Meet the man standing to be a Labour party women’s officer

[busyboysmum]

blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/05/meet-the-man-standing-to-be-a-labour-party-womens-officer/

This is great - good on David Lewis. Shows the Labour Party's policy up for the nonsense it is.

If any man can say he's a woman and self identify as such.... I can't believe I am even typing these words.

It's just not possible to change your biological sex. Surely common sense is going to win through this madness?

Off to have some scones now. Pip pip.
(Siddles back out again)

Ooh scones. I have scones!

erishkagil

The question is not biased, it blatantly lies about things that are not even up for discussion.... I know it fits into your agenda.... however anyone can clearly see it is a leading question and based in nonsense.
You can refuse to acknowledge that publicly, but I would give even the most ardent transphobe dealing in misinformation the credit of being able to see it ..... as I said I don't expect you to acknowledge it, but it proves zippo about anything.

crispbuttyfan Link for your article please?

The question is not biased, it blatantly lies about things that are not even up for discussion....

Everything connected to this issue is up for discussion. Nice try though. I see #NoDebate is still rumbling on.

as I said I don't expect you to acknowledge it, but it proves zippo about anything.

Likewise

Where is the evidence that the majority of women support transwomen? I know a lot of women, I don't know any that would be happy with a man (however they identify) in a space designated for women. It's not age related either - teens to 70's.

Datun
Nice work, but I didn't say you couldnt discuss something, I said these claims are not up for discussion by policy makers... no one is suggesting abolishing male/female toilets, and no-one is pushing for a criminal record for incidental misgendering.
So whatever..

Notably even with all that bs only a slight majority of 58% have a problem, thats amusing too.

Myauntybadger I suggest you go back in time to 2010 then and campaign about the equality act.... it's a bit late now...

crispbuttyfan Can't supply a link then? Ok.

Why do you think that is allowed? Why would excluding trans identified males be a legitimate aim?

Because in certain circumstances the physical remnants of a person's original sex may be sufficient to cause distress or considerable discomfort to another individual. Balancing different rights in a pragmatic way. That doesn't mean they don't have a female gender identity. No one is saying they become completely biologically that sex. That is the predicament of transsexuality.

From that Mail article:

He told Labour officials he is a woman on Wednesday's to stand for the party post

That's a grocer's apostrophe, right?

This is brilliant Well done David Lewis and James Kirkup

From the Telegraph:

A Labour Party spokesman said: "The Labour Party is committed to upholding the principle of affirmative action for women.

"Anyone attempting to breach Labour Party rules and subvert the intention of All Women Shortlists, women’s officers or minimum quotas for women will be dealt with via our established safeguards, selection procedures and disciplinary measures."

Are the LP really going to question someone's self-declared gender identity?

Maybe they'll have to draw up some guidance - 'What Is A Woman?' That would make interesting reading. We've been trying to pin down the gender fans on their definition of 'woman' for years.

Unfortunately my time machine is broken. Where is the evidence though? I see you're discrediting the Wings poll, but what supports your statement?

Obvious gaslighting here.

It's just embarrassing, isn't it? Make an assertion. Get it refuted. Complain about refutation. Get challenged to evidence assertion. Spend pages upon pages making ignorant comments revealing lack of even the most basic understanding of topic at hand (polling). Force endless explanations of the understanding that is lacking. Hope nobody remembers to insist on the evidence for assertion made.

I'm still waiting for a data set from commissioned research by a reputable professional polling company that a majority of women are in favour of penis in their private spaces and/or of amending the GRA to self-ID. This data set will never be forthcoming because it does not exist.

Because in certain circumstances the physical remnants of a person's original sex may be sufficient to cause distress or considerable discomfort to another individual. Balancing different rights in a pragmatic way. That doesn't mean they don't have a female gender identity. No one is saying they become completely biologically that sex.

Sex is biological. Gender identity is psychological and entirely subjective. If the law believed they were female, there would not be exemptions. Why would they have different rights from all the other women?

I said these claims are not up for discussion by policy makers...

Yes it is. Policymakers like swim England, for instance have changed their policy, or at least put it on hold.

Or did you mean lawmakers?

I absolutely think it's up for discussion, as the law is being exploited in a way it for which it was never designed.

All this asserting that there is a legal fiction, and therefore we are wrong, etc. It means nothing. Laws change. Women have had to change laws. Hundreds of them.

It is all up for discussion as Datun says. The GRA gatekeeping could be tightened up, so could the EA. Women's rights could be taken into consideration more. The EA exemptions could become an Equality duty where conflicting rights would have to be weighed up as SMG says.

OldmanOfTheWeb3 - It's like there's a complete humour bypass

Yes. I've been noticing for a while this characterises the whole debate from the TRA side. I think it's a big part of the whole 'identity' clusterfuck.

It's not good for anybody to take themselves so very seriously.

Why would they have different rights from all the other women?

Generally they don't. The EA says they have the same rights in the vast majority of cases.

Is it? I've used it once!

Oh yeh soz. spontaneous used it earlier in the thread as well.

From the Telegraph: "Anyone attempting to breach Labour Party rules and subvert the intention of All Women Shortlists, women’s officers or minimum quotas for women will be dealt with via our established safeguards, selection procedures and disciplinary measures."

What established safeguards? First we've heard of that. How come the CLP allowed him to stand in the first place if there are established safeguards in place?

Labour is on record as saying that roles for women are open to men who self-identify as women. David Lewis is saying that he self-identifies as a woman on Wednesdays. On that basis, how could he be breaching Labour Party rules? What rules has he allegedly breached?

Generally they don't. The EA says they have the same rights in the vast majority of cases.

But not in all. Because they're male. So it's not the point. The law recognises their maleness.

What established safeguards? First we've heard of that. How come the CLP allowed him to stand in the first place if there are established safeguards in place?

Quite.

But not in all. Because they're male. So it's not the point.

If you asked a court if such a transitioned woman with a GRA was female, what do you think they'd say?