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.

"It is not until men feel that their preserves are being poached on that they will make any attempt to get their heads round this."

Right, but men already feel this with the existence of any quotas that do exist, female only awards and the desire to get more women on boards / decision making roles etc.

When a meeting has 1/3 women in it, men perceive this as 50/50. When it is 50/50, they perceive that women are in the majority.

So they already feel this, and what we are seeing is the backlash. Whether they realise it or not, putting men into women only positions feels right, even lefty men, it feels like the right thing to do to put some different sorts of people into these "women only" roles, specifically the difference is that they should be penisy.

Most men feel more at home with other men, not all men, but groups of men they choose / like / are at home with. At work they sometimes let slip, occasionally, by word or deed, that while it' nice to have some pretty women to look at, the actual work is best kept amongst groups of men.

Labour men are no different - they applaud the idea that any man who ticks the box gets a "woman's" place, because deep down they always felt a man should have been there in the first place.

Had they intended to reserve a position for women they would have used female as the qualifier. Sex is a protected class so requiring females to self identify as a gender is a violation of that protection.
This is a rather ham handed attempt to exclude all but transwomen, since they are the only ones who self identify as women.

Fekko

Are there still ‘men only’ clubs? Maybe we need to start there.

Well - there are, although they aren't generally going to be places frequented by self-identifying females - but it would be excellent if we could find some places to turn up as self-identified men and irritate the hell out of the MRA

Any suggestions?

(Anywhere Philip Davies likes to enjoy himself might be a good start)

Ok I looked. So far it’s Broga (yes, it’s l what to think) or the cresta run. Not too keen on either. I was hoping for something like the RAC club on Piccadilly...

I agree with posters who say this is only going to be taken seriously by men as a whole if and when it impinges on them. I do wonder if a few of them are right now secretly enjoying seeing women squeezed out of opportunities by transwomen: comeuppance for all-women shortlists and quotas which to their misogynistic mind 'robbed' individual men of roles at the time.

I like the idea of women saying 'I identify as a man' and blatantly marching in en masse somewhere where men won't want them but I'm not sure of accessible locations with impact. House of Commons toilet would be ideal obviously. Or perhaps someone could just follow Jeremy Corbyn around all day shouting "I don't self-define as annoying".

As long as I dont have to wear a mankini you can count me in.

I promise nothing...

Do we have to act like men, play pocket snooker etc?

Scratching your teaticles might be tricky, but I have the belching and farting down to a tee.

Teaticles? My autocorrect is fighting me!

Teaticles. Arent they the things that hang down from udders?

That’s what I was thinking - a cross between teats and testicles. The thought makes me feel a bit wheezy though.

Farting is good

upabitlate, love the way that, in the article you linked to, they keep "misgendering" the "poor, downtrodden" idiot love. Even within the same sentence, they switch between he/she, his/her, etc. Surprised there hasn't been an uproar, lol.

It's almost like the journalist can't quite get their head around it (ie, he or she has eyes in their head and can clearly see that Tiff is a MAN).

Jennifer James is organising legal action on the AWS issue. Go fund me page just been set up.

"Farting is good"

Seconded.

Haven’t read the whole thread so this may have been mentioned already, but what about a mass infiltration of the Freemasons by ‘self defined’ men. There are a lot of masons about, in some influential places.

"Labour men are no different - they applaud the idea that any man who ticks the box gets a "woman's" place, because deep down they always felt a man should have been there in the first place."

SPOT ON

jeaux do you have a link by any chance?

Whatever happened to identify?

Can I self-define myself as a sea lion?

Ironic that they can't define woman
But they think they 'can define' 'as a woman'

What do they think they are saying?

People who don't understand the meaning of words shouldn't be listened to or respected when they use those words on a meaningless way.

How do you self-define as a woman with no definition of woman?

This is it in a nut shell. And which every inch of the ideology fails to address.

How can you self define as something that has NO definition?

The question needs to be asked Every Single Time.

What is a woman?

What the fuck is IT?????

Slight tangent to the thread, but I want to highlight what Seeingadistance said:

I am shaped like a woman, and I wear clothes that fit that shape. Those clothes could be a plain t-shirt and jeans, boots and I would still be clearly distinguished as a woman compared to man wearing similar plain t-shirt and jeans. Men and woman are visibly different.

It’s rare that anyone gets confused about who is male and who is female. Even MtT who have boob implants still have broader shoulders than females. They still have narrower hips, and retain their stance and gait if they’ve retained their testicles and penis, as most do.

Millennia of evolution has enabled us to identify a male or a female at a distance from those biological markers, even if the person is swathed in furs. It’s a survival thing: fight/fuck/flee.

My, albeit limited, understanding is that the Labour Party came about to defend the downtrodden from the overlords. They seem to have redefined who the downtrodden are. They’re not promoting the cause of women, who are still as a class more downtrodden than a few MtT.

The idea that a male under-19 who self-identifies as female could have any understanding of life as experienced by a female under-19 is ludicrous beyond belief.

Glittery

www.gofundme.com/fighting-for-female-representatives

Trans rights and women's rights are not incompatible (in fact they overlap in that trans women's rights are the same as women's rights...).

Of course they are incompatible when the 'right' 'transpeople' (meaning, transactivists) want is the right to be 'treat' the same as a woman in law. Means all laws to protect women are basically gone as male people can self define as a woman. I don't get how some cannot see this tbh