I live in Rosie Duffields constituency. Just had local election door knock from labour party

[BadgerWadger]

He asked what my main concerns were. I said my main issue was that i stood with Rosie and felt that Labour, as a party, from the top down, did not offer her enough support. And my main concern was womens safe spaces.

Man said, well, this is local elections and not about that, and that issue is more complicated than you think. What are your concerns, locally?

I said the local council is involved in issues to do with womens safe spaces. Like the womens refuges, the womans changing room at the local pool, etc. All spaces where biological men should not have access and that womens safe spaces was my main concern.

There followed a debate. And his stance is that its not that simple, i am being brainwashed by the right wing media, and that Rosie is in fact, (drumroll please...), mainly being supported by American right wing anti abortion groups.

Arrrrrghhhhhh. So that is where my local labour door knockers are at. Saying Rosies main core of support is American right wing anti abortion groups and i am being fooled by them. Silly, foolish, female me.

[T]hey support safe spaces (this is Labour euphamism for single sex spaces at it means they dont have to use the word sex), etc..

I've heard "safe spaces" a lot recently, and I think it's an attempt to avoid referring to the other aspects that are also intrinsic to single-sex spaces, namely privacy and dignity. Maybe I'm a cynic, but I can't help feeling that it's a move towards saying "TW aren't predators, so you're safe and if you disagree then you're a bigot" whereas privacy and dignity are two other very important reasons why no male should be in a female-only space.

I understand your cynicism, but they do mean single sex spaces, but just cant say it. Because to say sex acknowledges that there is a difference between biological females and trans women.

So they are caught between their public stand that TWAW, but on the other hand acknowledging that actual women have their own needs, and they are not the same as and exclude trans women.

So this silly word game is about trying to hold two diametrically opposing positions at the same time, but not having to admit that one undermines the other.

What a shame that they cant just admit one is a lie, instead of trying to make the other not seem what it really is because it exposes the lie.

And you think a policy of allowing men to identify into women's spaces isn't at all racist? Nor ablist? When we know this will disproportionately effect Muslim women and Jewish women and disabled women?

Please report to Rosie Duffield - [email protected] well Donne for tackling this! They need to give their heads a wobble!

I would strongly suggest that you email Rosie's official email address and they'll take it from there. 😉[email protected] Disgraceful that a local labour member purportedly campaigning to get Labour elected as the next govt would malign your local Labour MP in this way. Equally disgraceful is that he had the temerity to argue with you on the doorstep. #labourlosingwomen

I think it was Lord Falconer at the House of Commons select committee who kept mis-stating the Equality Act to talk about “safe spaces”.

You’re right, it’s a bit of linguistic chicanery going on to make us imagine males in women’s spaces can ever be safe for women.

Also plays on the usual TRA claim that they have to put women at risk take refuge from men in women’s spaces for “safety”.

IIRC “safe spaces” were big in educational circles, meaning a space where nothing ever challenged you & you could rely on nobody dating to accurately sex you misgender you.

Thanks, Sazzasez- I think Charlie Falconer's appearance was one of the places that I've heard the "safe spaces" mantra.

"Safe spaces" is actually obscuring not just 1, but 2 points about what the Equality Act allows.

1. Single sex.

1. Provision.

Changing 'single sex' to 'safe' allows them to: skim over the 'mixed sex' part; skip the other reasons such as privacy, dignity or fairness; and use the 'but you can be attacked in the street' diversion.

But changing 'provision' 'to 'space' is just as dishonest. Doing that makes it all about the we-just-want-to-pee (although fortunately it failed to exclude prisons from the conversation). It completely cuts out things like sport, the sex of the person providing medical and care procedures, all-women shortlists.... Huge amounts of important antidiscrimination legislation erased by making everyone focus on the room itself rather than what is happening in the room.

Hilarious intervention from someone who could easily have been the Labour canvasser in the OP. Way to go to make women support the party!

Changing 'single sex' to 'safe' allows them to: skim over the 'mixed sex' part; skip the other reasons such as privacy, dignity or fairness; and use the 'but you can be attacked in the street' diversion.

But changing 'provision' 'to 'space' is just as dishonest. Doing that makes it all about the we-just-want-to-pee (although fortunately it failed to exclude prisons from the conversation). It completely cuts out things like sport, the sex of the person providing medical and care procedures, all-women shortlists.... Huge amounts of important antidiscrimination legislation erased by making everyone focus on the room itself rather than what is happening in the room.

THIS.

Absolutely, Binturongs.

Interesting Labour policy docs:

twitter.com/female_union/status/1628041548167368704?

These are from 2018, so things may have changed. But some interesting points to question with canvassers and in letters to MPs.

GPWM (good points, well made!).

OOF. I would want hard fucking evidence from him of that disgusting accusation. What a shitty thing to say.

BinturongsSmellOfPopcorn · Today 09:54

Interesting Labour policy docs:

Yes, they say that they want to change the protected characteristic from "gender assignment" to "gender identity."

The government does, its called the police service.

😂😂

If the protected characteristic becomes gender ID, then doesn't that remove special protection for trans people? Because - according to trans orthodoxy- everyone has a gender ID? Obviously many people don't actually have a gender ID, but wouldn't lack of gender ID have to be just as protected? In the way that atheism is? Or being male is? Or have I massively misunderstood?

I think you're right.

Because of people like ij, they have no concept of women being valid human beings.

If the protected characteristic becomes gender ID, then doesn't that remove special protection for trans people? Because - according to trans orthodoxy- everyone has a gender ID? Obviously many people don't actually have a gender ID, but wouldn't lack of gender ID have to be just as protected? In the way that atheism is? Or being male is? Or have I massively misunderstood?

The protection is largely in relation to discrimination. The argument would be that those with congruent gender identities wouldn't be discriminated against on the basis of their gender identity (ie the gender identity that genderists want to impose on everyone) but where there is discrimination against trans people on the basis that they're trans, this would have occurred because of their incongruent gender identities.

We don't ever seem to get any doorstep canvassing in our area, so I haven't had chance to give my views on this.

However, this whole narrative that anyone who is GC is far right, hardline Christian boils my piss. I am left leaning in every other way. I'm an atheist. And yet people are so blinkered and can't believe that anyone on the left might genuinely have GC views that they have formed through logical thought. I have been a member of the Labour Party and have never, ever voted conservative. But yep, I must be some sort of far right zealot. 😵‍💫🤯

Exactly! (I think that we agree PopGoesThe Prosecco)

It was clearly wrong that he should be considered a woman- that the world (Scotland) could suddenly see it.

This rapist has accidentaly done great service for women.

I'm just bemoaning the fact that it took the action of a man to make clear what women have been saying over and over again. Women are adult human females (and only women should be in a women's jail).

Indeed. If we're playing guilt by association, then given that the Nazis burned books they disliked and the Christian right extremists and TRAs have burned Harry Potter books, then it is TRAs themselves who are aligned with Nazis and Christian fundamentalists, not us! I'm not aware of a single gender-critical campaigner who has ever advocated such literary iconoclasm.

Remind me, what were the books they disliked? 🤔