Yvette Cooper on LBC

[Flowerly]

Did anyone else hear this? She just clearly said that there are differences between what she called 'biological women' and TW and that just because you change your gender does not mean that you change your sex! I almost fell over in shock.

Is this the start of a full on turnaround from the LP? Will I be able to vote for them again? I so want to!

I wish it were so, but the Equality Act provides for males to become legally women. I strongly doubt there'll ever be any rolling back from that (from any party). The best outcome is to secure single-sex spaces, women only sports (but that's largely in control of the international sporting bodies), clarification of sex-based rights, limitation of trans women's rights to those with a GRC and no self-ID.

All good, except that trans women, even with a GRC, can still be 'intact'. It's ridiculous, but there it is.

I'm afraid Sunak is being disingenuous when he says women cant have a penis. He knows that legally its not true. I wish it were

I v much doubt Labour could introduce Self ID if it's not in their manifesto, so this is all looking like it's going in the right direction

She sounded very uncomfortable answering questions in this, I don't trust them. She also said that Kier Starmer didn't say that 99% of women don't have a penis, this was wrongly reported evidently. I don't trust them, they think they are being clever with language, they aren't. Todays claim that boys need to be educated to curb violence against women and girls is them just trying to distract from the fact they believe men can be women.

I'll say it again, you cannot make policy or protect people unless you can define who those people are.

For example, a trans identifying boy assault as girl - under Labour presumably that is a girl in girl crime?

I thought that question session was very poor, she didn't actually answer questions directly and Tom let her get away with it.

If men are a danger to transwomen (and I don't doubt they are) lobby for your own space.

She also said that Kier Starmer didn't say that 99% of women don't have a penis, this was wrongly reported evidently.

This is what he actually said:

"For 99.9 percent of women it is completely biological. And, of course, they haven’t got a penis.”

So it does sound to me like he's said 99.9% of women are biological women who obviously don't have penises. Which obviously implies that 0.1% of women are not biological women and they do have penises.
Or am I reading that wrong? 🤔

@PollyPeptide , that's the thing. They think they can get away with 99.9%. They won't be able to. Not with Kelly-Jay Keen standing against Starmer in his constituency.

If TRAs had said "please can we have 3rd spaces", I truly believe most people would say "yeah, whatever ". But they blew it with No Debate /Cotton Ceiling/Cervix haver bullshit.

The LP are showing that they are finally getting worried that they will lose votes on this issue. And so they should be. They're losing mine.

I agree that's it's a step forward from previous rhetoric

I agree that's it's a step forward from previous rhetoric.

I don't believe it's a step forward because Cooper is lying when she denies that Starmer said 99.9% of women don't have penises.
It's just a load of crap that they don't believe and won't honour.

@PollyPeptide yeah the trust is pretty much blown at this stage isn't it?

My thought was it'd be interesting to what extent she gets in trouble for these comments and if she does get backlash does she have any backup or will she have to roll them back at the first sign of trouble.

I think labour are trying to be all things to all people on this issue and end up just coming across as disingenuous.

@PollyPeptide
" So seven wees ago, Yvette Cooper refused three times to even talk about this issue and then a week before an election she has an opinion! Well, I'm convinced that's a position she'll hold to...not. "

Well indeed! Afaic, she always talks out of both sides of her mouth, on all 40 faces that one, imo! Can't stand her! ( or her husband )
After her actions at the DWP and knowing how they affected so many people so terribly negatively, while she plays little miss butter wouldn't melt, i wouldn't give tuppence for her! Especially considering her and her husbands expenses greed but to then take much needed money off the severely disabled who needed the help, i find it unforgiveable of her.
In any case, thankfully, she's standing down at the next GE, so there's that!

@Jezzz "
I v much doubt Labour could introduce Self ID if it's not in their manifesto, so this is all looking like it's going in the right direction "

Why do you doubt they could introduce self ID? Manifesto's are not legally binding documents, they are suggestions of possible legislation only - remember, Gorgon Brown went to court to get legal ruling that manifesto's can just be binned and forgotten about. they are meaningless. Therefore starmer could introduce self ID at any time.
I will not be voting labour for the foreseeable!

and if she does get backlash does she have any backup or will she have to roll them back at the first sign of trouble.

