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.

Oh and also radfem groups have a much higher number of lesbians than the general population, which makes sense as heterosexuality is the cornerstone of gender role, lesbians are by definition GNC irrespective of how they "present", and also not fancying men must make you much more clear eyed about them.

So that's a reason that lots of men have always hated the more radical feminists - they don't like / distrust lesbians. "Dyke" is still a popular insult from a man to a woman he doesn't like. And very much feminists are still cast as hairy lesbians and why do they even think that is an insult anyway? Do they really think that everything revolves around their dicks that much? Answer: Yes and so you get the cotton ceiling, young lesbians being pressured into sex with penis-havers and all the rest of it. Note that in TRA circles, the words lesbian and terf are pretty interchangeable. It doesn't matter what the woman actually thinks, if she is a lesbian that means no dick and she is therefore a hateful bigoted terf who should diaf / have her children threatened / be raped to death with a knife etc and yes there are all threats I have seen made to lesbians online by TRAs.

Oh and also radfem groups have a much higher number of lesbians than the general population, which makes sense as heterosexuality is the cornerstone of gender role, lesbians are by definition GNC irrespective of how they "present", and also not fancying men must make you much more clear eyed about them.

Grateful heterosexual woman here, who had their eyes opened!

Quail it's really been clear to me this morning looking at the shame and blame posts on the funding page, the opposing view is simply 'transwomen are women', which means horrible, nasty radfem women want to withhold resources and validation from poor dreadfully vulnerable and unhappy women who have the equivalent of a disability or a different coloured skin that has for decades led to their invisibility and oppression. And if you believe that, then I can see why you believe that those nasty, intolerant, entitled women need squashing.

But if you believe that then you have also stuffed your fingers in your ears to block out your awareness that this is an extremely hateful and phobic position to hold against all gay people. And that you are supporting sexual fetishists to access victims. And invalidating the actual lived biological experience of being a woman because you don't think it's important - but you haven't truly thought about why and where you learned to discard it. And that by supporting TRAs you're supporting men who talk freely about raping and murdering women for daring to consider the effect this may have on the legal rights and political representation of born women. And supporting the enshrining of feelings over and above scientific fact without considering the impact that has on laws and policy. And by standing against the fundraising you are supporting the stance that people who don't hold politically correct views should not be entitled to appeal to law - they should actually be stripped of their legal rights.

This is huge stuff you're blocking out.

I understand your sympathetic, supportive willingness to lie and bend reality out of kindness, I really do. But there are much bigger things at stake here. There are situations in which biological women need to be able to retain their own identity and representation.

Women are very sympathetic to women who cannot conceive. They donate eggs, they offer the use of their uterus, they give advice. All this done in the spirit of cooperation and sisterhood. I'm not talking about those who are coerced into it for money. That is a different issue albeit connected.

Women do understand the walls facing other women in life. The glass ceiling, unequal pay, the wife work, the caring.

Well said, Up

So that's a reason that lots of men have always hated the more radical feminists - they don't like / distrust lesbians.

Lesbians have always been resented by men because by definition they refuse sex to men. And at gut level, many men believe they have no right to do this because a woman's body exists for a man to use. There's a cotton ceiling based post out there by a transwoman indignantly stating 'they resist the penis!' As if it's some ridiculous, naughty wilfulness that ought to be conquered. Lesbians have always been harassed by men for sex, because to get a lesbian to have sex with you is the ultimate thrill - your penis has 'turned' her to be normal like other women. Now it's the ultimate in validation. If a woman who will only have sex with other women has sex with you then you have the ultimate validation that you are a woman. Plus the MRA aspect: there is finally a politically correct way to sort those bloody uppity women out who dare refuse sex to men (and think their consent matters.)

If you look around social media you will find the word 'lesbian' has in itself been declared terfy unless you are a transwoman saying it; lesbian is becoming a term of abuse when applied to a biological woman and a label for a hated pariah who can justifiably be a victim of rape and violence without that being in any way shameful or inappropriate to say.

This is not spin. This is not rad fem 'hysteria', this is the truth. It is not ok.

