Guess how I got suspended from the Labour Party?

[IAmDavidLewis]

Well, one of the weirdest days in my life concluded with me receiving a letter informing me of my immediate suspension from the Labour Party. They believe I may have breached the rules by subverting the intention of All Women Shortlists, Women’s Officers or minimum quotas for women. Unfortunately, this does mean that my political ambitions are on hold for a while. I shall of course be continuing to self-identify as a woman every Wednesday, as that is my gender identity...

I have to say a huge thanks to @namechangeah for all her help, guidance and, more importantly, proof-reading! I wouldn’t have gotten to this point without it. I’d also like to thank everyone for their support today. I hope this has helped a bit.

And the Telegraph called me an “activist”! Achievement unlocked

somewhere on my shelves I have that novel about being on trial in the Soviet Union.

Dammit, what's it called.

Darkness at Noon. That's the one.

It ends with them explaining that the best thing to do is to make a false confession.

R0wantrees

It's just off the bottom of your photo, but is that the petition printed in Private Eye?

If so, that's brilliant.

I hope certain people step on a logos.

Or legos, even!

Well yes, clearly a pr stunt. Again, not actually depriving a woman of anything

As @Itsallgoingtobefine pointed out, eligible women weren't deprived of anything except an award. No big deal. After all, a part-time mayun got it, so it's all good.

My students union said I wasn't welcome at a women in leadership event which in the blurb said was for self identifying women and trans women. I said I didn't self identify as a woman but was a woman and could I come and was basically told to go away

Bizarro world.

I hope certain people step on a logos.

Or legos, even!

Yes that was what I was implying

Yes PE did print the petition.

Re Private Eye, I understand that they printed the following comment:

."but the big question - of whether one community should be permitted a veto on media coverage of itself - remains stubbornly unresolved"

p 14, Eye no 1470.

(I haven't seen it though and so can't comment on context)

The Private Eye comment comes from their TV review column. It was about Genderquake and Peter Kay’s Car Share and the controversy the TRAs whipped up about it.

Apparently the BBC took out a scene which had an allegedly transphobic joke after the complaints from the TRA lobby, and that sentence was PE’s conclusion on the matter.

RealityHasALiberalBias thank you.

Yes that quote is from the TV review column. I have the issue here.

Private eye is a fantastic publication - they seem to have a decent grasp on reality. Real reality, that is. They take no prisoners on anything - if it’s ridiculous, anti democratic, corrupt, dodgy or precious it gets shredded.

I also suspect they side more with the gender critical ....

From the same issue of the Eye...

Depressingly the fact man is doing it will get more publicity thsn a woman making a point but not to take away from his point or actions.

It kind of is a bit depressing, but it's the only way that the reality of men barging into women's space could be made obvious.

The whole thing is so depressing that anything that trips it up is welcome.

There seems to be two main themes coming up on this thread: how do you define gender identity and how can you judge someone else's gender identity.

Defining gender identity

The Yogyakarta Principles define gender identity as:

"Gender identity is understood to refer to each person’s deeply felt internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond with the sex assigned at birth, including the personal sense of the body (which may involve, if freely chosen, modification of bodily appearance or function by medical, surgical or other means) and other expressions of gender, including dress, speech and mannerisms"

Further information on gender identity is on wikipedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity

Reading these definitions it is quite clear that LM and also Sophie Cook have female gender identities. However, it is not possible to have a gender identity where you are a woman on Wednesdays but a man for the rest of the week. So the OP is not sincere when he claims to identify as a woman on Wednesdays. His subsequent comments to the media and on this thread reinforce his lack of sincerity.

Pippa Bunce's gender identity is bi-gendered which remains constant. However, her gender expression varies from day to day. She does not have a female identity so would not qualify for AWS or the role of women's officer in the Labour Party. She is also not able to change her legal gender under today's laws or under legal self id - and I doubt she would want to.

