Ooh Bridget Phillipson has defined ‘woman’

[JanetPluchinsky]

On GMB right now, was asked the question.

She answered ‘I am a woman, I think most people recognise a woman is an adult female, and then there are people who go through a LEGAL PROCESS to be seen as women’ (I’ve paraphrased a bit).

Not the party line at all. That’s cheered me right up this morning. I’ve never heard of her but it’s the first sensible answer I’ve heard from a Labour bod so far.

"To be seen as a woman" is much better than "to become a woman".

Oh ffs I’ve got her name wrong. Apols, Bridget Phillipson.

I haven’t had enough coffee this morning.

• * [Title edited by MNHQ] **

Legal process ?
You only have to put women’s clothes on to say you’re a woman, in fact, thinking of Parliament last week, you don’t have to even do that.

I was impressed by her answer TBH.

She actually said ‘go through the legal process to be recognised as a woman’ which is completely different to the usual Labour line.

I wonder if she knows what she’s said, or doesn’t realise self ID is in effect already.

I hope these questions eventually lead onto more in-depth ones, around single sex spaces, language, data etc.

Oh interesting. After the amount of media attention Womens’ rights has had in the last few days it’s not surprising they’ve had to have a rethink.

Who is Bridget Williamson?

Bridget Phillipson is shadow sec for education?

It's a shame no one asked her about self ID.
Politicians have made the mistake of thinking that twitter represents the majority view irl. But if the entire population had it clearly explained that self ID means just saying you are a woman and then being given access to women's spaces - no legal process, no medical procedures, no checks and balances, the vast majority of the population would be against this.
I honestly can't get my head around how so many institutions have allowed themselves to be led by the nose by what are essentially a small number of twitter bullies

I thought she handled it well - even Richard Madeley seemed impressed she actually had an answering

@JanetPluchinsky

She actually said ‘go through the legal process to be recognised as a woman’ which is completely different to the usual Labour line.

I wonder if she knows what she’s said, or doesn’t realise self ID is in effect already.

Actually, I'm not sure that is as positive actually.

'To be seen as' means they are not.

'To be recognised as' does suggest that it is the truth but it might not have been immediately apparent. It's early, I can't articulate what I mean properly but I hope ypu se what I'm saying!

Someone who is recognised as an expert in their field, for example, is already are an expert but now other people know it too.

And, as others have said, no legal process is necessary any more.

Which is a start, but the interesting questions are related to single sex spaces, free speech, childhood transition, sports, etc.

I know some people transition, medically, socially, legally, to be seen as women.

What I want to hear are the so whats.

Exactly: ‘recognised’ as women means they are women. Which they are not. I don’t mind them using the term, but it has to be reasonable to point out (when necessary) that they are not.

Oh good. I have always liked her . Was frustrated that she didn't speak out like so many of the other Labour women Mps ( or stand up for Rosie -maybe she did privately). She always struck me as someone who could be a good leader. Anyone would be better than Starmer or blooming Ange etc

It's a clever word choice. Recognised as could be in the legal sense, the physical sense (passing?) or in a societal sense.
We know that exceptions can still be made under the EA but a man with a GRC 'is' legally a woman.

But it’s not that different from what Dodds said in Parliament: ‘I am a woman... obviously. But some people transition and become women.’

Etc.

Unless there is recognition of the need for (and the reality of) legal distinctions between TW and female people, we are no further along.

‘We know that exceptions can still be made under the EA but a man with a GRC 'is' legally a woman.’

But that is a legal construct. It’s not the reality. The exceptions in the EA and the definition of sex in the EA are there to recognise that there is a category of sexed humans called females, and TW are not them.

If that can’t be recognised under current laws, those laws need to change.

Politicians can’t hide behind the law. They need to be able to recognise need, and make law accordingly.

Tbh I object to them using the term women at all. They aren't. Except in the nicety of a legal lie.
I think people get confused by the terms transwoman and transman. To me their meanings should be the other way around so that trans woman would mean female who transitions to present like they imagine a man to be and trans man would mean a male who transitions to present like they imagine a woman to be.

Using the word woman in any way to describe someone who really isn't, just reinforces their view that womanhood is something a person can actively choose and become.

I think this is the beginning of that conversation though. At the moment the meaning of the word 'woman' has been hijacked. Until politicians can be persuaded to be clear there's no point talking about single sex spaces because they are voided by the woolly descriptions of who can use them.

I think Labour’s intention is for anyone to be able to use public bathrooms (no policing at all), for services to make their own changing room policies (presumably based on self-ID), and to bring in self-ID so more formal institutions and services (crisis shelters, prisons, sports) can say ‘single-sex’ and actually allow in males who say they are women or NB.

How far the Tory strategy differs from this is still a question.

Labour need to wise up and stop this ridiculous stance and quickly. Or they'll be looking at a Tory government for a really long time. It's embarrassing watching them turn themselves into human pretzels trying to avoid stating something that we all know to be fact. If they can't string a coherent and factual sentence together, no one is going to trust them with running the country.
Honestly, they should be miles ahead of this current government but they fuck it up every time

It's a small step isn't it? It's moved on from Don't say only women have a cervix to woman as an adult female. And Lammy's science denial men can grow a cervix appears to be confined to the basement with his collection of captured dinosaurs.
But everyone's right - the devil is in the detail and the press need to make them clarify what the implications of their enthusiasm for self ID means for their sudden acceptance of legitimate single sex spaces.

If someone makes a small positive step and the response is "not good enough, you should have stuck your neck out more", I can't see them finding that encouraging. Anyone looking on who might have thought about doing similar isn't going to be encouraged either.

It seems to be a fair description to me.
I do not want trans men or trans women to feel marginalised by society so if we can agree on a description that is acceptable to everyone that has got to be a positive.

I still can't help thinking though that we don't have as much debate about trans men because they're not bio men and don't have the same sense of entitlement.

Nauticant: true, but if this is more language designed to obfuscate the fact that Labour is not prepared to distinguish between two groups, and are simply justifying their conflation between the groups, it doesn’t help us. I’m pleased if any politician can recognise what a woman is but we do need to hear the detail.