I just wanted to say that I'm grateful to ButFirstTea for staying here as long as she did and patiently trying to make some sensible points. I think so much of this thread is shameful. It must be horrible for the parents of transgender children (I could be one) to read some of the posts. I'm happy the Labour party hasn't given in to the recent media push against trans rights.

The whole using transing children to try and guilt trip people into silence doesn't work on me and many of the posters on this thread I'm afraid.

"lesbian is becoming a term of abuse when applied to a biological woman and a label for a hated pariah who can justifiably be a victim of rape and violence without that being in any way shameful or inappropriate to say. "

This has always been true though - corrective rape is a big problem in some countries around the world. There's a reason there's a name for it, it's not uncommon.

And lesbian has always been a term of abuse.

None of this is new. It is all the same. Lots of women recognise it as the same. That is why we are pissed off. We know misogyny when we see it.

Do they really think posting "Shame on you" and "Transphobe" on the internet is going to stop people donating and carrying on? The more they call me names the less it bothers me.

The more I see them as people who try to obstruct legal action (legitimate rights and freedoms in our country) the more angry control freaks, name calling with no control of themselves they look. I actually feel sorry for them, who cares what they think, they aren't a Judge in a court, even MPs have little power and control.

"Parents of transgender children" appears in many cases to simply be another term for "parents who think in stereotypes and can't accept that their children don't fit into those neat sterotypes".

I know there are exceptions. I know there are intelligent parents who are frantically worried about their children being pushed down a path of medicalisation and permanent patienthood; and those parents need our help and support and to be reassured that they are not harming their children by refusing to accept that a phase which may last years, is not a sign that their kids have the wrong bodies.

No child has the wrong body. They're all perfect the way they are and it is absolute child abuse to tell them they're not.

And to then try and emotionally blackmail those of us who have doggedly held on to reality with the mention of these poor parents... well, words fail me.

It must be horrible for the parents of transgender children (I could be one) to read some of the posts.

Why?
Isn't it better to encourage our children to be who they are and to be true to themselves without having to undergo harmful chemical or surgical interventions? Shouldn't it be ok for biological men to act and dress more 'feminine' in the stereotypical sense if that is who they are without having to pretend to be something they are not , e.g. a woman? And shouldn't be ok for biological women to act and dress in a stereotypical 'masculine' as and when they so wish without having to take chemicals that have devastating side effects?

Biological females carry XX, males XY chromosomes, this my friends can never be changed, whether Mr XY calls himself Tara or Tom, whether Ms xx calls herself Daniel or Daniella.

Question:
Do trans men e.g. females who present as men ever compete in men's sports successfully?

www.wnd.com/2017/03/female-athletes-crushed-by-women-who-were-once-men/

And has anyone here read Gender Madness by David Kupelian?

The more they call me names the less it bothers me.

Yes, it used to sting when someone called me a transphobe. I used to really question myself about if I genuinely had gone from accepting all people to being a huge bigot, and it worried me the thought that it might somehow have been some kind of massive change in myself and my values. But its really not. I simply understand that male and female people ARE different, that male people are dangerous (as a class) to female people, I relalise women are oppressed on the basis of their biology (which cannot be 'identified' out of)..and I care about female people. Thats all it is. I do not care a bit if a male wants to 'dress as a woman' (though I would prefer him to not put in in those terms, as gender is all sexist nonsense really) but I do care, a lot, when this right to look how he wants encroaches on the rights that female people have fought for for a very long time.

These days transphobe is such a useless term. I take it almost as a positive term, given anyone who believes in biology is a transphobe, and its certainly preferable to believing sexist nonsense such as 'ladybrain' and trying to shut down any discussion of the topic with abusive tactics, threats and cries of 'bigot'

@SeemaChandwani Twitter feed is interesting.

Tweet from Seema

I don't have a view on Trans Women and AWS. However not sure it's useful for a White Male and all the privilege you have to question or condemn an issue some women feel they want to campaign on.

Sort of backs up their argument.

Seema seems to be trying to virtue signal while also keeping feminists sweet. She could do with actually having a view.

Sorry, wasn't terribly impressed with most of her contributions s, although I admit that her comments to George re using his male privilege were spot on.

State of this arsehole

twitter.com/StephenTwigg/status/952551159268626432

Do trans men e.g. females who present as men ever compete in men's sports successfully?

