is our aim protecting our sex based rights or is the issue our political leanings?

[vivariumvivariumsvivaria]

I've been confused by the falling out on social media by some women against other women and have been following the discussions online.

I am not very well informed politically - I think my opinion is that the important thing is ensuring that sex remains a protected characteristic and that "woman" means adult human female and not gender so that our rights to safety, privacy and dignity are protected in law and safeguarding follows that.

However, I can understand that it is difficult for left wing women to collaborate with women who are right wing, or for working class women to link with middle class or upper class women, because their politics and priorities are varied.

I think it is a strength that there are different approaches and different women speaking up because we desperately need to raise awareness because the majority of women are unaware of the threat to our sex based rights. That means we need a variety of voices, and everyone, as far as I can see, wants the same thing - our sex based rights and protections for children.

Maybe I'm being simplistic to think that "play nicely" will prevail. I hope so, though, because what I am watching looks like a big waste of energy and goodness knows this stuff is exhausting enough.

What can an ordinary woman like me who doesn't have a youtube or a book or a column do to try and help move things along? I'm worried we will land up with a GC purity spiral and nothing good will come of it.

I stated that At least the Conservatives know what a woman is is a lie. Because it is a lie. A huge big fat lie that damages women and children in the UK.

You heard Tories=bad people? That is a massive leap and not what I said at all. How did you get that from what I wrote @ChristinaXYZ?

I've seen a lot of UK arguments on exactly this problem - is maintaining the legal definition of women your top priority or one of your top priorities? Why do you feel that way/where does it sit in your wider politics, and what do you do when others who agree are far past a political line you would otherwise keep?

Can only speak for myself. Women's rights are one of my top priorities, but possibly pipped by environmental issues. Luckily, nobody in power seems to give two fucks about the latter, so it doesn't affect my vote.

The other things I care about - freedom of speech & thought, civil liberties - are likewise embroiled in this argument, which I think is symptomatic of a dangerous authoritarianism & a very unhealthy ideology that operates on manipulation, threat and dishonesty.

Other people's opinions are just none of my business. I've got zero interest in policing anyone else's views, evangelising, or critiquing someone else's politics.

I'm in favour of human rights and won't ally with individuals or groups who are not. Thats not about political purity.
The alt right groups don't care about women's rights, children's rights or human rights. They aren't interested in working with us, they see us as a resource for recruitment.
(For example, one tactic they will use to recruit is to say that what you believe is so close to what they believe, you may as well join them for the benefit of strength in numbers.)

No debate comes from statements like "The left hate women" and the accusations of MRA, TRA and Man to anyone who disagrees, instead of discussing the arguments.

Unfortunately No debate is not confined to the TRA folk.

What is all this 'ally' stuff, though? What does it actually mean? I've seen it used to describe someone not denouncing someone.

Woosh, my post went way over your head. Id be interested to know what you think I said, becasue from what you've written its really difficult to know. 😁

Please explain how saying 'the left hate women' is the same as refusing to debate a topic?

The Left, along with the "woke", "progressives" "blue hairs" etc, is an undefined, nebulous concept that is so subjective as to make it meaningless. For example the left includes JKR and LOJ, amongst others.

The current left is a good example of what happens when you let everyone in. You end up top heavy with authoritarians who have no idea what your group was founded for in the first place.

That. ^^

All of that. It is not necessary to agree, it's also not necessary to play the purity games and rightthink games that have helped to do the damage to sex based rights thus far. I'm not 'aligned' with anyone, or wasting time fretting about my ideological purity or whether x said what to y and yada yada yada. When women's rights aren't so severely damaged I might have more time and interest.

Thank you all. This has been really helpful for me.

I agree with PPs - I am grateful to any woman, or man, who speaks up and takes the personal risk. We know what happens to those people and it is exciting to see the speaker's corner talks and hear women's stories which helps broaden my understanding of why it is important.

I wonder whether this boils down to something as simple as that some significant voices have such insight and expertise that they are frustrated that others might take a different approach because they see different approaches as inefficient?

I am reassured, I think, by the dissent. Debate is good, disagreement is good, without that all we'd have is a script like I hear from the TRAs - just mantras which mean nothing because they removed meaning from words.

Interesting point about the Tories using this as a vote winner - you are right, I've never voted Tory yet, but if no other party steps up and says what a woman is then I think I probably will.

That's not something to criticise the Tories over, though, it's their job to get votes! It's something to criticise the other parties, especially labour over, because they were stupid enough to let my vote go after I watched their purity spiral end up on the abuse of Rosie Duffield. I'm not voting for a party who'd allow that to one of their own, I don't trust them any more than I trust the Tories but realistically once rights have gone they are very difficult to get back. Same with services, of course, which is why I wrestle with all this...

