Harriet Harman says women are women, or men who are 'certified' women.

[ArabellaScott]

https://twitter.com/roseveniceallan/status/1713176479528300891

'There's a question of what is a woman and what is a man. But I would say a woman is someone who is born a woman or someone who under the GRA 2004 is certified as having transitioned from a man to a woman'.
...
'I support the GRA and don't want to see it rolled back. We brought it forward for a very good reason'.

Harriet Harman, at the Fawcett Society event.

Thank you, Julia Long, for asking the question.

I quite agree, but I'm a Bad People

Answer to question 1: "The actual Things are barely relevant, being merely props to signal their Good Righteousness, and thus do not warrant any actual examination or analysis."

Answer to question 2: They're high on their own Righteousness - "This belief is that they are Good People who are on The Right Side of History"

‘It doesn’t happen’ - except it does

‘It won’t happen’ - it will

And women stop talking about it we have a GE coming up

I remember the PIE farrago back in the day; the letters to the Guardian letters page, Patricia Hewitt and HH. Well, I guess they were young and naïve then. Doesn't it give HH any pause for thought to realise that some of those figures behind PIE back then are also the godfathers of the trans right movement (I know there's been stuff about that on MN)?

Fool me once...

I honestly don't understand why we can't have men, transmen, women and transwomen as gender. Clearly there is a difference between transwomen and women, why the need to throw both in one category? Appreciate transwomen don't want to share spaces with men, equally women may not want to share spaces with transwomen! Especially when there are transwomen who haven't transitioned medically.

Have unisex spaces, one person in at a time if necessary, for all, and men and women changing rooms/toilets to reduce the queue as there are greater numbers of men and women? Am I missing something?

What you are missing is that a women's toilet without any women in it is just a toilet.

If there are no women in a particular space then using that space does not say anything about you being a woman.

The activists would say that's apartheid, that transwomen would be "lesser" women, when they claim they are 100% women.

I'm afraid it's Grade A batshittery, and your solution which in any sane world would certainly work, is not an option.

I'm afraid luxury beliefs are the order of the day as the West has luxuriated without conflict since 1945.

Yes, and I'm afraid seeing TW on social media saying that if third spaces existed they wouldn't use them has reduced my appetite to spend a lot of money on providing these things.

TW India Willoughby recently bragged on Twitter about seeing a gender neutral toilet in an airport and going off in search of a female only one instead.

I think it is as simple as they believe in gender ideology

I think what HH said, is most likely meaning she thinks it's a legal fiction, but there is a good reason for having the legal fiction.

I can kind of understand that position, as in, I can believe that they really believe it.

But wanting to widely extend the fiction and make it "on demand"... makes me doubt how genuine they can be.

I think obviously they don't really believe that "trans women are women", and this is merely the profession of a creed to show their good standing as a member of the left.

Or maybe some people fear looking intellectually unsophisticated and outdated if they don't go with the latest fashionable thinking.

But it is complicated by the fact that it's a real medical issue and many people (correctly) have sympathy for that. Sure it may be right for some people to transition.

But then I also think it's correct to be skeptical of the modern explosion in cases, and correct to be skeptical of parts of the medical profession or others that think this is some settled issue that we need to just affirm people's identities.

You don't see rhetoric from politicians that I would agree with: we shouldn't ban conversion therapy because, actually, on principle, we should be trying to find ways to cure more children and not "affirm" them. Given our lack of knowledge, that's a perfectly reasonable approach, and obviously the healthiest outcome in theory.

I think there is an awful feeling of fatedness about all of this. I think that as a society we are going to have to be woken up the hard way - via the inevitable injustices, outrages, incidents of sexual assault, men winning women's competitions, Eddie Izzard being presented as the first female Labour leader ( I know..that is taking it a step too far and is patently ridiculous); a revolt by muslim populations and others for whom single sex means single sex.

But it also going to take a captured media to actually report on incidents and injustices too. I suspect that even most Labour MPs have not a clue about the true scale and range of fuckwittery that is going on. Do not know what an autogynephile is, and so on.

In that clip Harman gets a big round of applause for talking about how she wants to stand with transwomen.

Perhaps there really was some sort of mind washing chip in the covid vaccine. That's why the Labour party were so into it?

The other problem is indoctrination in schools making it harder to change

It really is Orwellian at this point

Maybe events will do it, as long as we don’t go down NZ territory of all captured media, we still have that pesky DM and co making problems for gender ideology

Mind you NZ just voted out current gov so will see if it shifts at all

So if you went to a Let Women Speak event, Harriet (I know, I know!), which side of the barricade would you be standing on?

