Dawn Butler and biology

[HDDD]

Clip from GBM interview this morning.
twitter.com/JammersMinde/status/1229439480064610308
She said "Babies are born without sex"
Unless she said something after to clarify what she meant by this or backtracked then I guess this is her starting point....
Astounding. Labour have lost the plot, and me.

she's trollied.

And these people want to lead our country?

*trolleyed 🛒

Thank you for the link R0wantrees and Neurotrash at trolleyed

In the speech Butler ridicules the delay since the GRA consultation & the Conservative minister's comments 'bear with me' as'its contentious'.
Dawn Butler asserts, "we all agree", "it not a big deal" "108 000 people contributed to the consultation" as reason to just pass the sex-self-id changes to the GRA.

Its as if she has no idea or interest in the Safeguarding & women's sex based rights issues raised by many in the consultation.

Im amazed that a shadow minister wouldnt be more curious in the results of responses to a public consultation?

Its as if she has no idea or interest in the Safeguarding & women's sex based rights issues raised by many in the consultation. Im amazed that a shadow minister wouldnt be more curious in the results of responses to a public consultation?

I honestly find it difficult to comprehend the failure to see the clear conflict of interests. It's indicative of either stupidity or a cynical decision to throw women and children under the bus to pander to the woke agenda. Either way, it's the opposite of what Douglas Murray describes as heroic people who are prepared to challenge the myriad inconsistencies of the liberal status quo.

'Babies are born without a sex' is a statement of belief. No science behind it whatsoever.

There are such close parallels with cultish beliefs in that statement. I'm all for religious freedom but religion should not be imposed.

I agree it's grimly fascinating.

I'm also fucking furious that the same people who argue this crap are mysteriously ok with children and young people having parts of their bodies removed and modified and damaged in order to look different ... But different from from what? To become what?

If biology doesn't exist, if sex is but a construct, why the need change a child's or a young person's biological body? Why the irreversible corporeal (bodily) response to something that is just a construct?

Doesn't the corporeal response actually cement the notion of biological reality?

The whole ideology is riddled with contradiction. And meanwhile, children and young people are being physically mutilated.

Either way, it's the opposite of what Douglas Murray describes as heroic people who are prepared to challenge the myriad inconsistencies of the liberal status quo

I hope Douglas Murray has seen Dr Julia Long's recent questions to Lisa Nandy MP asking if vulnerable women should be locked in prison with rapists if the rapist chooses to identify into the female estate.

www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=oUon9j1zJ_E&

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3824781-Lisa-Nandy-says-child-rapists-should-be-in-women-s-prisons-if-they-identify-as-female

I agree it's grimly fascinating

AutumnCrow
It really is. It's quite hard to believe that they are actually saying these things. It makes them look utterly absurd.
R0wantrees
Lisa Nandy's comments are quite jaw dropping. What planet are they on? And wasn't Nandy trying to present herself as the Northern no BS candidate? It's laughable.

Layla did the right thing linking to the World Health Organisation as obviously they are the experts.

www.who.int/genomics/gender/en/index1.html

The first paragraph states...

Most women are 46XX and most men are 46XY. Research suggests, however, that in a few births per thousand some individuals will be born with a single sex chromosome (45X or 45Y)

I'm not an expert nor a biologist but know the above is bollocks.
NO ONE has ever been born 45Y.

An embryo cannot form, grow, develop and be born without at least one X chromosome.

I think I've cracked it. When I was about six I realised how much more fun boys toys were and how much more freedom they had and how much more practical their clothes were and I started wearing trousers instead of dresses, had my hair cut like a boy, playing with trucks and my brother's meccano and was considerably flattered when I got called sonny. Clearly I had changed into a boy. This went on until I was about 12 or so, then I started wearing dresses sometimes, grew my hair and got interested in male pop and film stars. So clearly I had changed back into a girl.

Or summat.

PS this is true.

I am surprised that they are saying this batshit crazy stuff out loud but I am grateful for it too. Everyone needs to see & hear how deluded this ideology is & how quickly it falls apart when subject to any kind of scrutiny.

@BiologyIsReal - my sister was like that as a child! She still is for that matter (she actually bought and wore a dress last summer because it was so hot and it was the talk of social media when she proudly posted a photo ‘I haven’t worn a dress since 1993!’).

This is what I was trying to explain to a mum on the other thread - to tell her to explain this type of thing to her ‘themchild’. My sister was never a them/he/they/xi, etc - although lord only knows why would happen to her if she was a child these days.

It was ever thus...

Lisa Nandy's comments are quite jaw dropping. What planet are they on? And wasn't Nandy trying to present herself as the Northern no BS candidate? It's laughable.

I think there are many more MPs & MSPs from all parties who would say the same. Or, if they were more cynical/politically aware would try very hard avoid saying what she did, despite supporting policies informed by the same position.

