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.

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

Very true. It's going to be harder to get interviewers to start to really drill down but the last week is still fab progress.

Less than two years ago the Lib dems were suspending anyone who talked about women being adult human females and two of three candidates for Labour leader wanted it to get you thrown out of the party.

I think this is a good starting point. That is the current position regarding transition. There is a legal process you can go through to be recognised as the opposite sex/gender (unfortunately conflated). And the exemptions to the equality act set out when services can exclude someone who is legally one sex but biologically the other.

The issues are that:

• there are proposed changes to the legal process that remove existing safeguards (self-ID with a solemn declaration of sincerity)
• there is huge social pressure, mostly on women, to accept a de-facto self-ID, in which anyone who says they are a woman must be accepted as such.

‘Less than two years ago the Lib dems were suspending anyone who talked about women being adult human females and two of three candidates for Labour leader wanted it to get you thrown out of the party.’

And they have let that situation go on for years. But suddenly (weeks before the local elections) they’re all queuing up to pretend to care about women...

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.

Sadly, I think this is true- they are still on the stonewall playbook. Theoretical sex-based exemptions will exist but will almost impossible to implement because of self-ID.

@Beamur

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.

This.

Let's have the conversation. Its so overdue.

What is the legal process? We all know it's fairly basic and straightforward, despite TRAs claims to the contrary.

Who is eligible? Anyone including rapists and pedophiles. No surgery or hormone treatment required.

What does it give them access to?

How the exceptions cant work.

How the 'legal process' is completely unnecessary anyway.

Let's have it.

I also really like to see testimony from doctors who diagnose gender dysphoria. What criteria do they use?

Do they make a distinction between a transsexual and a transvestite? How do they do that?

@tabbycatstripy

‘Less than two years ago the Lib dems were suspending anyone who talked about women being adult human females and two of three candidates for Labour leader wanted it to get you thrown out of the party.’

And they have let that situation go on for years. But suddenly (weeks before the local elections) they’re all queuing up to pretend to care about women...

The comfort I'm taking from this is that the issue is clearly cutting through now, and they've realised that their position is disastrously unpopular.

‘The comfort I'm taking from this is that the issue is clearly cutting through now, and they've realised that their position is disastrously unpopular.’

But does that mean they can just change it and we’ll all vote for them? They believe TWAW. The front bench of the Labour Party is made up of people who have (variously) supported Mermaids, bullied women for speaking their minds, supported women being housed with men in prisons, backed Stonewall to the hilt etc.

I am sorry to say it (I have voted Labour all my life) but I think they’re unsuited to governing me.

Oh no, tabby, I'm going to need to see a lot more than this before I come back.

A fucking apology would be nice. I want Starmer and Nandy and Rayner and Lammy and the rest of the beeeekiiiinnnd totalitarians to admit they got it wrong.

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.

With a normal person I'd agree. With an elected politician who has the power to create and influence policy based on their own idiotic ideology, a quick u-turn based on public reaction just doesn't cut it and why should we trust them? Especially as Labour councils have passed such damaging motions recently. They had 1 job, they failed, they should resign. We rightlt wouldn't be so forgiving on any other issue or to the Tories on anything at all so don't be nice here. This was likely to cause real danger and harm to a lot of women and they just want our vote.

I want David Lammy wearing a dinosaur suit in the HoC and Lisa Nandy on QT in a Tunnocks outfit.

But seriously, I can’t elect Rayner, Lammy, Nandy and the rest. Imagine what they would do with a decade in power.

While they have MPs who will go on tv and say in all seriousness that babies are born without a sex, the Labour Party are too stupid to be ruling anyone. And given who we currently have in charge that's saying something

Yes, it’s time they realised it’s the HoC, not the sixth form common room. If Dawn Butler is their idea of the best person they can pick to make decisions for other people, they need to start again basically.

Yes there are far too many Labour MPs and hangers on who still appear to hate women, particularly working class women and put across the view that we are stupid and narrow minded for being concerned about the impact on our rights and legal protections. These people need to be gone and some humble pie needs to be consumed by Labour before I would consider voting for them again. (Ex member of many many years and I have never voted for anyone else. Will be spoiling ballot in May).

I think the wording Bridget Phillipson used, ie ‘to be recognised as a woman’ is understandable. She is using language from the GRC. What she actually meant about this comment is another thing.

Did she say anything else?

I had a quick google of her and came across this article she wrote in Grazia. graziadaily.co.uk/life/in-the-news/women-let-down-pandemic-shecession/. Lots of talk about women. There was something in the same vein, same sort of vocab but shorter in the independent.

A 3 year old job ad for her misquotes the Equality Act. Idk what influence she had on that or if this is / was the party line. www.w4mpjobs.org/JobDetails.aspx?jobid=73753

According to the Gay Times, she always votes in favour of LGBTQ legislation. www.gaytimes.co.uk/life/what-has-sir-keir-starmers-shadow-cabinet-said-on-lgbtq-rights/. Idk what this means in reality as LGB and TQ can have competing needs.

