What should a politician say re: TWAW

[Walkingtheplank]

Lots of clips of politicians stumbling over the simple question of What is a woman or Is a transwoman a woman. It's like they're not prepared.
What do you think they should say? Even if they think it, they can't just say 'Adult Human Female' or 'No' to those questions because they'd probably get an aggressive follow up question.

How can they say the above without offending the very vocal transactivists? Is it possible? I'm not sure it is.

Wes Streeting on Talk Radio this morning saying 'men have penises and women have vaginas', apparently. Crikey Wes. (Beginning to find this all a bit grim, but fair play to him.)

Hmm ... waiting for the 'but' there, though.

twitter.com/talkradio/status/1509088010771570688

'that doesn't mean by the way that there aren't people who transitioned to other genders'

there it goes again ... it's no different to Keir's 'a woman is an adult human female and a transwoman is a woman'

Hmmm it's interesting though. Wes is smart and he wants to be leader, he understands this issue better than Keir does, he's 100% Stonewall, but it sounds to me like he's carving out a space here in terms of biological sex and common meanings on the one hand, plus respect/gender (not sex) identity on the other hand. Most activists won't allow you to insert a cigarette paper between those two things. Just in terms of 'how do you answer this question' he's done very well I think.

What Streeting is not saying out loud is "Neovagina is a vagina; neopenis is a penis. Ladydique is a vagina. A transwomen's penis is like a "strap on" so they are lesbians."

@Nightlystroll

Why don't they just say what they really think? They're grown ups in power. As long as they're respectful to both sides, the majority of the electorate will be supportive. It would be refreshing to hear what politicians really think instead of what they are told you say.

This! They’re so desperately trying to work out what people want to hear, they’ve forgotten that they’re supposed to be leaders. Why don’t they tell us what they think?!

Anyway, what they should say is that transwomen are men who have chosen to present as women, and thet transwomen should be treated with respect and kindness, but that doesn’t mean they will always get everything they want, particularly where their desires conflict with women’s rights and children’s safeguarding.

Hmmm it's interesting though. Wes is smart and he wants to be leader, he understands this issue better than Keir does, he's 100% Stonewall, but it sounds to me like he's carving out a space here in terms of biological sex and common meanings on the one hand, plus respect/gender (not sex) identity on the other hand. Most activists won't allow you to insert a cigarette paper between those two things. Just in terms of 'how do you answer this question' he's done very well I think.

Which is why he's getting flak for it. Question anything and you question it all.

From the politico newsletter - apparently last night...

Johnson began his speech with this opener: “Good evening ladies and gentleman, or as Keir Starmer would put it, people who are assigned female or male at birth.” Expect plenty more of that as we gear up for the next election.

It all seems to be starting to get party political.

I’m really pleased this seems to be gaining traction as a political matter, to be honest. Johnson sees the advantage..?

I'm glad it's getting air time, but less glad that it's split along party lines. That lends itself to sound bites and lack of nuance ("TERFS hate trans" is easier than "radical feminists are concerned that broadening the definition of women could have unconsidered consequences for women's safety, dignity and equity"), and that it becomes bound up with so much else and, as pointed out, leaves so many of us politically homeless.

I'd really rather prefer to hear a range of voices on this issue from different political starting points.

It feels like Johnson is using Starmer's concern for trans individuals to mock him (and by extension to mock the trans individuals), rather than saying great that you are concerned but this other perspective is also valid and important.

I have no illusions about Johnson’s motives. But pathetic as it may be, I’m pleased that he’s taken this up

@Photinia

It feels like Johnson is using Starmer's concern for trans individuals to mock him (and by extension to mock the trans individuals), rather than saying great that you are concerned but this other perspective is also valid and important.

It's not great that Kier is not concerned about women though which is the value he has demonstrated. No-one should have to point out to the leader of the opposition that 51% of the population also have needs and rights. It's not great that he's only concerned about men.

@PacificState

They could say 'you know, the reason you're all asking us this question is because we politicians, as a group, have been trying to avoid talking about this issue as much as possible. We took our eye off the ball and didn't pay attention. That stops now. There's a serious debate taking place now about how we ensure trans people and women all feel safe, respected and heard, and I personally am going to go all-out to take that debate seriously. So, in terms of your original question: most people think a woman is an extremely straightforward concept - that it's someone of the female sex, and that trans women who have lived long and consistently as women are also to be accepted as such in social and legal situations. But the public knows that this is really a debate about safety and fairness, not definitions, and we've ended up arguing about definitions because politicians of all parties have failed to properly engage with the conversation the public has been having.'

I will vote for the first person who says this, regardless of the colour of their rosette.

Transwomen are transwomen. And that's OK.

Think I just got deleted for citing examples of unacceptable descriptions of trans people and of women. Ho hum.

Point was: anger is just fine, pithy slogans have their place, but PM & LOTO using this issue as an excuse to trade insults (they don't actually care) isn't helpful.

And I agree Starmer has put himself in this position by failing to articulate a clear policy.