MPs who believe ‘women have a penis’ will be named and shamed ahead of general election

[fromorbit]

Brilliant plan sure plenty of Mumsnetters will be up for being part of the volunteer army asking questions:

An “army” of volunteers in an apolitical new grassroots campaign is gearing up to meet all MPs and parliamentary candidates at hustings events and on their doorsteps to ask each one the question: “What is a woman?”

Their answers will be video recorded and uploaded individually to a website which is being launched in the coming months.

It will allow voters to find out instantly whether their next MP thinks women must be born female and that binary biological sex cannot be changed, or whether they believe that male-born transgender women are women too.

Sharron Davies MBE, the former Olympic swimmer and feminist campaigner who has been appointed as the campaign’s first ambassador, said it would let voters “know if their MP will stand up for women”.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/09/23/mps-believe-women-penis-named-trans-election-sharron-davies/

We also need a women's issues hustings in every constituency in the election run by people who know what women are. Women Won't Wheesht (WWW) have already run the prototype in Rutherglen [the hustings was reinstated after an attempt to cancel it after they realised banning women's meetings is in fact illegal.]
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4899435-womens-group-hustings-for-rutherglen-hamilton-west-byelection-cancelled

Tbh, everyone know what a woman is. The ones who claim not to, who say they think men can be women, are either liars, cowards or idiots. While I'd be idly curious as to their motivation, either reason makes them unfit as far as I'm concerned. If they are prepared to lie about something so basic, what else will they lie about? If they will throw half their constituents under the bus because they're afraid of a few people with blue hair, how can they stand for anything. If they're so stupid they get a basic question wrong, they're not fit to be running a nose, never mind the country.

Their answer speaks to the quality of the person. Are they fit or unfit?

To get back on track What Is A Woman Campaign now have almost 11,000 followers on Twitter. Which means it seems likely they should have more than enough people to achieve their project in every constituency.

Meanwhile Pink News are not happy:

https://archive.ph/F1lC5

They discuss the Riverside Advisory involvement as being a damning connection a popular theme online. Noticeably though they don't mention Stonewall and many other TRA groups's pink washing connection to a huge number of corporations, finance firms, PR folk and right wing people in general.

As for whether the campaign is a a good plan or not it seems pretty certain the strong reaction to this thread here on Mumsnet indicates that some people really love it, others really hate it.

I cant disagree that women will probably get a tougher response to this than men. It's pretty much par for the course, let's face it. I'm happy to admit that I EXPECT MORE OF WOMEN on this issue because....drum roll.....they're WOMEN. They know how crap life as a woman can be, first hand. I'm way more saddened by women trotting out the crap than men. My expectations are pretty low for men I'm afraid. Based on experience, I think it's justified.

However.

If our politicians don't have the courage to stand up for truth and reality, it's all over. The whole damn thing is lost. Women as a distinct sex class (with rights based on their biological and reproductive needs) is over. We will have nothing that we are not PERMITTED to have. Nothing.

I think you're being given a bit of a hard time here, and I also know that those who speak the truth to this survey will have a hard time too.

But what fucking use is a politician of any sex or party if they are too cowed by tras to state the truth? Will they stand up for the truth anywhere? I'm not going to vote for any individual who is prepared to advance their political career at the expense of 50% of the population.

Doesn't mean others won't. I'm truly struggling to understand what you want here. Do you think the question should NOT be asked, at all? Should we carry on allowing the issue to be brushed aside? Like it's not important?

I’m incredibly grateful to those women who DO stand up regardless of TRAs

Thankfully it’s not just say nothing.

Without them we would not have a chance

Maya Forstater
JKR
Posie P
Sharron Davies
Baroness Falkner
Kemi Badenoch

Every one taking flack for women’s rights. I’m sure there’s more I’ve missed

There were plenty of male MPs too at WM debate talking on biological sex

I would guess that each party will just have an agreed standard-issue soundbite. "TWAW" may feature prominently, as will a refusal to answer and condemnation of the question. May be better to track candidates' previous record.

Is there a URL yet?

No answer is still an answer.

Go and read some feminism
I just googled to start you off but the idea that men are the default human that women are defined in contrast to ie quite core to patriarchy and really not some ground breaking idea

https://medium.com/illumination/men-are-the-default-women-are-the-exception-5fe65880aeda

Or via a poster on this board from way back:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/4w.pub/the-rules-of-misogyny/amp/

"15. Men are the default human. Women are strange subhuman others."

People can ask the question, of course they can.

I've seen a lot of alt-right/MRA types promoting "free speech". I'm skeptical about the timing of this, and who stands to benefit from this. I don't think its going to be women.

So I don't trust the motives of whoever is pushing this, I think its a culture wars thing relying on GC women to be "useful idiots".

I keep saying I look at what people do, not what they say, especially politicians. I don't see any evidence of any of the English parties doing anything to progress womens sex based rights. Being able to say "women are adult human females" or "women don't have penises" is important, but it's not enough to win my support.

Yikes, patronising much? "Go and read some feminism."

I agree that a lot of language presumes that male is the default.