Journalists need to start asking MPs these direct questions & insisting on answers.

for example:
Penny Mordant MP former Minister Women & Equalities who

'Did Mumsnet Just Hand Penny Mordaunt Her Arse?'
March 14, 2019 by Eleanor Scott
(extract)
"Given that the questions included things as basic as ‘What is a woman?’, some users felt that this at least could have been tackled as a preliminary response to the other questions from (mostly) women about, for example, ‘gender dysphoria’ in young children, the proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act (GRA). There were also questions themed around international development and the safety of girls; period poverty; menstruation and girls’ privacy; Brexit and its affects on women; drugs being used experimentally on children of both sexes in the UK; gender ideology and the safeguarding of children; the inappropriate medicalisation of children and the troubles at the Tavistock Clinic; violence against women and girls; the ‘porn’ industry and its affects on the safety of girls; women’s sports; women’s prisons; and her views on protecting the permitted single-sex exemptions in the Equality Act.

The questions were topical and were asked intelligibly, and clearly displayed genuine intent to engage with her about her important remit. For example, ‘Dear Penny, Do you think it is right and fair that a person who was born male and has gone through male puberty, can compete in girls’ and women’s sports?’ (Btw, I’m loving the Mumsnet penchant for politeness and correct SPAG there.)

And so Monday arrived, then Tuesday, and Wednesday, and Thursday - and still no answers were forthcoming. Mumsnetters started to wonder if the questions were simply too difficult for Penny Mordaunt to answer, and/or whether she was engaged in disagreements with her SPADs. (SPADS: special advisers, some of whom have a penchant for lobbying their own Ministers with politically ‘woke’ ideas, which are frequently out of step with the thinking of ordinary voters.) After all, this was all running parallel to Maria Miller getting held to account on Twitter by women about her lack of consultation with women’s organisations, women’s groups and women’s services prior to producing her Select Committee report on the GRA - a report which included proposals that if enacted would fundamentally affect women’s and girls’ lives.

The restless crowd began to wonder if Mordaunt and her SPADs were now caught between a rock and a hard place, because politicians don’t want to admit they’ve been throwing women and children under the bus, and being complicit in yet another potential safeguarding scandal, and these politicians certainly don’t want to go under the bus themselves. Eventually even the most Hackeresque Ministries know that waffle and contradictory statements won’t hack it any more once strong lights start to shine on them from places like Mumsnet." (continues)

They had hoped for the words of someone who was at least on top of her brief and who recognised the need to protect the sex-based rights of women and girls, but instead they got (and I say this with a reviewer’s hat on) a disjointed medley of politico-speak and ineffective deflection. She had had ample time to come up with answers of real substance, but interestingly she didn’t even seem to try. In fact her answers can be grouped into a number of overlapping categories: (1) Deliberately misunderstood the question; (2) Didn’t understand the question or the issue, and contradicted herself; (3) Resented being asked the question; and (4) Couldn’t be bothered to answer the question properly. As one poster put it, ‘80% of these answers weren’t actually answers were they?’ Another called the performance ‘clueless’. Ouch." (continues)

eleanorscottarchaeology.com/els-blog/2019/3/14/the-day-that-mumsnet-took-down-penny-mordaunt-mp

Maria Miller MP Conservative Minister for Women and Equalities 2012 to 2014, Women and Equalities Select Committee chair 2015 to 2020

July 2017 interviewed by Janice Turner (Times)
(extract)
"Maria Miller gathers up her handbag and makes to leave: “I don’t think I’m happy about this. I think I’ve finished . . . I didn’t realise this was such a stitch-up.” I’ve been questioning Ms Miller about a report on transgender rights she produced last year as chairwoman of the women and equalities committee. The government has just announced that it will go to further consultation this autumn.

Many of its recommendations, to redress hate crime against transgender people, to improve access to NHS services and stop discrimination in employment (as seen in President Trump’s cruel, summary banning of up to 6,600 transgender US military personnel), are widely supported. But one proposal that seeks to change the very definition of “man” and “woman” has far-reaching implications.

Justine Greening, the equalities minister, announced her support this week for changes to the 2004 Gender Recognition Act, echoing calls by Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader." (continues)

The heart of the controversy is the view, espoused by Ms Miller’s report, that switching gender should instead merely be a matter of “self-definition”. A man need only “declare” that he is a woman. Your gender is what you feel it to be: there would be no requirement even to take female hormones or have surgery — about 70 per cent of trans women still have intact male genitals — or even “present” as a woman to be legally female. (Some older trans people are troubled by this, believing that it trivialises and delegitimises their struggles to live in their non-birth gender.)

Furthermore, if the law changes, “gender identity” is likely to become a protected characteristic under equalities legislation: ie if you deny a person is a woman or a man when they claim to be, you are guilty of discrimination or hate crime.

When Ms Miller, 53, released her report in January last year she was surprised that criticism came not from conservatives but, as she put it, “women who purport to be feminists”. This may be because feminists, well versed in sexual politics and long-time supporters of gay rights, are among the few people who can penetrate the arcane, confusing terminology.

