50:50 Parliament Campaign to Encourage Women in Politics now have TWO Transwomen on the Panel

[gardenbird48]

I saw 50:50 women tweet to Sue Pascoe Chair of the Conservative Women’s Organisation some time ago on their #askhertostand, but then I couldn’t find the tweet and thought maybe they’d realised their mistake (can you guess?) and deleted it.

However, how wrong I was! There are now two people that have extremely limited ‘lived experience’ as a female (Sue was a married father and successful businessman and Master to Foxhounds until a few years ago). The other person has said hi on here recently.

I don’t mean to be rude but surely the whole point of encouraging women to stand for Parliament is to help overcome the barriers women face in entering politics. Any barriers that trans people face are rather different. It is also interesting that on a panel of three for their ‘Encouraging LGBT+ Women to Stand’ campaign, there us only one person with actual lived experience of being a woman (I am hoping that Mandu Reid of the WEP was born female at least...??)

Sorry, misspelt her name. It should be Clare Dimyon

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clare_Dimyon

Sorry, last one www.brightonandhovenews.org/2019/12/09/hospital-apologises-to-rape-victim-for-branding-her-request-for-same-sex-breast-screening-medic-as-transphobic/

@ArabellaScott

have never claimed to be 'speaking for women' defined, presumably as women who hold negative views against me

It's not about whether women hold negative views - or any views - about you! It's about whether a male bodied person can actually understand, on a very deep level, the issues that impact on women.

It's also about representation. It's about AFAB people being seen to speak for themselves, AS people who can speak for themselves. It's about whether our culture continues to code Male as the public, default voice and Female as the minority, the exception.

Every single woman's place in public life that is taken by a transwoman is act in favour of keeping female presences a minority in public life.

Political representation is the hill to die on. Without it the law moves against us and our invisible interests and uniquely female needs

Going back a few pages - you'll note that in my original post I mentioned deletions (in the context of the three strike rule and so on) - 'this' being this thread, not the broader issue of political representation.

I won’t be ‘validating’ anyone’s unrestricted desire to say what they like.

Oh Robin

I wonder what Jaz would say to a barrister who was appearing in court against a black lesbian being persecuted for her beliefs?

That's not fair Empress - the cab rank rule means that barristers take the cases they are asked to do, doesn't matter whether they have rampant sympathy or complete indifference to the cause they represent. It may well be that a client seeks out a particular barrister, but the barrister can't say "actually, regardless of merits, the optics on this are going to be shocking and I'm giving this one a swerve."

@ElfAndSafetyInspector

I won’t be ‘validating’ anyone’s unrestricted desire to say what they like.

Oh Robin

We all face different difficulties. We can learn from each other - as I try to every day. To say that I have ‘no idea’ about your particular difficulties suggests that I have spent the last 5 plus decades with my eyes shut and my hands over my ears

But do women get the choice to learn from and with who they please? I say this in light of a long history of men teaching women who we are, what we can or cannot be, and what we are worth. This is feeling very much samey to me and it is also feeling very much like a demand.

This is not my site, I don’t set the rules of debate or the standards of civility expected and it isn’t up to me to change them or lower them for you

But it is not just about this site. It is about the debate in general. It is about Twitter and Reddit and all the places that women generally are abused, harassed and discriminated against - and, if they speak up for women and women's rights in the context of the really core and crucial question of what. woman is, they are threatened with literal violence, banned and silenced. Where is our free speech? Will you stand up for us here? Will you stand up for us in public policy debates where the big TRA organisations band together with their significant funding to shout us down? After all, even if you do not agree with the GC sisterhood, which is inclusive of women from all walks of life, straight, lesbian, rich, poor, and of different skin colours, faiths and ethnicities - women who have grown up knowing what we are and what we are worth according to men and knowing that we are the 'second sex' - the one that is oppressed by patriarchy and by men, surely you support our right, as women, to freedom of speech and oppression, even if we are saying things you don't agree with? Surely you will defend that as a principle and you will defend us?

