that's the risk women with take with men.

As for toilet tea why do you keep talking about toilets?
Why not locker rooms?
Why not prisons?

If you are as aware as you say you are about these issues you understand transgender unlike transsexual has nothing to do with hating one's genitals.

This means a lesbian with a penis (who likes to use it) can be housed with a woman.

This is currently already happening

Bobs you make a good point. If safety is the issue, there are many categories of people at risk of male violence besides women and trans women.
My ds has asd. People like him are at risk of bullying and assault, generally by men. Does he have a claim to access to women’s spaces too therefore? If not, why not? Does his physical security matter less than that if trans women? If so, why?

My ds has asd. People like him are at risk of bullying and assault, generally by men. Does he have a claim to access to women’s spaces too therefore? If not, why not? Does his physical security matter less than that if trans women? If so, why?

Yep, we know men's spaces are dangerous to males so we allow boys to come in the toilet but as soon as they are perceived to be old enough to make women uncomfortable we kick them out. Bathroom threads on MN about bringing in boys are interesting. Generally, most of MN believe an 11 year old boy would make women uncomfortable in the women's room so he needs to fuck of to the men's room. Despite being far more at risk there than the risk he poses. from about the age of 8 or 9 the expectation is they should risk the men's room.

BUT ADULT MEN. They are somehow more at risk?

It's a shame Labour weren't so bothered about the youth view in the run up to the EU referendum.

They've been letting almost everyone down for the past few years, hence I'm no longer a member.

We can of course look at this from another direction too.

Imagine you're a nurse, or a careworker, or a customs agent, or a police officer, or a prison guard - someone who has providing intimate care/performing intimate searches as part of their job.

If sex and gender are interchangeable, if anyone can demand to be treated as the other sex, then a prisoner, a patient, a traveller or someone in police custody can demand that they be searched by whichever sex they decide, and the service has to provide it, and an actual human has to then do that.

Sexual offenders (who are already over-represented in the prison trans population) can say that they are women, and so must be searched by a female officer - do you think that is right? Do you think a woman should be forced to perform an intimate search of a sexual predator? And this is already happening too - look at Andrew Burns/Tiffany Scott/Miztababy/Mighty Almighty (all the same person)?

What about staff on minimum wage in care homes who don't stand a chance of protesting this?

I think the solution there is obvious, if piss-taking: Big Steve should identify as Steph for just as long as it takes to do the search.

PocketCoffeeEspresso

It's already happening in Scotland where female prison officers have had to involve their union so that they don't have to strip search a violent TIM. The TIM has also attacked female nurses. It's the infamous "Tiffany" Scott:

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/female-prison-officers-refuse-strip-7667184

www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/too-dangerous-dock-prisoner-andrew-10272096

PocketCoffeeEspresso

Sorry, missed the bit where you mentioned him.

Dodo - of course! now why didn't I think of that?

That Andrew Burns - can someone just leave him alone next time he swallows a blade?