Ah, Stella Creasy has responded to JCJ, with a very carefully selected tweet to intentionally misrepresent deflect with - ignoring all the more substantive stuff quoted previously. She'd be right at home in FWR, deflecting like crazy.
Creasy: If you want to stand by them as women then call them women and respect that the law does too. Or even better dont' be Piers Morgan and read more than the headline.....
JCJ: We read it Stella. You said male people are female. You can't blame Piers Morgan for that sounding like mad shit.
Creasy: Hi jane fwiw you were suggested to me as someone who wanted sensible debate on feminism and meant to engage with your earlier messages when had chance. Calling me ‘mad shit’ because we disagree doesn’t meet that test so think best left.
JCJ: It's very interesting to me that you have not engaged with any of the substantive threads I have written that you have also been tagged in which point out to you that your claim about the possible separation of sex from gender identity in data collection - & law more generally - is being made in wilful defiance and refusal to recognise that that is not what is happening, that it is not happening because of policy capture by the trans rights movement, and that politicians like you have completely abdicated your responsibility to ensure that gender identity is not allowed to overwrite sex in law, data collection, or the organisation of public space, and have let that work fall to ordinary women, who have undertaken it at considerable personal cost and risk, while being vilified and intimidated by trans activists.
What seems evident from this exchange, and some of the responses I saw you picked out earlier, is that you are entirely committed to abdicating that responsibility, and, in fact, to colluding with the monstering of the women who have been doing your job for you.
No doubt, with all your feminist credentials, and academic expertise in matters of objectifying and defining women in male interests, remain steadfastly silent on the threats and intimidation that have been rained down on women for asserting the political importance of exactly what you claim 'should be possible.' That is, the separation of sex from gender identity in law and public life, and the continued salience of sex where necessary.
Indeed, you will sidestep this, in favour of picking out a perhaps indelicately phrased yet nonetheless true claim about a fundamental assertion that you have made.
Because male people are not female.
And saying they are is mad shit.