Yvette cooper on times radio

[Theeyeballsinthesky]

Apparently defining what a woman is “is going down a rabbit hole”

FFS and I thought Yvette cooper was one of the smart ones! How can they not see what an electoral own goal this? They will be asked this very simple basic question again & again and the more they flap their hands and refuse to say the bleeding obvious ie a woman is an adult human female, the worse they look. It’s a fucking gift for the Tories!!

@JustSpeculation

It is also the case that we can't and shouldn't restrict the word only to mean "adult human female" in all contexts and for everyone (because that is facism, compelled speech and does not permit individual agency)

It's not fascism, which has a specific meaning, as someone pointed out upthread. It's not compelled speech, either. No one's being compelled to say anything, or forbidden to call themselves women. But they're just not. And as for not permitting agency - I regularly deny agency to my local burglars by locking the window, and I find I can live with that quite happily. All boundaries deny something to someone, and for reasons.

It is in the sense that if you tell a bunch of random peopel who call themselves women for some reason that they can't, you basically have no authority to do that.

You can argue accurately that they have no standing as women in law, or that they don't qualify for women's sports, or whatever. You can refuse to use the words they demand or to agree with their views.

But you can't stop people from talking that way or tell them they have to use some other word in most contexts. Nor can anyone outside of some very specific contexts.

That's half the argument right there about not being compelled to use pronouns by others. People can say what they want to say apart from things that will directly cause real harm.

The grim old Guardian has an excellent letter from Prof Alice Sullivan calling out clueless labour MPs for their removal of accurate language about women. To save you giving them clicks, copied here:

Rachel Reeves, the shadow chancellor of the exchequer, used the phrase “parenthood pay gap” in her article for the Guardian to mark International Women’s Day (It took decades to achieve progress for women – why has it stalled?, 6 March). The phrase “parenthood pay gap” was also used on IWD by the shadow women and equalities secretary, Anneliese Dodds.

This phrase is an example of the way in which de-sexing language can lead to an inaccurate picture. There is no “parenthood pay gap”. Social scientists have shown that motherhood plays a substantial role in the pay deficit that women suffer compared with men.

Fatherhood, by contrast, has historically been associated with a wage premium. Reeves states that “the Labour party has always stood up for women”. But Labour politicians need to take note. Without the words and data to describe the distinct issues that women face, we cannot begin to tackle them.

It is in the sense that if you tell a bunch of random peopel who call themselves women for some reason that they can't, you basically have no authority to do that.

But do you need authority to do that? Robustly defending a point of view doesn't require authority in the "possession of the power to compel" sense, it just requires authority in the "knowing what you're talking about and providing a convincing argument" sense. And, of course, robustness. And, quite often, courage. In the two years I've been lurking and infesting this board I have seen no one suggesting that transwomen who call themselves women be thrown in prison or punished for it.

And what about context? When a waiter in a cheap and cheerful restaurant pops over to your table with a plate of fish and asks "Who's the trout?", there is no implication that the customer in question is actually a trout. When a child dressing up on national reading day (national book day?) says "I'm Harry Potter", it doesn't mean they actually are. These are different usages in different contexts, but the core meaning of the terms used are unchanged. Language is often used metaphorically, whimsically, casually and very creatively. Rules are happily broken.

But when a TRA, or a Labour politician, calls a transwoman a woman there is nothing metaphorical or whimsical about it. It's not breaking rules. It is an attempt to deny the core meaning of the term, to deny the rule exists in the first place. To kick against this is not fascism, or compelled speech or any kind of denial of agency. It is an assertion of fact.

Perhaps being a bit rose-tinted here, but is “it’s a rabbit hole” an improvement from “TWAW”?

The Mail Online highlights the issue

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10596027/Labour-say-woman-is.html

But when a TRA, or a Labour politician, calls a transwoman a woman there is nothing metaphorical or whimsical about it. It's not breaking rules. It is an attempt to deny the core meaning of the term, to deny the rule exists in the first place.

Yes. There was potentially not that much of a problem until "trans women are women". The moment that was being said seriously, a line had been crossed.

And most of the really stupid problems (like men in women's sports) stem from that being taken literally.

I'd have far less of a problem with a man figuratively "being" a "woman" - even though I can see why many women/feminists find that offensive. It's trying to pretend it's not figurative that means a hard "no" from me.

And that's why my recognition of this was basically instantaneous - I'd not been really paying attention until 2017, but when I did, due to Jennings/Hypatia/GetTheLOut/Speakers Corner assault, I saw "trans women are women" for the first time and immediately understood the resistance.

I'd been a bit puzzled why there was a new "anti-trans" thing, like the US bathroom bills, but "trans women are women" explained everything.

I totally agree OP. I'm politically homeless too, I will not vote Labour until this stops.

