Labour lose 3 points - ALL women leaving the party

[goodyzoe]

"The 3-point fall in the Labour share [in You Gov poll] is entirely explained by a 6-point fall among women (from 46% to 40%)"

CON 43 (+1)
LAB 39 (-3)
LD 8 (+2)

@jenniferjames says "Oh fucking hell. I broke the Labour party. :-( "

I've got very mixed feelings. On the one hand - go everyone! They'll have to take notice - surely?

But - Jesus Christ let's not let the Tories have another term.

But - we have to stick up for ourselves don't we.

Starting to think the people who say the rapid rise in TRA ideology is being fuelled by those who stand to benefit from a divided left might have a point.

www.twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/961537001689370624

I think you've just answered your own question there:
' beyond the physical differences sex was irrelevant'

But the physical differences are there. Pretending that women and men are physically the same is pointless. Pretending that it's a symmetrical split of risk and physical ability is also pointless. Men are stronger and larger on average. Men never get pregnant.

if I’m wrong and the feminist author was right then why couldn’t anyone just pick their own gender simply by declaring it to be so and change it whenever they wanted to too?

Because sex differences don't just result in discrimination - it puts people at risk.

Those people who have a penis - no matter whether they describe themselves as he, she or they - are statistically more likely to commit certain, serious offences against others than those people without penises.

Removing the social distinctions between those with, and those without, penises, will inhibit crime prevention designed to keep people safe.

“Those people who have a penis - no matter whether they describe themselves as he, she or they - are statistically more likely to commit certain, serious offences against others than those people without penises.“

I think the reason men are way more likely to commit violent crimes is the same reason they are way more likely to become CEOs. I think it’s generally the same personality traits in people with very different levels of intelligence. Men are way more like to be at the very bottom of society (I.e. incarcerated for violent crime) if they are thick, and more like to be at the top if they are very intelligent (CEOs and such like). But feminists only seem to have a problem with the latter... I personally don’t see this as an unnatural state of affairs, because I don’t believe that gender is a social construct. I don’t believe in self identification either for exactly the same reason, because I believe gender more than a mere social construct and is based on biology and therefore thinking your gender is something doesn’t automatically make it so. Anyway self identification does seem to me to be the logical conclusion to feminist theory as I understand it.

And I think this is a real shame and women will be the ones that mostly suffer from it.
Particularly women being forced to share showers with “people with penises” as you put it, I just call them men myself. www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/transgender-murderer-crowned-prisons-miss-12022026

I think in the future the government will bring in laws to make expressing some of the views expressed in this thread (that people are not the gender they say they are) hate crimes. But again that is the natural conclusion to wanting to see another’s freedom of speech prohibited, the exact same tools and laws can be applied against you.

The transgenders in prison issue is the issue I find most concerning though, as many female prisoners tend to be vulnerable women who haven’t had a good start in life and have made mistakes. To think that they could be locked up beside and forced to shower with “people with penises” with a history of violence is something that bothers me. But I don’t think helping female prisoners is something most feminists are concerned about because once a person falls below a certain social status almost nobody with any power cares about them.

Anyway thanks for taking the time to reply.

i don't know bamc lots of people on this thread have talked about 'people with penises' working in women's refuges, i do think that it matters about the rights of female prisoners, females incarcerated in MH facilities and there are certainly more things to be concerned about that haven't occurred yet.

I'm a feminist. I am not sure I buy into the idea that gender is a social construct either, there are many different things meant by feminism.

Bamc, you are arguing against or possibly for a Feminist position that you have misstated.
Writing laws based on the social construct of gender rather than the material reality of sex is not a Feminist position.

But I don’t think helping female prisoners is something most feminists are concerned about because once a person falls below a certain social status almost nobody with any power cares about them.
This is also false.

“I'm a feminist. I am not sure I buy into the idea that gender is a social construct either, there are many different things meant by feminism.”

I’m not a feminist at all and would be offended if someone described me as such, purely because of what the word has come to mean to most people. I believe in equality of opportunity for everyone (not equality of outcome which is essentially socialism) and I believe in treating everyone as an individual. Saying that, I think it’s only right and natural for women to form female only groups and spaces and for women to campaign in groups about issues that primarily effect women. But men should have those same rights too. I would never normally even come to a forum like this, but it was mentioned on UKpollingReport so I was intrigued.

“and there are certainly more things to be concerned about that haven't occurred yet.”

And sadly, many of those things are all too predictable. But this is what happens when an idea that doesn’t conform to reality such as: ‘gender is nothing more than a social construct’ or ‘you are whatever you think you are’ is religiously accepted as true. Once an idea has been swallowed hook line and sinker the ideologue then sees the world through a distorted lense, often seeing problems where none exist and not seeing other things that are obvious to anyone without such a myopic ideological filter between them and the world. In a decade from now I do not want to be hearing about a jimmy savile type predator self IDing to get into a female prison and abusing vulnerable women, but I’ve a feeling I might be hearing about exactly that.

