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.

mamas yes I think we'll need huge tanks for the next revolution

I have donated...first time I have donated to gofundme anonymously, quite ridiculous that it seems necessary. I would not have known about it if I hadn't seen this thread :-)

Thinking of sending this to my female Labour party MP??

I have donated to the following fundraising page because many women (meaning adult human females) recognise a growing movement to sideline women in order to prioritise more men, even in Labour party women only shortlists.

It is unfortunate in Labour's attempt to be all inclusive of all ethnicities, the disadvantaged, LGB, Transgender, and those underrepresented in politics (namely women) that you can't please all people all the time.

In choosing to expect women to give up on being represented themselves, to make way for: "People who self define as women" which translates to men (a woman has no need to self define) the Labour party are verging on losing their right to be taken seriously and losing support from women.
Link.

Yay or Nay?

YAY!!!!!!!

Definitely.

We need MPs in boxes to be pinging relentlessly

Yay!

I agree with Irk free labour is expected from women in the Labour Party. Just last summer I was expected to use my time and money to ring about 100 people and to drop off leaflets. Needless to say I didn't do it.

To add, this is also expected of women in the other main parties too. It's not just Labour.

Can I also add that if anyone is emailing their MP, also send a hardcopy in the post. Say on the email you're sending a hard copy and write on the hard copy that you emailed on such and such a date.

In this day and age it's a lot harder to ignore an actual piece of paper.

Yay! I say yay!

Yeah I stopped my DD as I refuse to give them money.

I can see the change from the inside point but all of our institutions are boys clubs, by history, by leadership, by interests. Note Labour are mainly funded by trade unions which as far as the ones I'm familiar with go are also boys clubs.

The TRA have been able to change them from the inside by stamping their feet for 2 secs while women (50% population) as still struggling to be heard / and our numbers are relatively low in decision-making / leadership positions. Hence quotas, Jo Cox Leadership prog etc. There is a reason for this. The reason is that whether at the front of their minds or the back of their minds, the Labour exec / decison-makers know that they are men. Where are the transmen? Nowhere, ever. It's all TW and they get what they want v quickly. It's like us ladies have been given a shiny toy to play with but it's someone elses turn now. These are ladies ++ and do ladying much better and really shouldn't we let someone else have a go now?

They're just not interested.

What I don't get is all the women handing over their space, awards, quota places, money, secure areas, sports prizes so willingly

I agree Irk. If they were going to listen to us when we were members this would not have happened. And look what happened to Anne Ruzlo, at the same time as they allowed that wee brat to take a Women's Officer role.

They will only take notice if they feel it in their pockets and to the reputation to the party that will come from the mass resignation of women

Thread is about to go with the crowd funding link, if anyone needs to grab it quick.

Linguini can I use your words to my (Lab) MP please?

I've put my money where my mouth is and supported the gofundme - good luck to them.

Thread is about to go with the crowd funding link, if anyone needs to grab it quick.

Are we not allowed threads linking to crowdfunding?

So, I have a little bit of legal expertise, and I'll be honest, I doubt that there's a case here. Political parties in the UK have the legal means to produce not only AWS via selection arrangements that include the protected characteristic of sex, but to also create selection arrangements that target other protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 provided that in those cases under Section 104:

(3)(b) ...are a proportionate means of achieving that purpose.

and

(6) Selection arrangements do not include short-listing only such persons as have a particular protected characteristic.

By creating an AWS that includes a self-identifying factor Labour will just turn around and argue that the short-list complies with the Equality Act 2010 (EA2010) because it is providing a selection arrangement that operates under two of the protected characteristics of the EA2010, (s)ections 7 and 11. The part of the selection arrangements subject to s11 (EA2010) aren't subject to the provisions of s104.ss (3b) & s104.ss (6), and the part of the selection arrangements that are subject to s7 (EA2010) won't fall foul of s104.ss (6) because the selection arrangements in play do not short list only people who are subject to the provisions of s7 (EA2010). That leaves s104.ss (3b) and legal representation for Labour would likely just argue that they believe this dual-approach to selection arrangements is a proportionate means to achieving their purpose of tackling both any existing gender inequality and any discrimination against gender reassignment currently extant within the unamended selection process as a whole.

Haru - could it not be argued that they are not in fact operating under two of the protected characteristics as they are not allowing trans gender people to acces the list, only people who identify as women.

So it is not catering for the protected characteristic of gender identity, only a sub set which is discriminatory.

It is also excluding women who whilst female, may not identify as women - women who identify as agender for example and therefore is actually excluding them on 2 protected characteristics, sex and gender identity.

By creating an AWS that includes a self-identifying factor Labour will just turn around and argue that the short-list complies with the Equality Act 2010 (EA2010) because it is providing a selection arrangement that operates under two of the protected characteristics of the EA2010, (s)ections 7 and 11.

But LM has stated on Twitter that unless women “self define” as Women they’re not eligible. I can’t “self define” if I don’t know what the definition is. The shortlist at present isn’t inviting “women or those who self-define as women”.

Wouldn't they have to include transmen if they wanted to argue that?

Exactly pencils

And if transwomen are women then transmen are men, so they can't be allowed on the list. Therefore the list discriminates on both sex and gender id.

I'm new to twitter but I have deleted my guardian app now over this so searching for a new place for news...

Anyway, if something pops up on my feed with 'ciswomen' can I complain that I find it offensive?

Haru - then it is not a position reserved for women, and they need to change the title and mechanisms in place to reflect that.

In fact it is a position reserved for people who are willing to tick a box on a form.

There is no TM self defining thing for the other positions. as those places are already open to everyone.

Why is this thread about to go??

Oh that last bit was a different point.

I also think there is point in bringing this even if they lose. ie publicity. If people only ever brought court cases when they were 100% guaranteed to win then we'd lose quite a lot wouldn't we. In terms of hearing about what is going on in the country, and who cares about what.

Interesting that when men take EU to court to say they shouldn't have to pay more for motor insurance because it's discriminatory they win.

When women want to go to court to maintain the ability to exist as a discrete group with a name, there are calls not to bother.

I mean we all know who the law works for but this is a good example.

Also agree with vango that cunty people who are not prepared to tick the box for whatever reason are excluded.