@bellinisurge

If she wants to be seen as a leader (or leading figure) she needs to show courage on this. She hasn't. That's it.

I agree. Cooper had potential to lead the party (in due course) as a rational voice. Unless she pulls her big girl pants up and stands up for truth, she’s lost any chance of success for herself and her party.

@ChuckBerrysBoots

Perhaps being a bit rose-tinted here, but is “it’s a rabbit hole” an improvement from “TWAW”?

I think it means, "We're starting to realise that TWAW has gone down like a shit sandwich with certain mostly female parts of the electorate, but Stonewall has got us by the balls and we're not sure how to extricate ourselves."

@NecessaryScene

But when a TRA, or a Labour politician, calls a transwoman a woman there is nothing metaphorical or whimsical about it. It's not breaking rules. It is an attempt to deny the core meaning of the term, to deny the rule exists in the first place.

Yes. There was potentially not that much of a problem until "trans women are women". The moment that was being said seriously, a line had been crossed.

And most of the really stupid problems (like men in women's sports) stem from that being taken literally.

I'd have far less of a problem with a man figuratively "being" a "woman" - even though I can see why many women/feminists find that offensive. It's trying to pretend it's not figurative that means a hard "no" from me.

Yeah.

I remember about 20 years ago my mum phoned her friend's house and an unfamiliar female voice answered, and when my mum asked who it was, the answer was, "Hi Mrs Jellyfish, I used to be Richard, I'm Laura now." (Her friend's adult son, now daughter.)

I can't have been more than 16 and I remember patiently explaining to my mum that Richard had had a sex change and we must refer to him as "her" now and call her Laura.

And my view didn't change for almost two decades.

Then when all this "trans women are women" stuff started, at first it went over my head a bit. But then people started talking about how JK Rowling was a hateful bigot, and it just seemed so unlikely to me, so I read her essay and I agreed with a lot of it.

Then when Troubled Blood came out and everyone was quoting that pre-publication review about how it was a book about a trans serial killer and "the moral of the story is to never trust a man in a dress" and I had actually read the book and knew it was about nothing of the kind, I thought, "This is a witch hunt."

Then the IOC said, "Everyone agrees that trans women are women" to justify Laurel Hubbard competing in the Olympics and I was well and truly peaked.

Now I'm sitting here like, "Of course humans can't change sex, and obviously nothing is "assigned at birth", and I clearly thought I was a right little know it all when I was 16 but now I understand why my mum, who had given birth to two babies, struggled with the idea that Richard is now a woman."

@ChuckBerrysBoots

Perhaps being a bit rose-tinted here, but is “it’s a rabbit hole” an improvement from “TWAW”?

I wondered that, it's always seemed that down the rabbit hole' meant a crazy place, so perhaps its gone from serious respectful TWAW to batshit crazy....... (I'll down on the rose tinted!)

Doesn't "going down a rabbit hole" mean you're curious and want to find things out? It does to me, but I don't know if that's right.

To my mind, if Cooper doesn't want to do that then it indicates a close-minded approach to a massive issue being raised by lots and lots of (as it seems, largely left-leaning) women.

And if this is - as might well be correctly speculated - the "line" coming out of Labour HQ that they're permitted to express then nothing has changed.

Before it was "TWAW, most oppressed, worse than you, end of". Now it's "no I refuse to look into this".

I don't think they've changed position?

I don’t think it’s stonewall they are wary of - it’s their base which now seems to be made up of Owen Jones’.

@ChuckBerrysBoots

I don’t think it’s stonewall they are wary of - it’s their base which now seems to be made up of Owen Jones’.

I think this is true. The reason I can't vote Labour is not so much their opinions or policies but the way they seem so much in hock to their own bullies. They seem to be working on the assumption that if they keep schtumm it'll all somehow go away. It won't. It's cowardice. The Tories may be a greedy, corrupt, incompetent embarrassment but at least they know better how to work together.

Down the rabbit hole, I believe, refers to Alice in Wonderland. Where she follows the white rabbit done a rabbit hole and ends up in a world where everything is a little on the batshit side. Not to mention quite a lot of reference to 'impossible things'.

The problem with Yvette Cooper talking in that way is it makes it blisteringly obvious that she knows what a woman is, we know what one is, she knows we know, and so does everyone else, but she's too petrified to say so.

When a politician is talking about women and their rights, but does not feel confident to explain what that means, she obviously loses all credibility.

And as someone in that tweet pointed out, when she says let's talk about practical things instead, we are talking about practical things!

Who has access to rape crisis centres, domestic violence refuges, women's sports, women's mental health wards, awards given to encourage female inclusion, data gathering, the lot.

This is all about the practical issues.

It's not some airy fairy name game, that has no practical implications.