Deciding if someone's claimed gender identity is sincere

Criminal law is based on people's intent. For example, to be convicted of murder you need to have intended to kill or seriously injury someone. Defendants could argue that what they intended to do is entirely subjective, that they did not intend to harm the victim and you have no way of knowing otherwise. Yet people are convicted of murder all the time. Why? Because the court looks at all the evidence and makes a judgment on whether the defendant is telling the truth or not.

Similarly to change your legal gender today you must intend to live in your preferred gender until you die. A Gender Recognition Panel (a tribunal) decides whether you are sincere. When legal self id comes in, a court will decide if an individual has made a false statutory declaration.

In the case of the OP, it is not trans people or allies who will determine if he is sincere in his claim to have a female gender identity some of the time, it will be a Labour Party disciplinary committee.

Self ID

In the case of the OP, it is not trans people or allies who will determine if he is sincere in his claim to have a female gender identity some of the time, it will be a Labour Party disciplinary committee.

Yes, and that's extremely sinister.

Please stop with this talking point, Sarah. Under self-ID, the only way to prosecute someone for making a false declaration would be if they stood up and said they lied. Which is unlikely to happen. This is because legislation would be based on subjective, not objective criteria. This, by the way, is the hallmark of a theocracy. Please, do us the favour of making arguments that hold at least a drop of water.

@SarahAr The Yogyakarta Principles define gender identity as:

None of which has any relevance to the female socialisation from birth that all females experience, the male socialisation from birth that all males experience, nor the continuing oppression of females on the basis of their female sexed bodies that AWS were supposed to try to compensate for.

The Y Principles are word salad pushed through by vested interests but without appropriate consultation. Many of us have feelings and many of us have found that certain feelings aren't facts.

AssignedPuuurfectAtBirth

Luv that pic - captures the paradox of self ID very well

TRA like to pretend that gender identity has everything to do being male,female, man women girl and boy. When in reality it means nothing but sexist stereotypes.

how do you define gender identity and how can you judge someone else's gender identity.

Two very simple answers here:

1. You can’t
2. You can’t.

Because it comes down to how people FEEL. How do I feel? You can’t know. Do I see red the same as you? We will never know. It’s subjective. It’s a feeling. There is no objective measure. It cannot be weighed, detected, seen, heard, smelt or sensed in any way. It’s just how you feel.

You can however define sex. Objectively.

You cannot legislate for a feeling. You cannot legislate for belief.

Some societies do. They ban blasphemy for example and apostasy. Are they societies you’d like to live in? They are not ones I want to live it.

The really handy thing with murder trials is that evidence is really quite important though.

So let's say, Mr Jones was found with a knife with the victim's blood on it and had googled 'how to kill someone.' And he was witnessed running away from the scene having been heard to shout at the victim.

Vs 'I really promise I feel lile a woman, see I'm wearing a dress and everything.'

Do the two honestly compare? A lawyer doesn't tell a jury, 'I really believe this man did it because I have an internal feeling which tells me he did'

The two things differ wildly.

That’s an inaccurate explanation of criminal law. The element is mens rea not intention.

Citing the Yogakharta declaration as a definition that supposedly can't be questioned in a discussion with gender critical feminists is a bit like citing the Nicene creed as a statement of fact in a discussion with atheists. It really doesn't carry quite the weight you think it does.

Reading these definitions it is quite clear that LM and also Sophie Cook have female gender identities.

Not to me it's not. A "deeply felt internal and individual experience of gender" is not discernible to an outsider. LM and SC are free to be honest or tell lies - I've no way of knowing. Equally, I'm free to disbelieve them and they have no way of proving it. It's nonsense.

Similarly to change your legal gender today you must intend to live in your preferred gender until you die. A Gender Recognition Panel (a tribunal) decides whether you are sincere. When legal self id comes in, a court will decide if an individual has made a false statutory declaration.

People promise to marry until 'death do us part' everyday, yet 50% of those marriages end in divorce. A question in the Scottish consultation asked how many times we thought someone should be allowed to change their gender id. Given de-transitioners exist, the answer has to be at least twice. Thereafter, it's just whether the number should be an odd or even one.