Who wants to tell Labour Party?

[user1471451327]

mexiconewsdaily.com/news/oaxaca-candidates-arent-transgender-after-all/

well not shocked really

. But that would literally never happen.

You mean a system that is based entirely upon someone's word and has no gatekeeping or checks is open to abuse? In politics of all places?

Fancy that.

That is so predictable & obvious. 17 out of 19 trans candidates fraudulently claiming to be trans, including candidates seeking re-election having previously stood & been elected as men.

But no man would ever claim to be trans if weren't true would he!

Genuine question - the whole point of self ID is that no gatekeeping happens and if you self identify then you are for all purposes transgender?

I get horribly confused as we're repeatedly told that no one will ever self identify for personal agenda/ in bad faith, and anyone who self identifies is and shouldn't be questioned as to whether they are 'really'?

Trying to make sense of this is like playing Mornington Flipping Crescent.

Well this is the upshot of I am what I say I am. Based on current right think who is to say the married men with families aren't women if they say they are.

How dare they say they are not transgender, that's murder & rape thrown into one. Transgender is in the mouth of the self-declarer.

Trying to make sense of this is like playing Mornington Flipping Crescent.

That is the best analogy for navigating the trans minefield that I have ever seen.

Oh Gasp.

Who would have thunk it?

At least 15 of them registered with male names, even though they claim to be women.

But you'd never get that kind of thing in the Labour Party. They've got a different system altogether. Their foolproof system is believing that if a man says he is a woman then he is one. #nodebate

See the difference? It could never happen in the Labour Party. You'd never get a man registering as a man in the local elections and then being put on an All-Woman Shortlist and the Jo Cox Leadership for Women scheme.

Honestly. The level of hysteria on here.

But if they say they’re transwomen why would they lie about that? Could they not spot the imposters from the genuine candidates?

And I’ll take a shunt to St Pancras (invoking the 1963 Inter-Yorkshire championship 1st semifinal).

But then logically - must women have recognised and stereotypically 'female' names? Or 'look' sufficiently gender stereotyped? Or not be married to a woman with children?

Of course not. A woman called Steve or Phil with short hair, jeans and dms, married to a lesbian partner and raising children is still a woman.

This is the issue. Self ID logically must mean that any bloke at any moment can simply say 'I'm a woman because internally I've decided'. And the word 'woman' just now means 'anyone who feels like using that word and accessing those resources'. That's what no gate keeping and disposing of the relevance of biology looks like.This IS self ID.

So either people need to stand up and say yes, I want to remove all meaning from the word woman and end sex segregation and here's why I think it's the best possible thing for everyone/society as a whole, or realise that we're making a sideways Lineham Twist which lands us beautifully at Clapham Junction.

Lily Madigan is a woman and anyone who disagrees should go to prison for transphobia.

Same thing with these Mexican dudettes.

Tinkle some countries to indeed have a law that states your sex must be clear from your given name. On the other hand, some give boys a girl's name, like the Spanish José María. Naming structures are pretty complex things.

“It’s a disappointment because transsexual people have fought for a long time and we’ve managed to gain these electoral rights only for these people to come and tarnish all our work. It’s annoying and disappointing,” she added.

• transsexual woman and electoral councilor Michell Altamirano Pacheco

cf
Two threads yesterday with regards trans women prisoners Sophie Eastwood and Alex Stewart?

Reported here:
www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/transgender-killers-kept-apart-after-12493525
(extract)
"Despite their new female identities neither have had surgery, and fellow inmates complained that they felt intimidated around the pair because of their behaviour.

A source said: “It got beyond the joke. No one has a problem with transgender people. But they do have a problem when they suspect that the transgender identities are being used as a way of getting a cushier time in prison. It totally undermines real transgender prisoners.”

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3242178-Transgender-killers-split-up-by-prison-chiefs
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3242264-Transgender-murders-in-Scottish-womens-prison

Right

Ignoring the OP for the minute while i go back and read it

Is there a simple explanation for Mornington Crescent

Trying to make sense of this is like playing Mornington Flipping Crescent.

I think this just about sums up my experience of trying to make any sense out of trans activists' logic.

Read it

“The vast majority are married men with families who can’t be identified as transsexuals either due to their physical appearance or other characteristics,” transsexual woman and electoral councilor Michell Altamirano Pacheco said.

That bit stood out for me...as apparently in Britain (as ova said ) this won't make a difference

But the beauty of it is that it's "a gender parity law that stipulates that half of all candidates at the municipal level must be women."

