Stella Creasy says women can have penises

[WhereAreWeNow]

Stella Creasy has doubled down on her TWAW position in today's Telegraph www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/stella-creasy-jk-rowling-wrong-woman-can-have-penis/

Artichoke

I get that but I don’t think I mean I’m trying to understand why men can be women. I’m trying to understand her argument so I can reasonably refute it.

i live in Stella's constituency and many are starting to really dislike her now. She didn't respond to many of the request re info for refugees or a meeting prior to the votes, she was too firmly arguing with a bus company as she'd been asked to collapse her pram or disembark, or arguing about the lack of lift at the station due to it being hard for a double pram (she later picked up on teh wheelchair aspect AFTER it was pointed out. (weirdly enough haven't seen her argue about the lack of toilets for people with disabilities at the station which has been going on for months since they were closed).

She didn't pick up on the fact that many women don't get maternity leave whilst keeping their job and that this isn't something that just affects MPs... then she suddenly partnered with PBS and suddenly seems to be the voice of all women and maternity leave, but yet still only talks about MPs for the changes in legislation.

They are!

Stella really does consider herself to be terribly enlightened, doesn’t she? Ahead in her thinking as she patiently waits for all of us stupid dinosaurs to catch up with her progressive views.

No, Stella, you are simply a desperate, fawning pick me girl who thinks that the men will like her better if she agrees that men are women. We have seen women like you time and again throughout history. Pathetic, treacherous collaborators who will throw other women to the wolves if it gets them head pats from the men. History does not remember these women kindly, and one day, if you are remembered at all, you will be looked back on in the sane way, with the contempt you so richly deserve.

I get that but I don’t think I mean I’m trying to understand why men can be women.

Because they want to, and who are we to say "no"?

It's neoliberal through-and-through. (Which is why I always associate this stuff with the Labour right...)

I'm afraid that's my point.

You never will understand it. She doesn't understand it. Nobody understands it. As painfully evidenced in AB's court case.

But women have spent years patiently working on trying to in the belief that it must somehow make sense if they try hard enough and listen carefully enough, and while we've spent that time and energy in the belief we're dealing with equal good faith and just haven't yet tried hard enough to get it or explain enough how this destroys women's rights and why that matters?

Women's rights have been shoved further down the drain. Because it's largely a lot of distracting noise to cover the real actions.

Not by any means criticising you, but this is one of the biggest weaknesses women who want to retain their rights have: this careful attempt to be reasonable is never going to be reciprocated, it's just going to be taken as a sign of weakness, and taken full advantage of.

‘But women have spent years patiently working on trying to in the belief that it must somehow make sense if they try hard enough and listen carefully enough, and while we've spent that time and energy in the belief we're dealing with equal good faith and just haven't yet tried hard enough to get it or explain enough how this destroys women's rights and why that matters?’

Not at all. I’m 100% certain that no justification for the proposition will make sense. I still want to understand the path she has taken to get to her (wrong) position.

"Do I recognise that there are very real concerns about refuges and safe spaces? Yes"

But in Stellaworld, special penis people ARE adult human females, so and it's female spaces so 🤷

What she should have followed that statement up with if she was being honest was: And am I going to ignore those concerns in favour of the feelings of some men? Yes, yes I am.

A woman can have a penis indeed, what utter claptrap. She's made herself an utter laughing stock. Can't see her coming back onto MN for any online Q&As after that!

To try and explain further: if you head onto the relationships board and find any one of the many threads around 'how do I just explain to my MiL so she really understands that doing x upsets me, causes havoc in our lives, makes us miserable, wrecks our relationship - we've tried everything and nothing changes'.

The issue is never that they haven't explained or haven't explained enough. They believe that if they could just find the right words, she'd understand and go oh yes! Gosh! Really sorry, yes now I see the problem, let's find a better way for us both.

She won't. Because it isn't that she doesn't understand. It's that behaving in this way meets her needs, and so she is fine with the impact the behaviour has on others. It works for her.

I want to understand her so I can critique what she is saying. I’m not seeking to get her to agree.

What the fuck has any of this got to do with ‘sexual preferences’ or ‘gays and lesbians’?

Interesting wording to say, “I think some women were born with penises BUT they are now female.”

To me that implies that she doesn’t know 90% + still have a penis.