This.

Openly against women's equality of access. Against the inclusion they once championed for women from BAME and minority cultures and faiths. Against the inclusion of disabled women. Against religious tolerance and multi culturalism. Against the women they once championed who need refuge and rape support services. Against homosexuals. Against child safeguarding. Basically about half of everything the left ever stood for.

Not 'lets provide equality of access for all including male TQ+ people', which yep, all in favour of, but against women, actively standing to remove access to provide what is in hard fact, male supremacism for less than 1% of men.

Yes. I too seriously wonder wtaf they are smoking. As pp said: what this 1% of male people want should be the fringe issue - instead they are arguing that the subordination and discrimination they are championing to put in law against the entire sex class of women is the fringe issue. And gay rights and child safeguarding.

Yes, I think they're on glue.

The people who brought in the GRA massively fucked up basically.

We are hand tied and the best outcome for Labour is we don’t talk about it

It is probably one of the top worst pieces of legislation. It’s forced societal change from sex to gender and afaik the public didn’t even vote on it at a GE

The ramifications are massive and hard to challenge and it’s held up with more lies and indoctrination

And gender ideology spread across many western countries at the same time. What were they all thinking?

The people who brought in the GRA massively fucked up basically.

I disagree. The quality of the discussion in the HoL was excellent and they correctly anticipated the logical consequences that have come to pass.

The present GRA quagmires all result from the implementation of the desiderata of Press for Change et al. It may well be an exemplary case study of the Denton Playbook.

"The quality of the discussion in the HoL was excellent and they correctly anticipated the logical consequences that have come to pass."

And yet a majority voted in favour, in spite of the logical consequences being anticipated.

Did those voting in favour not believe the anticipated consequences would come to pass, or did they not care?

The quality of the discussion in the HoL was excellent and they correctly anticipated the logical consequences that have come to pass.

I listened to the maternity act debate in the HoL and the quality was high (people who want to get rid of HoL should bear in mind)

But that still means the GRA went through, those fears were not heeded

Did those voting in favour not believe the anticipated consequences would come to pass, or did they not care?

Don't forget possibility 3, that they actively desired these anticipated consequences.

They were assured that they wouldn't come to pass.

As you know, HoL is in an odd position wrt rejecting legislation, even when they may suspect that they are being fed hogwash.

Vulvamort's tweets are archived here.

https://archive.is/6Oj7G

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20210911112830/twitter.com/HairyLeggdHarpy/status/1049289194370002945" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://web.archive.org/web/20210911112830/twitter.com/HairyLeggdHarpy/status/1049289194370002945

I honestly don't understand why we can't have men, transmen, women and transwomen as gender.

I used to think this but now I don't.

Acceping the concept of "trans woman" means accepting that there is something "of the woman" about such people, even if it's also recognised that they are men who wish to inhabit /participate in some roles and activities culturally gendered as female rather than women.

That feels to me still regressive and sexist.

Where the trans "woman"'s desire to be included and accepted is totally reasonable - for example makeup, dresses, traditionally feminine hobbies, we should be supporting the cultural opening those things up to men as a whole, breaking the association with womanhood rather than reinforcing it by opening it only to "men who have something of the woman about them".

And where the trans "woman"'s desire is to be part of something that exists to support female people in a sexist world that desire is not and will never be reasonable - sports, safety/nudity, mechanisms for female empowerment - so there should never be an argument to include males.

In other words there's no situation where the concept of the trans woman is a neutral thing for female people because at its core is the idea that some things are womanny in a mental way.

Now to be clear, this in no way means I think men should not be free to explore and express interests and expressions that have been culturally coded as Women's. On the contrary I think that's a really positive thing for society to do. I just don't think it should be done under the label of Woman.

My hidden reply contains archive links to Twitter threads and that's why it's been greyed out.

However, it you go to a favourite *rchiving site and enter this URL in snapshots, then it will retrieve something relevant.

https://twitter.com/HairyLeggdHarpy/status/1049289194370002945

They were assured that they wouldn't come to pass.

By whom?

Even if there were objections in HoL the bill still passed and it is as in pp

A massive mistake

Oh India, India can't you understand that you never be able to use women's single sex spaces? The moment that you set foot in them they cease to be single sex. If you put India in a female only toilet it is no longer a female only toilet, it is instantly a gender neutral, mixed sex toilet because it is open to females regardless of their gender and males who choose to identify in to it. A single sex space is only single sex if the opposite sex stay out.