She this ad ‘put women back in their place’ and ‘how out of touch can the government be’ of this withdrawn terribly sexist government ad. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55844367

It does seem like a watch this space moment. If I were cynical, I’d say that labour is using any labour women not on record for absolute clangers, to say what sounds like the right thing, to soften up the female electorate.

@Alltheprettyseahorses

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.

With a normal person I'd agree. With an elected politician who has the power to create and influence policy based on their own idiotic ideology, a quick u-turn based on public reaction just doesn't cut it and why should we trust them? Especially as Labour councils have passed such damaging motions recently. They had 1 job, they failed, they should resign. We rightlt wouldn't be so forgiving on any other issue or to the Tories on anything at all so don't be nice here. This was likely to cause real danger and harm to a lot of women and they just want our vote.

This is what I find so alarming.

If they are like this over self-id legislation, categorically refusing to accept or admit there were serious implications for the day to day lives of the public, then what else do they support, or will they support in the future, that they know will be harmful or is just a downright lie?

I'll be fair by saying that the Conservatives have shown they cannot necessarily be trusted, but Labour and the LibDems have persecuted people over this issue -- and that is the difference.

Government has extraordinary power over us all. It recently mandated a lockdown of the entire country. It can send troops to foreign conflicts. It can impose a draft. It could, theoretically, lift all price caps and cripple us with utility bills. It could raise income tax on average earners to ridiculous levels, and get rid of the personal allowance.

Government can grind us all under its heel.

And the only thing stopping them doing things like this, if they showed the kind of bull-headedness #nodebate that Labour has over the self-id issue, would be out-and-out insurrection.

All in all, maybe we should be thankful for what has happened -- because it has shown us just who these people are now. Huge numbers of elected representatives just need to go. It is not just that they are not fit to hold their positions; they are downright dangerous.

Well it's a better answer than many in labour would give but in truth it's not right is it, you don't actually have to go through any legal process now, men just have to say they're a woman to apparently become one.

Recognised as a trans woman is what you actually need her to say for any of this to make sense. There are women, adult human females and trans women, adult human males who wish to dress and live as a woman would but trans women are not, never will be in any way women.

We should just use our own slogan.

TRANS WOMEN ARE TRANS WOMEN.

@Fragrantcloud

Yes there are far too many Labour MPs and hangers on who still appear to hate women, particularly working class women and put across the view that we are stupid and narrow minded for being concerned about the impact on our rights and legal protections. These people need to be gone and some humble pie needs to be consumed by Labour before I would consider voting for them again. (Ex member of many many years and I have never voted for anyone else. Will be spoiling ballot in May).

Fragrant, too true.

They are over-privileged, arrogant, sneery ideologues that are now all pissed off because they can't easily ride the backs of the working class to power anymore.

I, for one, am not buying it. As has been said it's telling just before the elections.

I think they are now being more careful with how they answer the inevitable question as they've seen just how ridiculous they look with the 'umming' and 'erring'.

They have practiced their answer for effect.

Blimey a woman Labour MP with more balls than Starmer.

@tabbycatstripy

‘Less than two years ago the Lib dems were suspending anyone who talked about women being adult human females and two of three candidates for Labour leader wanted it to get you thrown out of the party.’

And they have let that situation go on for years. But suddenly (weeks before the local elections) they’re all queuing up to pretend to care about women...

True, but at least they are feeling the need to pretend to care, which is progress of a sort. A couple of years ago, we were told that no one apart from hysterical bigots thought there was any problem with the TRA agenda.

Males in women's sport and the erasure of 'woman' and 'mother' have woken a lot of voters up to what is going on. And they don't like it.

Yes there are far too many Labour MPs and hangers on who still appear to hate women, particularly working class women and put across the view that we are stupid and narrow minded for being concerned about the impact on our rights and legal protections

They hate the working class generally. I'm middle class, but my DF's family were working class, and I see the current Labour Party sneering at people like them every day - except when they need their votes, when they pretend to care for a couple of weeks.

Working class people don't have the right views, so they must be educated or ignored. I wasn't the least surprised about the Brexit vote, though I'm an ardent Remainer (as were my older relatives) - a lot of it wasn't actually about Brexit, it was pushback against being patronised and ignored.

Interesting that she used to run a women's refuge: www.refugeewomen.co.uk/i-will-do-all-i-can-to-bring-about-change/

@teawamutu

Oh no, tabby, I'm going to need to see a lot more than this before I come back.

A fucking apology would be nice. I want Starmer and Nandy and Rayner and Lammy and the rest of the beeeekiiiinnnd totalitarians to admit they got it wrong.

Agreed, I will not be voting for Labour again until that happens even if it means spoiling my vote for the rest of my life