Many see potential loopholes and conflicts of rights that put women at risk, giving men access to rare female-only spaces such as single-sex wards, changing rooms and domestic violence refuges, designed to keep them safe and private. It is these concerns I put to Ms Miller in her Basingstoke constituency.

Take this scenario: a man enters a female communal changing area, removes his clothes while women get undressed. Now they have a right to ask him to leave. Under gender self-definition, if he said “I identify as a woman” he would be entitled to stay. This, I stress, is unlikely to be a trans woman — many who use women’s changing rooms every day with discretion and no fuss — but could be a sexual predator exploiting the loophole" (continues)

How does she think this rule will effect the operation of women’s domestic violence refuges, several of which submitted concerns to her inquiry that clients would be distressed having fled brutal men if male-bodied individuals were granted access. In Toronto, Christopher Hambrook claimed to be a trans woman to access a refuge then raped residents. “These spaces carry out a risk assessment before individuals are allowed to use them and those that pose a risk to safety are not necessarily one gender.” But 90 per cent of violent crime and 98 per cent of sexual crime is committed by men. Trans women, such as Davina Ayrton, who raped a 15-year-old girl, have been convicted of offences seldom committed by natal females. Would self-identification mean these crimes would be registered as committed by women, skewing the figures? “It should be registered in the gender of the person when they committed the crime.” This would mean that if Katie Brannen, charged with twice raping a man in South Shields, is convicted that crime would be recorded on female statistics even though legally women cannot commit rape." (continues)
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/2993425-Maria-Miller-interviewed-by-Janice-Turner-full-text

Dawn now trying to back-pedal.

metro.co.uk/2020/02/18/labour-split-dawn-butler-says-trans-men-never-put-womens-jails-12260746/

Too late, Dawn.

"Dawn Butler has said violent transitioning male prisoners ‘should never’ be allowed in women’s jails, as a Labour row over trans rights rages on."

What's a male - because she doesn't actually seem to know. Can she also define 'violent' because I don't think she understands words? She cant come back from this - but lets not forget (we will be chuckling over this for years).

And astonishingly, she was born in 1969, so she's old enough to know better. She has no kids, as far as I can see, but even without having given birth oneself, surely she's seen enough birth scenes on the telly to know that biological sex is bleeding obvious from birth, and babies are not born like Ken of Barbie And, with smooth, gender-neutral pubic regions?

Or maybe she's just an idiot??

I know I know I know!

Just posted this Spactator link on the Nandy thread.

blogs.spectator.co.uk/2020/02/dawn-butlers-transgender-madness/?fbclid=IwAR1lYJoAHb0mn2gQZI5vA82iQ1tZJljPD6VLjgA922_XEaUrUkMQI6ZmX8M

We need to recognise the seriousness of all this. A senior Labour figure is flat-out denying scientific truth on national TV. Another senior Labour figure is proposing putting male rapists into close, walled quarters with vulnerable women. This is backward thinking. It feels like a kind of hysteria, where otherwise sensible people are saying things that are clearly untrue and even unhinged.

It is, it's a group hysteria*

*oh the irony of using that word

Its a confusing article.
The headline, "Labour split as Dawn Butler says trans men ‘should never be put in women’s jails’ would mean that Dawn Butler does not think females who identify as transgender (trans men) should not be placed in the female prison estate. Its the logical conclusion of her founding belief that "TWAW, TMAM, NBIAV".

But when pressed for her position today, Ms Butler told Metro.co.uk: ‘There are bodies and advisory bodies within the judicial system that everybody would need to go through before that would even be considered and that (trans women prisoners in a female prison) should never happen.’ Asked directly if she disagreed with backbencher Ms Nandy’s stance, she added: ‘Yes… the prisons service has a separate area anyway and they have discretionary ways of dealing with trans prisoners. ‘So the prison service already have all of those considerations.’ (continues)

Dawn Butler should do some due dilligence about how MoJ policies were influenced by transactivists & the precedents which placed violent males (transwomen) in female prison estate.
STILLTish article:
gendercriticalwoman.wordpress.com/2019/08/11/how-long-has-this-been-going-on/

It feels like a kind of hysteria, where otherwise sensible people are saying things that are clearly untrue and even unhinged.

But they can't be sensible about other things if they come out with this crap. Seriously, would you put these people in charge of the economy if they don't even know where babies come from? They are completely discrediting the Labour Party. It's heartbreaking. They have failed working class people and without doubt will turn them away from socialist ideas in droves. It's humiliating, I'm just relieved I left the party over this during the GRA consultation, I'd be so embarrassed to be associated with this nonsense.

And they can't blame the Tories or the MSM for this fiasco (although I'm sure they probably will).

Dawn Butler, so open minded her brain fell out. Some top politicians we have these days.

I can't quite understand why all of the female candidates signed the pledge but none of the men did !