Self-identifying as a woman - I'm confused.

[SmartiesHaveTheAnswer]

Reading this from another thread I'm following. Can someone explain it to me please? I know what it means in terms of MtF Trans folk, but why should Women lose out on places in a political party because women don't also Self ID? What's that all about?

Sorry - my name doesn't pop up that often. I'm a long time peak-transed lurker that sticks my head up once in a while when something crops up that confuses me. Lots has confused me, but I'm getting there.

Basically the argument is that if you are female and you have and would tick the "woman" or "female" box on a form that asks for "gender" (i.e. most forms) then you self identify as a woman.
I think it might be the new TRA strategy. It's a good way to get self identification on the table. I have seen similar discussion in a work context too.
It's infuriating me as it basically shuts down the ability to talk about gender as an oppressive social construct.

Women don't self ID as women do they - they literally ARE women. Do you self-id as anything? I don't.

Which mean actual be-cunted women won't be eligible for these female-only posts.

but why should Women lose out on places in a political party because women don't also Self ID?

No, no. It's not that

Imagine if x number of spaces were reserved for disabled people, but they suddenly changed the rules so that anyone self identifying as disabled could apply.

You'll get a much larger crop of applications, because - essentially - the disabled places are now available to anyone who wants one.

And the organisers won't discriminate between "actually disabled" and "pretend disabled" so some of each get given places. So the special scheme for disabled people is now a diluted down nonsense.

Is that clearer?

What Battleax says is right in this specific situation (and is an excellent explanation)

The broader problem is that since they haven't defined what 'Woman' is that you might self-id as, it feels rather like signing a blank bit of paper and letting them fill the contract in later..

Because yes, I'm a woman because I'm an adult, human, female, but if you're going to say that woman == femme then I'm not that. If you're going to say that woman == [bucket load of stereotypes] then I'm probably not those.

I'm not going to tick a box to say I'm something without a clear explanation of what that something is.

SmartiesHaveTheAnswer - I'm assuming you're saying that there's much talk and you want to get to the root of what's going on.

The origin of the current row comes from this website:

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

which specifies that certain positions are "Reserved for a self-defining woman" with self-defining woman defined as follows:

Where eligibility is restricted to self-defining woman this means that anyone who self-defines as a woman is eligible to stand for these positions. Young members who do not self-define as a woman will not be eligible. You must indicate whether you self-define as a woman when you complete the online nomination form via the Youth Elections portal

Taken literally, the definiion means that a woman who does not buy into the political position of self-identification, ie she believes that she is a woman because of her biological reality rather than because she "identifies as a woman", is not eligible to stand for an all-woman shortlisted place. Men, however, will be eligible so long as they take the "correct" political position.

Personally, I syspect whoever wrote the definition simply didn't think about women at all and was focusing solely on making sure that men would be eligible (for all-woman shortlists). I would be surprised if it was written deliberately to exclude women who don't buy into the political position of self-identification.

However, it could easily be applied in that way. "Are you now, or have you ever, not-self-identified as a woman?". Alternatively, it could mean some women will exclude themselves because they are unwilling to make a political statement that they consider to be untrue and with which they disagree strongly.

There's also the possibility of woman being flooded out all-woman shortlists by an influx of men (eg people with male bodies who have "self-identified" themselves as women).

I despair of all this self identification stuff. It’s a complete misrepresentation of his identity actually works. It’s not about some internal essence that defines you; it’s about what other people recognise you as.

I can self define as a plant pot if I like, but I will be identified as a human woman by everyone else regardless.

Hello smarties

I've liked your posts before. When someone asks questions, it forces everyone to go back to basics which is useful.

I agree with the previous poster who said that saying you have to 'identify as a woman' is a mechanism by which men identifying as women can apply.

But, because of the way it was worded, it means that women too have to say they self identify as a woman. As though it's a choice.

It's a very important linguistic problem. Because it renders being a woman something that you opt into, rather than just are.

The implication being that every experience you have as a woman is something that you can choose, or not. Rather than it being forced upon you by dint of your biology.

I don't identify as a woman, I AM a woman. It's not a choice.

In terms of this particular instance, it means that if a woman identifies as a man, she is ineligible for a woman's position. If she is non-binary and doesn't self identify as a woman, she is ineligible.

If she doesn't buy into the linguistic bollocks and refuses to self identify, she is ineligible.

Whilst, at the same time, any man who does self identify as a woman is eligible for the woman only position.

It makes the biological definition of the word woman meaningless. And only benefits men.

So biology isn’t enough now

I now have to identify that I am a women becuase what exactly I along with many other people may have got this wrong and this needs to now be confirmed

Maybe I am the first man ever to fall pregnant and have a baby

Honestly who makes up this utter nonsense

Oh yes it’s men

we all need to start crossing out gender and replace with sex.

Organised campaign to do so.

Just posted this in AIBU as I am also interested in what people think about this:

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/nov/12/gayle-newland-sentenced-eight-years-prison-duping-friend-having-sex

So if the woman above who is serving 8 years in prison for pretending to be a man self identified as a man then would she have done anything wrong?

I wonder if people think trans people should tell prospective partners about their trans status and if so at what point? If a trans woman is a real woman should she tell men she picks up in a bar for example? Is there any need to do so or is it irrelevant?

AIBU to think that being trans is a very important part of your history and prospective partners should always be told?

What does 'self define' mean? Labour party need to lay this out.

They've already clarified it categorically is NOT related to biological sex.
They seem pretty adamant that it would be an abuse to just tick it with no explanation of why.

