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/

This is a game you see that bunch play often - bait-and-switch on the "Science".

Whenever they want, they will go in nuts with walls and threads of pseudo-scientific babble, but if they ever catch you saying something technical they will mock you for it - plucking out some particular term (with a very clear meaning, being used correctly) and pretending "that’s just gobbledegook".

She only ever seems to care about issues that affect her.

Someone just asked SC whether she expects lesbians to have sex with ‘women with penises’ and she’s taking the ‘it’s not my business as long as it’s consensual’ route.

So, when it comes to the rights and needs of trans people, SC understands structural power relationships. She is happy to insist we bend reality to accommodate them.

Lesbians? No power dynamic to see here. No structural oppression.

I agree. There's a real naivete to it. Even when a self-confessed AGP transwoman is telling her, she still won't buy it!! It's attacking something, deep down inside of her. One of her beliefs systems that she is clinging onto for dear life.

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.

And this.

There are so many women who think that their needs and wants just aren't enough. There has to be some kind of justification, or accountability for the reasons behind it.

Saying 'nah, love, I want this, so end of', just doesn't appear to come naturally. Funnily enough.

Even when it's our legal rights, designed for us, to keep us safe from the very people who are trying to dismantle them.

All she keeps coming back to us ‘TWAW is the law’. Actually it’s not.

JCJ also picking up on this.

Do I infer from that phrasing that she's also now in favour of GRA repeal/reform? I also don't see how it can be avoided at this point. I was squishy on this a few years ago, as I thought she was, but I no longer see how we unpick this without doing that.

Oops, forgot to include the text of JCJ's tweet:

You know what Stella. Many of us originally wanted to reach a resolution to this conflict without touching the GRA.

Every time someone like you uses the GRA to justify this all out assault on the political existence and rights of female people, you make that less likely.

It’s true. I don’t want to see the GRA overturned but they are not helping themselves (people who want to reform and extend it).

Why? Pensions have been regularised and so has same-sex marriage (ostensibly the original reasons for the need for the GRA).

What else does the GRA offer that isn't covered by EqA 2010?

EmbarrassingHadrosaurus

I think it must be very hard for people with a long-standing commitment to transition to not have any legal recognition of what they perceive as their gender. I would sympathise if they had to go through life without it.

It’s just also my emphatic opinion that it doesn’t change their sex and it can’t (or shouldn’t) be used to bind individuals to using particular forms of language (out with abusive language) or to grant access to essential spaces for the opposite sex and their safety, privacy and dignity.

I’d prefer to leave the law as it is. Not sure if that will be possible with the way things are heading.

‘it’s not my business

Yeah nice opt out from taking any responsibility there, Stella. Again the witnesses from GCC in AB's case demonstrated over and over: neither the guts to fully stand behind what they claimed to believe (but could not explain) nor to openly face what it means in reality. It's massed cowardice, and the reason became clear in every witnesses: they didn't really care what any of it actually meant, what mattered was what it let them do in terms of power, control over others, sense of superiority and dominance, and letting misogyny and homophobia roll.

It's very convenient to use a public seat to trumpet all this stuff that means lesbian women are being coerced and conversion therapy openly advocated for, really horrific behaviours and ways of speaking to them or treating them is now quite normal, and Stella just says yes, I did it, but it's none of my business what happens because of it.

These people are appalling in their cowardice, their lack of morals, their basic inability to think of anyone or anything but themselves, they have no business in public roles of responsibility.

And yes, I absolutely do support the overturning of the GRA. Badly made law, badly thought out, appalling consequences with evidence mounting by the day and no real need within it that is not thoroughly and properly met by other existing legislation. It should not be possible in law to be recognised as something you wish to be but in fact are not.

What else does the GRA offer that isn't covered by EqA 2010?

It allows people to be legally recognised as the opposite sex. That is now its only purpose. It should be repealed.

I think it must be very hard for people with a long-standing commitment to transition to not have any legal recognition of what they perceive as their gender. I would sympathise if they had to go through life without it

Then there's an argument that the GRA is inadequate for what you have in mind.

www.lewissilkin.com/en/insights/employment-law-and-nonbinary-people-what-employers-need-to-know

There may be many different perspectives as to why but the GRA is unfit for purpose.

Perhaps there is. I’m not about to campaign for it.

There may be many different perspectives as to why but the GRA is unfit for purpose.

This is very similar in concept to the "males under 10nmol/l in female sport" idea. It's a "compromise" that clearly doesn't satisfy anyone, and is fundamentally broken. It's unstable - a false conflation of an open-ended imaginary "gender" idea with an utterly-real and binary sex concept.

They each try to address the very narrow question of "how do we make this very small group of men happy?"

But it doesn't scale. You can't make an unlimited number of men happy at the expense of an unlimited number of women. And you can't prevent the creep of more and more people trying to get into those special rules.

As Helen Joyce has said - a deceit that might be tolerable for the very narrow scope of a witness protection programme cannot be used for society as a whole.

Now she’s arguing with someone who agrees with her. She could start a fight in a phone box.

Amazingly women in the UK can pretty much only find Conservative politicians speaking out against this 'new religion'.
We probably would have had self-id already if Boris/Liz Truss hadn't thought better of it. Even Theresa May had been 'captured' to some extent, not sure she was convinced really. Boris can do pretty much anything between now and the next election and he will still have my vote on this issue alone. I am so offended by my former (pre-Corbyn) party enthusiastically throwing my rights away.
Who has funded all this? It is not healthy for ALL the main UK parties save 1 to be down this 'Alice in Wonderland inspired rabbithole'.

She also says she doesn’t condone abuse, then, in a tweet that supports her and calls gender critical women ‘terfs’, she has nothing to say about that language at all. So she’s a hypocrite as well.

there seems to be a trend for Labour politicians to insist they have never heard women express concern, then when they do express their concerns it’s a pile on and abuse.

Fucking hypocrite

But she clearly doesn’t have brains if she thinks women can have a penis. The vast majority of four-year-olds know that this is not the case.

Now she's calling women hysterical. Jesus Christ

How can the single sex exceptions within the law be applied if the law sees transwomen as female?

How can the primogeniture exception work if the law sees transmen as male?

She's totally wrong.

I wasn't on board with repealing the GRA before but I am now.

If I could understand the question, never mind the answer...
Is it a reference to a position Stella Creasy has argued, or argued against?
Or a proposition coming from the anonymous interrogator and, for some reason, seeking Stella Creasy's endorsement?

My conclusion is that currently most centre and left of centre politicians across UK/Europe and the wider English-speaking world are 'so open-minded their brains have fallen out'.

That’s a typical, age-old criticism used to dismiss /discredit women who are passionate about an issue. Shame on SC for lashing out at women who express an opinion.

Great job from the Telegraph! Stella Creasey, a big name in the Labour party, telling all those potential Labour voters (the Conservatives who've had enough of Boris) that as far as she is concerned anyone with a penis can be a woman if they say so! This is what Labour believe - it's like a big banner 'Don't vote for is if you value Women's Rights'