I also take umbrage at this phrasing " it isn’t up to me to change them or lower them for you". That came across as really so paternalistic. It reminds me of the campaign for suffrage where benevolent men congratulated themselves on giving women a little tiny piece of power and took the credit for it.

Men don't know what it's like to be a woman, why would a man take the place of a woman? It's so misogynist. Wearing a frock and blabbing about "folk" doesn't allow a man to learn what it is like to be a woman,
nor what it is like to have once been a girl. The SRY gene is fit and active in every cell of their body, and it shows.

freedom of speech and oppression

and expression

We all face different difficulties. We can learn from each other - as I try to every day. To say that I have ‘no idea’ about your particular difficulties suggests that I have spent the last 5 plus decades with my eyes shut and my hands over my ears

No it doesn't: it asserts that you haven't spent the last 5 plus decades looking out from female eyes, and hearing with female ears the s**t that is directed at a female/s when there is no male witness to other male/s abuse or to the numerous bodily functions so many females endure.

No.

@Linearpark

We all face different difficulties. We can learn from each other - as I try to every day. To say that I have ‘no idea’ about your particular difficulties suggests that I have spent the last 5 plus decades with my eyes shut and my hands over my ears

No it doesn't: it asserts that you haven't spent the last 5 plus decades looking out from female eyes, and hearing with female ears the s**t that is directed at a female/s when there is no male witness to other male/s abuse or to the numerous bodily functions so many females endure.

This exactly.

@RobinMoiraWhite

Do you believe that male-sexed people have the right to undress and shower in a communal changing room with teenage girls?

To say that I have ‘no idea’ about your particular difficulties suggests that I have spent the last 5 plus decades with my eyes shut and my hands over my ears

The alternative then is that you know, but don’t care.

@JazSakuraRose

Please could you give your definition of "woman", and explain how women are different from men? It would help me understand where you are coming from, because I'm a bit lost at the moment tbh.

That's not fair Empress - the cab rank rule means that barristers take the cases they are asked to do, doesn't matter whether they have rampant sympathy or complete indifference to the cause they represent. It may well be that a client seeks out a particular barrister, but the barrister can't say "actually, regardless of merits, the optics on this are going to be shocking and I'm giving this one a swerve."

Thanks for explaining that, ElfAndSafety. I’ll get the comment deleted.

Jaz asked So what boundaries of yours have I asserted that in any way violates yours? Your expectations are to compel my speech and that I'll deny reality. No to both.

To this ""But there is still two sex classes, male and female."" Jaz said That is a belief that you wish to have. No, it's a demonstrable and immutable fact - it is real.

Then went on to say But as we have seen with the growth of legal recognition of non-binary people it simply isn't true.

Now that's interesting. People may say "I am non binary; I do not identify with either sex" but the undeniable fact remains that the person who says that will have a sexed body with all it entails throughout their life.

Robin would like to speak for me, and I don't want Robin to do that; in short, NO.

Jaz you really seem to struggle with some very basic concepts. You have the autonomy to call yourself whatever you want and to believe that because you call yourself it you are it.

In the same way I have the autonomy to say to you that whatever you call yourself you are not the same as me.

I have the autonomy to say no to you and to disagree.

Otherwise, as pointed out very succinctly by Barracker you wield all the power, especially as anyone who doesn't accept your autonomy and appropriation of words you deem to be a bigot.

Given that you haven't defined what woman means or attempted to explain why you feel like a woman in the context of the women's voices you have heard on here or elsewhere then what else is it about, if not power? How does this marry with any notion of being oppressed rather than the oppressor (of those who don't agree).

You see my autonomy tells me I'm not like you. What we have in common is being of the same species. Beyond that as far as my identity is concerned which is being of the female sex , I have more in common with my female dog than I do with you. She has periods, can give birth to the next line etc etc.

So no matter that you see fit to appropriate words with seemingly no concern to how that makes other people feel you can't force others to agree with you.

That's what autonomy means, it's not the same as being a dictator.

I have to admit, if Barracker challenged me to a debate, I'd probably hide behind site rules too.

Garden
Thanks for the info on the GMC. Yet another reason why I resent having to pay them several hundred pounds a year just to go to work.