So, if it's not biology, if it's not 'I can tick this, who can stop me', if it's not just a meaningless label, they need to explain how to "self define".

A. I must not tick the box because of my biological sex - this would be wrong
B. I must not tick the box because 'I want to' or the 3 consonants and two vowels sound nice to me and that's why I wear them as my label

Not only should labour define woman, but they should define 'self define'.

Because apparently- if I state that I have XX chromosomes and a female reproductive system that is not sufficient. I am required to 'self define' as something EXTRA and I have no idea what that extra is or whether it applies to me.

Dear Labour Party.
I have XX chromosomes and a female reproductive system. If this is not sufficient for me to be considered a woman, please clearly state what extra characteristics are required so that I may honestly evaluate whether I meet your criteria.

If woman are being forced to 'self identify' thats a breach of The Equality Act, because sex is a protected characteristic.

It essentially forces women to be a sub set of trans people.

'Dear Labour Party.

Your membership is made up of more women than men. Those women are 'adult human females'.

If you now cannot define these as 'adult human females' please let me know what your definition is, before I pay a penny of my hard earned cash into your coffers. Because if you do not know what I am, why should I give you one more penny, let alone vote for you?'

Basically the argument is that if you are female and you have and would tick the "woman" or "female" box on a form that asks for "gender"

Any form that asks me my gender I cross it out and change to 'sex' then put female. I did it on a form my brother gave me for his Uni work...which obviously led to him asking wtf I was doing so I explained it all and it turned out..my brother is a TERF too As are many of his uni friends but they are all to afraid of being labelled bigoted to speak up. Was a nice revelation as I assumed most young people were on board with this nonsense, but it seems not, just the ones who are not OK with it are too scared to say this.

I love it when we go back to basics.

Can I ask a question to help me follow this (and other) threads... what the heck does TERF mean?!!?

Oh lord. I didn't mean 'back to basics' in a John Major way!

I meant it in a 'wtf is going on' way

Trans exclusionary radical feminist.

ThinkOfAWittyNameLater'

TERF stands for trans exclusionary radical feminist.

I don't know who first coined it, but it now means anyone who disagrees with even the smallest part of the ideology. Male female, feminist or not, trans or not.

It is used in the same way as aargh witch! In Salem.

It is a slur intended to halt discussion there and then.

Transactivists will say it is simply a description. But that is absolute bollocks. It is used as a dehumanising insult.

See this link for examples.

terfisaslur.com/

ThinkOfAWittyNameLater
Oh lord. I didn't mean 'back to basics' in a John Major way!

We really need a list of acronyms to link to, maybe we could put one on another feminist board?

Now I have to go scrub the image of John and Edwina out of my mind...

TERF is such a useless term in reality. I use it as its easy for most to understand what I mean when I use it, but really its used as a slur. TERF is usually followed by 'should die in a fire' and such. As the terfisaslur site posted shows. I wonder if I should stop using it for shorthand tbh, given how most people who use the word use it..

TERF basically means, as someone else said, anyone who disagrees with any part of trans-ideology.

Thanks everyone. You've all collectively answered my question. As always, it's taken me about 3-4 reads to absorb what you're all saying (you know what I'm like Datun - it's great to 'see' you again).

The most glaring thing for me is the dismissing of the protected characteristic of sex (Equalities Act). When it's in written in legislation, how is this being ignored? The whole 'do you self-identify as a woman' question coupled with the failure to adhere to this part of the Equalities Act makes me wonder whether policy writers for the Labour Party have actually read what's going on here.

It also feels very petulant and child-like:-

"You are a woman? Okay - then tick the box to say that you self-identify as a woman."

"Uuumm...what does that mean?"

"You're not in our gang then".

Either that, or it feels like a re-run of a Monty Python sketch. Except 20 years ago, I laughed at the absurdity of it all and knew that it would never happen.

Oh, wait....

I hate heels and I rarely wear make-up. When I try make-up, I make a botch job of it because I'm too busy being chief carer for the whole of my family.

I love ball sports. Despite being in my 40's, I can do more kicky-uppies than most teenage lads in my school. I also catch and throw a ball like a cricketer (so I'm told).

I hate wearing dresses and tights.

Lip stick is too sticky.

I manly actually know for certain that I'm a woman, an adult human female, when I'm in agony every month, when my boobs are sore, or when I was pregnant, or when breastfed my babies etc etc. So, a biological basis. This is surely the only fundamental truth here and everything else is semantics. It always has to come down to biology, surely?

So self-identifying I can see is another TRA tactic to push this political agenda.

Sorry for the ramble - I hope I'm making sense. I read and read and read and am trying to educate myself. I have 3 daughters and don't want this future for them.

*I MAINLY, not manly.

How's that for a Freudian slip

The broader problem is that since they haven't defined what 'Woman' is that you might self-id as, it feels rather like signing a blank bit of paper and letting them fill the contract in later.

Because yes, I'm a woman because I'm an adult, human, female, but if you're going to say that woman == femme then I'm not that. If you're going to say that woman == [bucket load of stereotypes] then I'm probably not those.

I'm not going to tick a box to say I'm something without a clear explanation of what that something is.

Great post. This is my problem with it (along with the idea that I should self-identify into my own oppression, like it's a choice).

And the fact that this is, as always, men telling women to budge up and make room for men, when women are already so underrepresented in politics. Lefty middle class white men get to dominate politics even more.

It is part of the political transition from material reality to a belief system.