The reason why this discussion is so focused on penises, however, is because some idiot politicians are trying to tell us that women can have penises, and they are hoping to be allowed to run the country after the next general election.

Women aren't just people without penises, I agree. Apart from anything else, a man who has had his penis removed is still not a woman.

But in a world where certain people are trying to pretend that sex isn't binary, saying that men are the kind of humans who have penises and women are the other kind of humans is a simple and almost completely accurate way of putting it. It's your genitals, not your gender identity.

What wasn't clear to me is whether you were saying it is antifeminist to say that women are people without penises because the truth is that women are people with womanly brains. And that truly is antifeminist.

Yeah. I could tell that's what you were getting at with your oh-so-clever what's your definition of a woman shtick.
Bluntly, I have to be patronising to get people to see beyond their own confirmation bias ("has male UN/not an FWR poster I recognise/doesn't love the Tories/must be aTRA/lefty bot/Lil OJ in disguise") and actually engage with the points I am making.

Even with all this I don’t think your arguments stack up

It’s good we’re asking and will get answers

Hiding views won’t help us

I still can't tell which side of the argument you're actually on.

What argument are you wanting to know which side I'm on?

The trouble is that nobody is doing ANYTHING.

I look at it like forcing our MPs over the top, to steal a little trench warfare parlance.

Suicidal? Maybe (career suicide, I mean).

At some point however, there has GOT to be a moment of clarity where the population goes "what the fuck is happening?".

We need that moment.

Without a huge, major population wtf moment, this will drag on for decades, eroding safeguarding, women's rights, children's safety and all we know of democracy.

MPS are, apparently, happy to sacrifice women's rights to appease the TRA.

It turns out that I'm happy to sacrifice MPs, including women MPs, to protect my rights.

I'm a bloodthirsty little bugger though.

People are doing a lot more than they were in 2016 when Maria Miller tried to introduce self ID
Most people are aware of the issue and have an opinion, which is far better than the days when cbbc could run a propaganda programme about being a transgender child, and where if you said you didn't think men could become women you'd lose friends, get called transphobic and #bekind thrown in your face.
I haven't seen the likes of Lily Madigan/Ada Wells for donkeys.
Things are heading in the right direction. And it's going to take time but like I said, forcing people to declare their position males us no better than the "trans women ARE women, no debate" lot of yesteryear.

Also haven't seen trans women winning Woman of the Year and ubiquitous appearances by Paris Lees
Honestly. It is SO MUCH better than it was. Not to say its perfect.

Ha at last line

I’m ready to force it out in the open.

I don't really care about not being better, whatever the fuck that means.

I want clarity.

I want honesty.

If an MP honestly believes that twaw then they'll be happy to say that. I'll be happy to listen to that, and I'll be happy to remember that when it comes to casting my vote.

Since when has demanding the truth been unreasonable behaviour?

I am reading a lot of words on a lot of one person's posts but I am hearing "Please don't ask this question? It will make Labour look bad".

I can't see what's 'clever' about asking for a definition of a woman. It arises inevitably from TWAW and related assertions that assert circular logic and, ultimately, question the existence of females as a sex class.

While I don't think this initiative will be a solution, it's not a gimmick. It's a question that voters are entitled to ask, in the light of past and present organisational and political policy, and casting it as a trivial and oh-so-clever "shtick" is part of the problem rather than the solution.

I was specifically referring to that poster asking me to define what a woman was, because they suspected I was a TRA and wanted to tie me in knots. Not people-in-general asking politicians

Hang on a second! 'Things are heading in the right direction' but don't ask MPs, especially female ones, this question because....?

I'm being "snippy" because engaging in this thread in the way you have done, having only read the bloody headline, demonstrated an absolute paucity of integrity. I've already made it very clear what I think of liars, the deceitful, the manipulative and the mendacious.

And all you have to say for yourself is cheap nazi comparisons. I'm sure you think minimising the horrors of the third reich is really impressive.

I'm calling it: you're a plant for CCHQ trying to make the Labour party look as deceitful and corrupt as possible. Can I claim my five pounds now?

I don't have an issue with people asking politicians to define a woman.

I have an issue with asking if people with penises can be women because its making everything about the Almighty Penis and I'm a feminist. I'd rather ask if people with vaginas can be men.

I also really don't like the idea that men who cut their penis off are women. SRS is brutal and invasive, we shouldn't encourage men to have it to "prove" they are women. Men cannot become women. Penises are irrelevant.

I have an issue with a coordinated campaign to "name and shame" MPs with the "wrong" views. Because I think it opens them up to abuse. For many (especially in Scotland) they are just doing their job and following the party line.

However it appears that despite the title of the thread and headline of the article no "naming and shaming" is going to happen. So that's good.

I still think its going to have very little impact. It will make a difference to hard line TRAs and GC voters. But most voters aren't going to be that swayed by it.

I also think there's a very high likelihood of politicians of all stripes saying "woman = adult human female" (as per Starmer recently) and no-one feeling reassured because maybe female includes people with a GRC, or maybe TRAs are going to colonise womanhood.

So again, who benefits from this? And why now?