"What is a woman?" Politicians unable to answer basic question

[supercalie]

This exchange is astonishing.

Members of the Green Party are asked the basic question "What is a woman?" and all but one fail to answer the question.

The only one of them that gave an answer said that being a woman is an attitude.

WOW. Not many things shock me these days, but wow. This is insane. How can anyone even consider voting for these people??? How spineless to not be able to answer a very simple question for fear of backlash.

If you need help Green party (and you really really do) it's 'an adult, human female'.

@supercalie Because there are legions of people just waiting to be offended and take to twitter to badmouth any form of small c conservatism.

The silent majority need to start fighting back against this cancel culture nonsense from the perpetually offended.

Where I see companies kowtow to these loonies I make a point to contact them and tell them I wont be using their products. If more of the rank and file of society did this they would realise the vast majority of their customers object to this.

‘Being a woman is an attitude’. Fucking hell.

That's from last year isn't it? There's a bit more choice in the current leadership election.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4326103-A-Green-Party-leader-to-welcome-politically-homeless-women

It's a cross party problem; Ed Davey, Keir Starmer, Nicola Sturgeon, not sure about Mark Drakeford. Would they manage any better with that question?

Goodness, well clearly all those women in Afghanistan should just change their attitude and they'd be right.

Good grief. I have just watched the video and appalling just does not cut it. Not a single one of them could provide a simple, straightforward answer. The Green Party will certainly not get my vote.

From an adult, human female.

I can't believe how pathetic they are, such mealy mouthed nonsense.
If they had been asked 'what is a man' there would have been so such issue.

Surely for any wannabe politician, answering a question honestly (or at all) is supposed to be pretty important? This lot can't even sound coherent.

Yeah, a few rainbow extremists on Twitter will froth and give some waffle about 'inclusive' but most rational people know what a woman is, and the fact that politicians who want to be elected representatives and want to make future laws are so scared to speak the truth tells me they have no backbone.

I don't understand.

'It isn't a constructive question'

'It isn't a simple answer'

'It's an attitude'

And someone waffling on about how women (what kind of women? Ones with vaginas? Or the other kind?) are broadly in favour of 'trans rights' when the question didn't mention trans people AT ALL.

Staggering.

"What's your favourite colour?"

• Well, I mean, in this day and age these things are never simple. Can we really say that the colour we perceive as blue is what anyone else can see? And the visible spectrum is a social construct in any case.... etc

"Would you like a biscuit?"

• Biscuits are problematic in that they vary in their size, their consistency and their role in a balanced diet. And I would never want to marginalise jaffa cakes, which to many people are..... etc.

They obviously can't define it, because there is no word that includes men in womanhood, and they must do that in order to promote transgenderism, despite it being detrimental to women.

But the part of this that really pisses me off is the quite open acknowledgement of it. One of those people said, with a silly little laugh, that we all know what a woman is.

Another candidate for leadership of the Labour Party, said the same thing. We all know what a woman is, (tinkly little laugh.)

They're trying to say that we can't define the word woman, because it doesn't fit in with transgenderism, but we all know what one is, obvs. They are openly saying that women cannot have a word to describe themselves, the knock on effect of which will severely damage them, but come on we all know what they are, obvs.

We can't say so tho, but it's obvious.

Well yes, you dingbats, that's the whole point. You're gagging us, you know you are, and you expect us to agree, cause you're too chicken shit not to.

One even said 'I think everyone here knows what a woman is'

So SAY it.

@Jaysmith71

"What's your favourite colour?"

• Well, I mean, in this day and age these things are never simple. Can we really say that the colour we perceive as blue is what anyone else can see? And the visible spectrum is a social construct in any case.... etc

"Would you like a biscuit?"

• Biscuits are problematic in that they vary in their size, their consistency and their role in a balanced diet. And I would never want to marginalise jaffa cakes, which to many people are..... etc.

@lifeissweet

I don't understand.

'It isn't a constructive question'

'It isn't a simple answer'

'It's an attitude'

And someone waffling on about how women (what kind of women? Ones with vaginas? Or the other kind?) are broadly in favour of 'trans rights' when the question didn't mention trans people AT ALL.

Staggering.

Exactly.

They'll drop the word woman into the conversation, quite liberally, with the implicit understanding that we all know what the fuck they're talking about. But suddenly that understanding flies out the window when it's not convenient.

What should happen is that every time they say the word man or woman someone says I'm sorry, you need to define that word because obvioisly I don't know what you're talking about.

An attitude... Sweet Jesus

How dare that man imply 'cis' women unable to have children are the same as transwomen. How fucking dare he.

That is absolutely jaw-dropping. What an absolute shower.

Would love for this to be broadcast on national TV.

I don’t understand it. Even if they want to be trans inclusive, why not just say
“A woman is either an adult human without Y chromosomes, or an adult human who identifies as female”.

Then we'd at least know what they are talking about when they use the word.

@VaggieMight I agree, this is so offensive to women who can’t have children. That politician is implying that the answer is that women are people who can get pregnant, and then they object to a definition that they have themselves implied but not stated, and still not managed to give a definition. It’s disgraceful.

@Datun I agree. And especially any MP in charge of things like violence against women should be asked this question and to articulate their answer IN WRITING, so that we can be clear on what they mean.

@Goannaforanna @Heruka exactly. Those women told not to come into university in Kabul clearly just should have changed their attitudes.

@GreyhoundG1rl

An attitude... Sweet Jesus

Can someone define womanly attitude?

These people are bonkers and cowards

What a pathetic bunch.

The interesting thing is that if they genuinely believed that trans women were women, they would be able to give a definition of "woman" that included trans women. They can't. (Apart from the idiot who says that being a woman is an "attitude" which is so stupid I don't know where to start.) So it's a pretty good indication that they don't believe what they're saying.

This would be a great question to pose to all politicians, Paxman-style, at the beginning of all studio interviews.

But but but I thought we were a formless entity?? Or was that last year?? I can’t keep up with what I am!! It’s all so haaard

And yes as someone who can’t have children it never ceases to amaze me that they don’t see how catastrophically insulting it is to suggest that infertile women and men are the same thing cos they can’t have children!! Do they even fucking hear themselves???

Fans of Douglas Adams will recognise these are B-Ark people: Not leaders who make difficult desicions and inspire us to follow, and not do-ers who actually make things we need and supply those things. Just intermediaries who make space for themselves.

They should all be gathered, put on a big rocket and shot into space, in no particular direction, with the assurance that the rest of us would join them in due course.

@RoyalCorgi

What a pathetic bunch.

The interesting thing is that if they genuinely believed that trans women were women, they would be able to give a definition of "woman" that included trans women. They can't. (Apart from the idiot who says that being a woman is an "attitude" which is so stupid I don't know where to start.) So it's a pretty good indication that they don't believe what they're saying.

Exactly. There's no way they believe it, otherwise they wouldn't keep saying but we all know what a woman is really.

Not only do they not believe it, they can't even bring themself to give an idealogical definition.

It really is an open admission that they're too scared to say anything, but you must shut up about it.

So when I have been sexually harassed and discriminated against it's been because of my attitude? I should change that attitude then. And the oppression will go away. I had no idea it was that simple!

Does anyone listen to the podcast Heterodorx? They had an amazing one with Grace Laverty who was trying to explain what a woman is, just the reaction of the host alone is worth wading through the psyco babble.