I see she has had a go a Jon Pike now on twitter. As though GC academics have not enough pressure from inside their institutions she is questioning his professional competence and say she 'fears' for his students. Is she anti-free-speech as well? Creasey disgusts me, absolutely disgusts me.

He mustered a more dignified response that she deserved - and a useful one to borrow from if you ever get into these arguments yourself - I think he is very clear.

twitter.com/runthinkwrite/status/1530335492495101952

Huge disappointment. She was an excellent constituency MP when she started out. Really got things done. But casually chucking women's single-sex rights away, and ignoring child-safety concerns -- that outweighs any good she's done.

This. I suppose women have always shat on others in order to climb the greasy pole but when the stakes are so high it's unforgivable.

All she keeps coming back to us ‘TWAW is the law’. Actually it’s not. The census case made that clear. Some people who would describe themselves as transwomen (not a legal term) have the legal status ‘female’ for most purposes. Others have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment but that doesn’t make them legally female, and nor are they women.

But if that is the best SC can come up, it’s unsurprising that there might be people making a case to repeal the law that’s causing the confusion.

But if that is the best SC can come up, it’s unsurprising that there might be people making a case to repeal the law that’s causing the confusion.

Absolutely. If the GRA is being misinterpreted as "TWAW", then it's a very strong argument for its repeal, as that is clearly not an idea worth of respect in a democratic society.

This was, of course, warned about during debates of the GRA - the potential knock-on effects of legislating a falsehood. But it wasn't taken seriously enough.

We have now got the benefit of 16 years of hindsight - if this practical demonstration of the effects had been visible in 2004, there's no way the bill would have passed.

My background is in philosophy so it’s really embarrassing to see her mock and poo poo the concept of “homeostatic property clusters”. It’s a perfectly standard concept which has been in use in metaphysics for some time. It’s thought to be a particularly good theory to apply to things that arise in nature - so biological sex.

I also think that what this whole thing boils down to is men want to be women just because they say so. Women like Stella think “it can’t JUST be that, nothing works like that” so tie themselves in knots trying to argue for an unarguable conclusion .

it isn't that she doesn't understand. It's that behaving in this way meets her needs, and so she is fine with the impact the behaviour has on others. It works for her.

Yes. You're right. I suppose it's pointless trying to explain reality, or rights clashing with wants, or fair play or anything, to people who are getting some kind of validation from following the TWAW script. It's not that they don't know. They don't care.

Luckily the many other people who don't have to toe that line in order to keep their jobs are seeing through it in ever greater numbers.

The sad thing is that the law should work and interact with the EA without serious issues, and it would, if aggressive activists didn’t insist on distorting its meaning. Expressing the intention to transition was meant to mean physically, and although I actually agree that that should be extended to social transition (nobody should suffer discrimination because they transition or intend to do so) what it absolutely doesn’t do is turn someone into a member of the opposite sex.

The GRA shouldn’t be an issue either. I don’t care what people call themselves, wear, or what pronouns they use. I don’t care particularly if their documents are changed.

If they were prepared to respect single sex provisions and free speech, I’d have no issue with it.

All they are doing is destroying words and women's rights. Nothing they do changes reality. I would like to ask her what word she would use for adult mammels of the body type that gestation young? And if she feels there is no need for a word then why not?

My background is in philosophy so it’s really embarrassing to see her mock and poo poo the concept of “homeostatic property clusters”.

What did she actually do on this SPS course? There must be some sort of academic content in it, right? It's at Cambridge!

Maybe there's no hard stuff like maths, but they must surely have touched on some sort of social -sciencey things like philosophy?

Can we lock her in a room with Jane Clare Jones for 3 hours and maybe JCJ can gently lead her through Platonism versus other views?

(My fundamental question about all of this is "Why sex? And female in particular?" Why is this the sole piece of material reality you are turning the full-bore of your anti-intellectual pseudo-philosophy on? What does that tell you?)

Stella fits neatly into that group of people with brains the size of planets but shouldn't be let out without a nanny.

She says her PhD was in Psychology.

That makes sense.

My background is in philosophy so it’s really embarrassing to see her mock and poo poo the concept of “homeostatic property clusters”

Some might argue that understanding the concept of "homeostatic property clusters" allows one to understand homophily (a phrase now inculcated into the drinking game, courtesy of Allison Bailey's employment tribunal). Who was that? Judge Michelle Brewer?