Once principles and ideas are accepted as true they are usually (eventually) taken to their logical conclusions. For example I followed a link from this thread to a site called feministcurrent where there was an article about feminists being called TERFs. The author was complaining about some trans people on twitter saying scary and pretty appalling things such as: if twenty TERFs were beaten bloody then they would be scared to speak. That’s simply violent and thug like/fascist behaviour in my opinion and such threats of physical violence should/would be reported to the police if they happened in the UK. But when the ANTIFA group was saying that about people with right wing political opinions people didn’t seem to care. That is an example of a bad idea like ‘it’s OK to attack certain people for their political opinions to scare them into silence’ being accepted, anyone else can be targeted next. Such an idea needs to be rejected out right, regardless of who the target is, because the next target could be any one of us.

I guess what I’m saying is that this nonsense has come about because a few bad ideas have become accepted as true and it won’t stop unless those roots are re-evaluated.

Things like anti hate speech laws can be used against feminists too as once the principle that certain opinions are illegal to express is accepted then there is no guarantee that it won’t be your opinion that is deemed hateful next. This seems to be already happening in Scotland. Anyway I really just wanted to gauge what people on such a clearly influential thread actually thought so all the replies are appreciated, but I probably won’t post here again as I don’t think this site is really meant for the likes of me. But thanks again:)

"Men are way more like to be at the very bottom of society (I.e. incarcerated for violent crime) if they are thick, and more like to be at the top if they are very intelligent (CEOs and such like). But feminists only seem to have a problem with the latter... "

Feminists don't have a problem with men committing violent crimes? Since when?

Men are way more like to be at the very bottom of society (I.e. incarcerated for violent crime) if they are thick, and more like to be at the top if they are very intelligent (CEOs and such like).

How very classist of you. The society I'm looking at seems to have a great many thick men in positions of power for which they completely lack competence.

That’s simply violent and thug like/fascist behaviour in my opinion and such threats of physical violence should/would be reported to the police if they happened in the UK
What would be the point to reporting men threatening violence against women in the UK? Actual violence against women is rarely followed up so threats are shrugged off when reported. How is it possible that you do not know this?

“Feminists don't have a problem with men committing violent crimes? Since when?” - well, because men are more likely to end up in prison because of what they do, and they more like to be CEOs because of what they do. This is equality of opportunity, which I believe in. I watched a video where feminists seemed to be arguing for equality of outcome, except actually they weren’t. They were arguing for equality of outcome enforced by quotas not merit for the board room (equality at the top), but nothing to be done at the bottom. Enforced equality of outcome is, I suspect, another bad idea that people wouldn’t like if taken to its logical conclusion.

OP - ideas evolve and society evolves, the important thing is that people take part in the debate and take part in democracy.

You won't find people on here defending racists from ANTIFA because that is not the focus of the board. No platforming of racists is obviously relevant to this debate. No platforming generally is a ridiculous idea imo and treats people like children.

I don't really know what to say to all your straw man arguments, Bamc.
I am 71 years old, and have been a Radical Feminist for fifty of them, and yet somehow I have never met any of the Feminists you describe.
I suspect you of telling porky pies.

If anyone uses the term CIS this is hate crime, I have heard applied to men and women.

If you see it report it, it is HATE.

“If anyone uses the term CIS this is hate crime, I have heard applied to men and women.”
I have never heard anyone use that word and don’t know what it means. But words shouldn’t ever be crimes.

Bamc thank you for coming here and sharing your opinions. As far as I am concerned you are very welcome here. The proposals (and they are only that) for self-id if implemented could have a huge impact on everyone in society. I think it is critical open debate that doesn't hide this happens.

I also think that more widely the way this is NOT being approached and discussed openly and in a balanced way by our elected representatives is deeply concerning for anyone in the UK who values living in a democracy.

littlebillie that is a very odd post.

Starting to think the people who say the rapid rise in TRA ideology is being fuelled by those who stand to benefit from a divided left might have a point
I know people want to believe this but it’s really not true. The left really are doing this all by themselves

I think in the future the government will bring in laws to make expressing some of the views expressed in this thread (that people are not the gender they say they are) hate crimes. But again that is the natural conclusion to wanting to see another’s freedom of speech prohibited, the exact same tools and laws can be applied against you.

I think some might intend this to happen certainly. I do not believe that will or should happen.

Banc do you consider yourself trans? If not and self-Id passes get used to cis. It will be your new gender definition, by default. It is a word used by trans people to describe those other than them.

I get a bit cranky when people come to the Feminist Chat to declare that they would never be a Feminist themselves then proceed to to tell the Feminists what the Feminists think and how wrong they are to think it.

I do tend to agree about words and crimes - the intent matters, I have nothing against transwomen, but I would like to protect women’s rights. If that makes us guilty of hate crimes at some point, that would indeed be a sorry pass.

I understand @thebewilderness

I think though this space has come somewhere people can come and start to see and understand the bits of the Self-ID stuff that has been hidden from public view.

This is such a big thing for women everywhere and I feel that helping people who would otherwise not be aware to see what is going on, and how it may affect all women, including those they care for, is critical to defend feminism if it is to mean anything at all.

Yes Botanist a world where law changes made it impossible or very difficult to defend biological women's rights can't be an end point any party wants. Not if it wants to win biological women's votes.

I agree with you and I ought not to take the bait but...
Failure to object is viewed as acquiescence.
My apologies.