@drwitch

I think its a matter of fact that the definition of "woman" varies by context and who is speaking. It is also the case that we can't and shouldn't restrict the word only to mean "adult human female" in all contexts and for everyone (because that is facism, compelled speech and does not permit individual agency). But there are all sorts of words for which this is true (fruit, berry, neo-libearlism, competition etc etc).

But the category woman is used to confer rights under law and possible differential treatment. There is no reason why Cooper and Dodds could not have been more explicit here. They could have simply said
"Well the word woman can mean different things to different people, but when we are talking about single sex spaces we mean - `adult human female' "

The word 'fascism' having to do some heavy lifting here. Not sure if Benito Mussolini or Sir Oswald Mosley or General Franco had any particular opinion about restricting the word woman to mean 'adult human female'.

Unfortunately, dictionaries define the word woman to be 'adult human female', such as the Cambridge English Distionary and the Oxford English Dictionary

I'm not aware that either of these institutions has been designated as being 'fascist' but I might not be keeping-up with the changes.

I guess the meaning of words change over time, so that 'fascist' doesn't actually mean well, eh, fascist. Only a matter of weeks ago, Grace Lavery had determined that GC women were 'fascists'. Perhaps we should be getting accustomed to these new meanings.

Seeing as Vladimir Putin has determined that the President of The Ukraine - Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who is Jewish, is apparently a Nazi, we are apparently being invited to believe that the leading politician in a Nazi state is...Jewish (?)

It appears that even the word 'Nazi' has been redefined. It used to mean 'National Socialist Party supporter', but it appears to be something else now.

And as gender-critical women are routinely called, in the Putin Tradition, 'Nazis', should we be surprised at this new definition of fascism?

[quote drwitch]@sirVixofVixHall read what i actually said.

Policing speech is an instrinsic part of fascism. Its bad when they (the TRAs) do it to us and when we do it to them. -[/quote]
Think that through.

Women are not policing speech. We are pushing back at the policing of speech, at those trying to change the language to enable them to do harm to women.

We aren't demanding a change. We are demanding the status quo, that we are not swept away by wokeness.

Especially when it one half of the sex binary is affected by it.

So what you actually said could be boiled down to Women, shut up.

I've just listened to the clip, and one sentence she used stood out for me -
"I just think this is pointless"
So fucking dismissive.
I guess it's as pointless as voting for her would be?

Maybe the question should be What is a man? I would like to see if they have the same qualms and tight themselves in knots or not.

Women have become such a fluid concept that is immaterial. Would they say so of men? How would men feel?

If labour politicians are tying themselves up in knots now, can you imagine how it will be as we get closer to the next general election.

The Mail is not letting this go. Not all altruism, but useful all the same

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-10600455/amp/JENNI-MURRAY-point-women-Parliament-theyre-scared-say-woman-is.html

@NecessaryScene

The important corollary here is - if "woman" isn't "adult human female", then what is the word for "adult human female"?

This isn't just about the definition of a word - it's not the word that's important. It's the human females that are important.

This is about the class of human females, and them being denied recognition as a class with particular needs and interests.

As JKR said yesterday - "Apparently, under a Labour government, today will become We Who Must Not Be Named Day."

This!

@Goatsaregreat

The grim old Guardian has an excellent letter from Prof Alice Sullivan calling out clueless labour MPs for their removal of accurate language about women. To save you giving them clicks, copied here:

Rachel Reeves, the shadow chancellor of the exchequer, used the phrase “parenthood pay gap” in her article for the Guardian to mark International Women’s Day (It took decades to achieve progress for women – why has it stalled?, 6 March). The phrase “parenthood pay gap” was also used on IWD by the shadow women and equalities secretary, Anneliese Dodds.

This phrase is an example of the way in which de-sexing language can lead to an inaccurate picture. There is no “parenthood pay gap”. Social scientists have shown that motherhood plays a substantial role in the pay deficit that women suffer compared with men.

Fatherhood, by contrast, has historically been associated with a wage premium. Reeves states that “the Labour party has always stood up for women”. But Labour politicians need to take note. Without the words and data to describe the distinct issues that women face, we cannot begin to tackle them.

All of this. This is becoming more and more of an issue.

This is not a matter of semantics. This is not a matter of harmless politeness.
This is about avoiding harm to women and girls, and fighting against inequality faced by women and girls, by holding firm on a meaningful definition of what a woman is.

@zanahoria

Politicians need to be asked three questions

(1) Is it a scientific fact that males differ from females?

(2) is it a sociological fact that male patterns of violence are different from females?

(3) do you believe transwomens patterns of violence differ from other males?

The first two are rhetorical but in these mad times need to be asked

(3) do you believe transwomens patterns of violence differ from other males?

No, this isn't the question. Its ' Do you believe a man, simply because he says he identifies as a woman, has a pattern of violence different from other males?'

This is not just about men with gender dysphoria. The self-defining category of trans is open to all with no gate- keeping. That's the problem.