I have a feeling that this is their strategy moving forward. Just alternating what they're saying in different interviews and if someone tries to pin them down, they'll wave it away with some sort fanaticism comment. So then looking back, they can quote both opinions and voters will be reassured (conned) into thinking their view is the prevalent one.
Politicians (of all parties) are such hard work. They should all be allowed to say what they think, no matter how outrageous, so we can really see what we're voting for. Instead of these coordinated lies.

@PollyPeptide I think you could be right about it being a strategy to be deliberately playing both sides. We could call it 'aggressively and passionately straddling the fence' - it could be construed as a positive sign that anyone feels they can or should so much as stick a toe over but I suspect there's little substance to it.

I'd love to be proven wrong though...

If only we had a convenient latin derived scientific term that has been used for decades and allows us to neatly differentiate between people that are trans and people that are not.

Before you would even need such a word, you would first have to define 'trans'.

What is the definition?

Trans is a shortening of transgender which is a well defined term. Cis is a shortening of cisgender which is a well defined term. In the context of a discussion where it is necessary to differentiate, cis man, cis woman, trans man, trans woman. It's neat, clear, polite.

I'm not uncomfortable calling myself heterosexual, or straight, so why should I feel uncomfortable calling myself cis?

If only that sensible definition had been applied within the well recognised, immutable and legally and socially significant sex categories rather than across them.

No one would have any issues recognising and supporting the right of people of either sex to be gender non-conforming. Indeed, almost all of us are.

The problems arise because the application of the term trans is being used to assign membership of the opposite sex category, something which is manifestly not true.

This is bad for all of us because it creates significant legal and social issues for contexts where ones sex category matters, and because unnecessarily puts trans people into the combatative position of having to assert their identity against the material facts of sex.

I do not believe in gender ideology. I do not have a gender identity. I have a biological sex and a personality.

I am not cisgender or transgender.

Imposing a gender identity on me is the very opposite of polite, it is insulting

I do not believe in sexuality. I do not have a sexuality. I have a personality.

I am not straight or gay.

Imposing a sexuality on me is the very opposite of polite, it is insulting.

I am normal. And they aren't.

Cis is a shortening of cisgender which is a well defined term

It’s a nonsense, made up term intended to normalise the nonsense, made up concept of gender and eliminate the use of the words woman and female.

Cis is a bullshit term coined as faux science by some dodgy fuckers

Of course 'cisgender' is a made up term. We have a need to differentiate between groups of people so we can talk concisely and inclusively, and terms are evolved and popularised to serve that need. This is how we ended up with terms like 'heterosexual' and it is how we have ended up with 'cisgender'.

No doubt there was a period where people resented being called 'heterosexual' or 'straight'. In retrospect I hope it's fairly obvious why it is unkind to suggest that only others should have terms to denote them because, you know, we're normal.

@TraumatisedGooner

There are two systems of classifying human beings currently in competition. Some people assert that the new system is better, kinder, more inclusive. I have examined this claim thoroughly and reject it as untrue. If I thought that claim was true I would be happy to switch to the new system.

The exact same person therefore might be described differently depending on whether one uses the old progressive or new progressive system to describe them.

If you use the old progressive system I am a woman, if you use the new I am not. In neither system am I a cis woman. I've been called 'not a woman' in a lot of different ways in recent times and for a lot of different reasons. And having thought it through really quite thoroughly now am quite confident and happy to say "bugger off - calling me cis it is offensive and demeaning"

You're welcome to describe yourself as anything you like - just don't tell me how I feel.

In retrospect it's fairly obvious that applying cis- or trans- in the way they currently are is a linguistic sleight of hand that asserts the reality of gender identity without ever having proven it.

Why are a trans- and a cis- woman both types of woman? What actually is a woman in that construction? By focusing the argument on the need to differentiate between these two "types" of "woman" the trans/cis ideology implicitly assumes the existence of two types, but also uses the existence of the words as proof/justification of the two types.

The real stuff, the hard stuff, the facts that need to be observed to prove the existence of these two types in the first place is neatly (and IMO dishonestly) sidestepped.

@TraumatisedGooner

I find the new system to be inherently homophobic, as it undermines support and recognition for same sex partnerships if you undermine belief in the existence of sex.

If two enby pansexuals are in a sexual relationship which one (if any) is in danger of getting pregnant? how could they tell? how could they ask? what if anything could be done about it?

The current assertion that sex should never be referred to or spoken of with any clarity assumes that everyone already knows everything they need to know but as Mums we tend to spend our days surrounded by living reminders that that isn't the case.