Student politician at the LSE.
I can see he has his finger on the pulse of human suffering.
I am a cisgender, straight, white, male, middle-class Tory. If even I can muster enough self-awareness to recognise the uniqueness of others’ experiences and make small changes to the way I behave as a result, such as adding "he/him" to my social media bios, then you definitely can too. There is no basis for defying this that is both rational and compassionate.
Oh, sweetie. There are these people called w o m e n. Strange, but true. And by conceding to this new faith, we also concede our legal existence as an identifiable group. Which is kind of a problem, because your group - male people - prey on our group - female people - and always have done. And despite it being an article of faith of the woke religion that as soon as a male utters the words, "I am a woman!" that male instantly becomes one, and their offending rate falls to female levels, that's just provably untrue.
Transwomen offend at male rates. There are now more transwomen in prisons for sex offences than women, according to Rhona Hotchkiss, who should know. Ministry of Justice stats are that 1 in 50 male prisoners now identify as women. Given 95% of prisoners are male, and over 98% of sex offenders, that's a bit of an issue when you start to argue that transwomen are literally women (because they say so) and therefore male criminality isn't relevant, and all the single sex provision which women have fought for (and all the charities in the developing world argue should be introduced, and is essential) should be open to any male identifying as a female. Which, of course, would then mean, "any male who walks in, because the social ban would end".
Soooo. Let's summarise: you think any man who says, "I'm a woman" should be able, as a result, to access any woman's space, no matter what the women may want and no matter how vulnerable we are in that space. And women should be erased as a sex class, when our sex is why we are oppressed, so men can opt in to our definition and, thereby, absolutely all our provision. Without our consent, and when that puts us at risk. And that's your idea of equality. To increase rape rates, at a point in history where fewer than 2% of reported rapes - reported - result in a conviction, because to your mind, men who think they're women must therefore be suffering agonies, and it's women's job to console them for this degradation.
How quaint.
See, I'm just wondering: what's the value of a woman? How many rapes are too many, as far as you're concerned? At what point do women have the right to say no? To men taking our sports? Our loos? Our communal changing spaces? Our dorms, our wards, our refuges, our rape crisis groups, our smear tests... what about our right to say no to sex? Where does this end, exactly? What, in your mind, is the acceptable point at which women can say 'no' to male demands? Does one exist at all? I'm not joking. I'm serious. What's the stop?
Hyperbole, you'll say. Hysterical, you'll say. Terf, you'll say.
Here's the thing: name me a time in history where a class have been erased in law, as a group deserving of legal protection in any way, that ended well. Name me a point in history where allowing men all the access they want to women in vulnerable situations, whenever they wanted it, has ended well.
I'll wait.