So ALL the candidates were men.

Maybe not just the Labour party?

"Some 34 groups have now come together and written a letter to Penny Mordaunt, the new minister, calling for the act to be revised.

Dear Penny, Firstly, let us wish you a very warm welcome in your new role as Minister for Women and Equalities. You have shown time and time again that your commitment to inclusion and equality is central to your values. Your moving speeches on gender equality and your being a Stonewall ally stand to showcase this, and we thank you for your transparent dedication to the cause of equality. We’re writing to you today as an alliance of organisations who are deeply concerned by the delay in starting the Gender Recognition Act reform process. Your predecessor Rt Hon Amber Rudd MP, working with Baroness Williams of Trafford, had shown great enthusiasm in using her tenure as Minister of Women and Equalities to help reduce stigma and discrimination against transgender people. We’re hoping you will have the same enthusiasm in moving forward with us, helping remove the systemic barriers currently holding equality out of reach for trans people. As the consultation falls in your new ministerial portfolio, we’re reaching out to you to show the impact the continued delay is having on trans people. This consultation being delayed is having a massively detrimental effect on one of the UK’s most marginalised groups. With the current system of gender recognition, people: must be diagnosed as having gender dysphoria; may be legally forced to delay or annul their application if their spouse vetoes their application; and are subject to the demands and whims of a panel they will never meet, who will have final say over that person’s gender identity. There is no right to appeal. The gap between the Government announcing the consultation and the subsequent delays have allowed fear and misinformation to fester, particularly amongst those who seek to denigrate and devalue the very existence of trans people. The longer this delay goes on, the longer abusive invective is allowed to continue unchallenged by a government who rightly pride themselves on robustly speaking up for its minority citizens. Several of the organisations writing to you today have built strong relationships with the Government Equalities Office over many years, and are excited to work closely together going forward. As you may know, the Gender Recognition Act is in urgent need of reform if Her Majesty’s Government is to bring about full legal dignity for its transgender and non-binary citizens. When the Women and Equalities Committee set out its recommendations for trans equality in 2016, it called for the government to “update the Gender Recognition Act in line with principles of gender self-declaration [through statutory declaration] that have been developed in other jurisdictions”, in turn removing the medicalised, quasi-judicial process currently in place for instances of gender recognition. Their recommendations call on Her Majesty’s Government to consult and improve on a process which the Committee has called “bureaucratic”, “expensive” and “humiliating”. We ask that this Government follows through on the Committee’s reasoned and important recommendations as soon as possible, enshrining the principles of statutory declaration within a robust and accepted legal framework. Your role as Minister for Women and Equalities is centred on ensuring equality for all people regardless of gender identity. Can we call on you to help secure a simplified and de-medicalised process for gender recognition for all transgender and non-binary people as soon as possible? We are under no illusions that the consultation process will be marred by people conflating separate issues and legislation, and/or using it as a springboard to further incite hatred. We remain, however, quietly confident in dignity winning out and would urge you to carefully weigh this small risk against the immense gains. This Conservative government has made clear and valiant commitments to the LGBTQ+ citizens of the UK, a legacy you should be proud to build on. The sooner these reforms can be consulted on, and respectfully responded to, the sooner trans people in the United Kingdom will have their right to a quiet and private life enshrined in law. We therefore ask that you provide us with a clear timeline for when this might be. We look forward to hearing from and working with you in the near future."

reported here:
metro.co.uk/2018/05/07/government-under-pressure-to-reform-vital-transgender-laws-7528227/

Mornington Crescent is a game with seemingly byzantine rules that actually has only one rule: the rules are whatever the person speaking says they are.

Oooh

Thank you doctor

I think...

Ha! The similarities with the claims of TRAs are quite striking.

Love how removal of all sex based protection, removing the right to privacy and the very identity of women for 52% is a 'small risk' worth it because of the immense gains to 0.whatever of the population.

Utter refusal to even recognise there are any other stakeholders who matter. And love how women understanding the truth of all this, what it is going to involve for women and pointing the significant disadvantages to them is framed as 'inciting hatred'.

And 'dignity' winning out? Would that be the death threats to non compliant women, the thumping of a 60 year old, blockading stairs while wearing masks to prevent women assembling to discuss current legislation in their own country, wrecking meetings for sex abuse survivors, getting non compliant women arrested or trying to control and shut down MN to prevent women being able to talk without having to bow down to this particular sacred cow?