Here's a heartwarming story of a TIF competing in swimming:
www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/dec/18/schuyler-bailar-transgender-swimmer-harvard

"Schuyler Bailar posted a time of 2:19.64 in the men’s 200-yard breaststroke. He finished last. The time would’ve blown the best number by a Crimson or Lions women’s swimmer that day out of the water"

Chris Mosier is a v successful transman athlete. Internationally successful.

Every now and again we have the conversation about what intersectionality originally meant (a structural critique of single axis equality legislation) and how it is used today (interpersonal interactions and subjective identities).

This is a perfect example of the original concept. All Women Shortlists were created to address sex-based inequities in political representation. It's proposed that we allow transwomen to access them.

This means that transmen will have no recourse to addressing their under-representation because the Labour Party has affirmative action programmes for women (but only those who don't identity as trans) and trans people (but only those who do identify as women). So nothing for women who identify as trans.

It's a direct analogy with Kimberle Crenshaw's General Motors case, in which black women had no recourse because GM employed black people (who were all men) and women (who were all white).

" The time would’ve blown the best number by a Crimson or Lions women’s swimmer that day out of the water"

Which is precisely why we don't allow athletes of either sex to dope with testosterone.

But hey, it's fine to allow transwomen to compete if they've lowered their testosterone to 5 standard deviations above the mean level for women. That's perfectly fair, isn't it? (And if the trans cyclist McKinnon gets their way, they'll remove even that limit!)

Wikipedia is rather long on Chris' awards (for being 'stunning & brave'), rather short on times & achievements:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Mosier

I looked up a result listed as super-duper impressive, wow I can't believe a transman qualified for men's triathlon, it's so amazing:

register.cajuntiming.com/results/default.aspx?event=39014&r=13618

Chris' time was 1:02:06.8

The leading female time, in the same age group was:

Kirsten Sass in 1:02:29:1

Kirsten is "Married to husband, Jeff, and the mother of children ages 6 and 5", so obviously a biological female.

Both times were smashed by 17/18 year old boys, who scored times as low as 55:45.

I think it's fair to say that Chris is the beneficiary of heavy testosterone doping, given facial stubble, etc., and without this presumably Kirsten would have scored the better time.

Note that this result qualified Chris as a male entry to the ITU Sprint Triathlon World Championship, BUT in the 35-39 category, which wasn't particularly competitive here. Chris just needed to come in the top 10 with a time not more than 16.7% longer than the winning M39 athlete.

If we look at, say, the marathon, the 2017 times at London were:

Winning male: 125:48
Winning female: 137:01

This is a difference of 9.2%.

So by the triathlon qualification rules, the world's best female (non trans, biological female who has given birth) runners COULD compete in elite male races. And, with male pacers, women would get better times. But they'd never, ever win, they'd get no prize money or publicity.

So it's really not surprising that Chris manages to score middle-of-the-pack results in regional male races. Because elite non-trans women could do that too.

But win? Nope never, hasn't happened, can't happen, and won't happen.

A shitload of awards for being stunning & brave, and cash from Nike too. Trans is BIG business.

Was just discussing this with my 15 year old son.

Showed him Lily Madigan's twitter feed. He started laughing and incredulous and said, 'I think my IQ has taken a hit of 40 points seeing that'

Have raised him well [smug]

I actually quite like Seema's tweets on this.

At one stage she says a few days ago she would have said 'X is transphobic' but now she's not so sure. It's good to see public doubt from trans allies.

Reminds me we are all just one issue of Pink News away from peak trans...

Actually, Bailer (the swimmer) sounds an admirable human being trying to navigate personal circumstances as best they can. Gave up a possible future as an Olympic women's swimmer to be a good, but nothing special men's college level swimmer.

Contrast that with the typical trajectory of TIM sportspeople - generally nothing to write home about as a male athlete (Laurel Hubbard the weightlifter, the cage fighter whose name escapes me, but who apparently didn't even have a national ranking when competing in the men's categories), transitions at an age where generally speaking athletes of both sexes are retiring (so age alone ought to mitigate against a stellar career if the modest testosterone reductions required of them genuinely produced a level playing field) but miraculously starts winning everything in sight.