To be brutally honest, vivarium, I don't think it's feminists or 'gc' women keeping the Tories in power. The majority of the electorate will not base their vote on this; it's seen as a niche issue.

It is possible that Labour's weakness and willingness to be run by zealots and ideologues, rather than by listening to people's needs, wants and ideas, is what's damaging them.

Yep I,m pretty much single issue on this at the moment. so Labour won't be getting me vote because I also feel that if we allow women's rights to be taken it's a long hard slog to get them back.
Not sure I can hold my nose and vote Tory but might give it to an independent candidate. Labour gets 85% of the vote in my area so I m not going to swing the result anyway, but at least I haven't given them my support

Spot on. They just dont feel like a strong credible party. its like watching student politics

Interesting point about the Tories using this as a vote winner - you are right, I've never voted Tory yet, but if no other party steps up and says what a woman is then I think I probably will.

But is this your priority? You do know voting Tory may get you a sacrosanct womens loo, but it may also get you erosion of abortion rights. Which is some thing I don’t think any woman past childbearing age should have a right to sacrifice.

“Nadine Dorries’ call for the time limit for abortions to be reduced by four weeks has provoked outrage among health care professionals. The culture secretary argued the legal cut-off point for pregnancy terminations in the UK - which is 24 weeks - should be reduced by a month.” 8 July 2022
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nadine-dorries-abortion-time-limit-b2118180.html

See starting p31 an amendment in the House of Commons, right now….
publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-02/0183/amend/health_rm_rep_1118.pdf

”Reduction in upper gestation limit for abortion to 22 weeks’ gestation”
Ban on “Termination of pregnancy on the grounds of the sex of the foetus”

Sponsored by….
Fiona Bruce- Conservative
Carla Lockhart- DUP
Miriam Cates- Conservative
Chris Green- Conservative
Scott Benton- Conservative
Sir Edward Leigh- Conservative
Sir Desmond Swayne- Conservative
Jim Shannon- DUP
Sir John Hayes- Conservative
Ian Paisley- DUP

Abortion is just one reason why my political leanings still matter to me.
Self ID has worked out so badly for women in places where its been adopted, I can never support it, but I'll never vote Tory either. They introduced the idea in the first place!

I'm afraid any party that believes in the wholesale destruction of women's rights, homosexual rights and child safeguarding, does not foresee any problems with this, will not listen to any voters voices on this, and is all for the authoritarian, anti democratic approaches that enforcing this will necessarily involve, will not be a party I ever think should be allowed anywhere near power. In fact the idea of them getting into power is fucking terrifying.

Framing this as just about 'so you'll get to be allowed to have access to a public toilet but....' is ridiculous minimizing, it is a far more complex, widespread and very serious issue than that to anyone who takes more than a few minutes to look and think.

You do know voting Tory may get you a sacrosanct womens loo, but it may also get you erosion of abortion rights

This is so reductive that it's an outright fucking insult

Me too! I feel like the Tory wink wink we know what a woman is love, vote for us and you’ll get your own woman only pot to piss in is bait we’d be fools to accept.

But behind the scenes, they’re dismantling other very critical sex based rights like abortion….and by voting for a woman only pot to piss in, you’re also voting to roll back and restrict abortion rights.

And that’s only one issue. They also have been pushing children into poverty with their benefits cuts for single parents (disproportionately affecting young mothers) uk.news.yahoo.com/tory-welfare-cuts-penalising-young-143801759.html

This is in addition to the two child cap they introduced
DWP two-child benefit cap hits 1.3m kids as 1,830 mums have to declare they were raped
www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/dwp-two-child-benefit-cap-27482212

Yet “vote Tory because they know what a woman is” isn’t reductive or insulting at all? 😂

Then Labour need to get their act together and stop giving women no other option but to give their vote to anyone who recognises sex based rights.

You can add removing benefit support for care leavers and under 23 year olds, and the disastrous PIP system to that list.
www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2022/03/23/dwp-deaths-evidence-has-now-been-passed-to-the-un/

But is it as serious as child poverty and abortion rights? Is the trans issue important enough to encourage voting for a party that has and is actively harming millions of women and children?

I don’t think so. It matters to me that single mothers get sufficient benefits to keep children out of poverty. It matters to me that young women keep the abortion rights I had. It matters to me more than what 1% of the population want to identify as and spaces they want to access.

We aren’t in a two party system. Just because you can’t vote for Labour, that doesn’t mean you are forced to vote for Conservative or DUP. You can also spoil your ballot. You have other choices.

But is it as serious as child poverty and abortion rights?

Yes of course it is. Self ID is a human rights disaster that undermines equality law, erases womens rights, undermines safeguarding, and enables homophobia.
There is no neat and tidy hierarchy of single issues.