Labour Losing women

[ChristinaXYZ]

Despite all the recent WPATH revelations and everythign else we now know Angela Eagle has just tweeted that the next Labour government will:

• Legislate for a trans-inclusive conversion therapy ban
• Make anti-LGBT+ hate crime an aggravated offence *Modernise Gender Recognition processes
• Appoint an international LGBT+ envoy

https://twitter.com/angelaeagle/status/1765795128407388651

You do you, boo.

Most people aren't insulted by it.

I find it so odd that some people only view a party through the lens of whether they are good for "women".

Firstly, women are not one homogenous mass.

No, but it's pretty hard to do anything that benefits women if you don't know what a woman is. Whatever the experiences of different women, I fail to see how defining 'woman' as 'anyone who fancies saying they are a woman' benefits any (actual) women at all.

The idea that biological motherhood is special and mystical has been quite historically pervasive, and I'm sure still wields a lot of influence. It's been used for millennia to keep us in our place.

Just sticking this here again

Pregnancy and childbirth cannot be shared. One parent does 100% of the work, often at no small risk to her health.

Of course the mother will need considerably more recovery time than the father / non birthing parent, and of course she will have a unique relationship with her new born baby while it is totally dependent.

Any decent father / non birthing parent will know this.

ForCoralFox · Today 16:58

The idea that biological motherhood is special and mystical has been quite historically pervasive, and I'm sure still wields a lot of influence. It's been used for millennia to keep us in our place.

The statement was that people who haven't given birth don't understand motherhood properly, as they lack the experience of having done so. I don't find that to be the least bit controversial.

It's not insulting to fathers. We may have witnessed motherhood but we are acutely aware we haven't lived it.

Well adults with a modicum of intelligence aren't, ones who reply You do you, boo all bets are off.

And now we are in a much better place, free as anything thank goodness, where some people have useful womb sacks where babies are grown, given birth to and passed on to their buyer. Anyone can care for them, they don’t need the body that carried them. And as for food, they can either have a bottle, or best of all get men’s chemically induced chest milk while the man quite possibly indulges a fetish at the same time.

Progress indeed for women.

The fact that the father doesn't need time to physically recover does not mean that he should not be present in the home.

I have known families where the mother returned to work very quickly and the father was the primary carer, or care was split equally, or where children had to be put into childcare or cared for by relatives very early on.

Not all women breastfeed. Some do but pump so their baby can be left. It's a huge assumption that babies are always totally dependent on their biological mother. It fails to account for lots of different family structures and circumstances, is heteronormative, and detrimental to women.

It's been used for millennia to keep us in our place.

How has it been ‘used’ to ‘keep us in our place’?

Until fairly recently, only unusual wealth or social status liberated women from the biological burdens of motherhood. Societies often protected women on this basis, recognising vulnerability.

Thank you - you may well be right. I admit to being serially disappointed with the man and would like to think that he's able to coherently speak about sport for girls without wedging in whatever his personal issues / problems are about knowing what a woman is and defending women's rights.

It was just a little joke. My friends and I went though a spate of saying it ironically a few years back and it must have stuck in my brain. Must all posts be totally serious?

No, but if they're jokes they should be funny.

I disagree with your use of language, but I do think that the changes you refer to are positive.

Most women want to share the care and very much feel that the baby's needs are often in opposition to their own
That was definitely true for me!

Please explain why you think selling babies and subjecting them to untested secretions in lieu of proper food is positive. Please.

Ain't neoliberal progress grand?

Yes it is a positive thing for biological mums if other parents can equally care for the baby by say giving them a bottle of formula.
Breast feeding isn't the be all and end all.
I swear some posters on this board would love to keep women at home "where they belong" 🙄 as it's their duty as a mother bla bla, that's what some of it sounds like.
Feminism. Hmmm.

I don't think that surrogacy is 'selling babies' and I do think the 'secretions' as you so dismissively call them, should be tested.

I also think that surrogacy should be regulated, but that it's a woman's choice, like sex work, and gives hope to many people. I don't see why trans women shouldn't breastfeed if they can produce milk that is safe and nutritious. I don't know if they can, or will be able to in the future, but I don't see what's wrong with it in theory. Wanting to nurture your child is not a fetish.

Now women are free to commodity their bodies! Vive la free market!

Mothers - the only group to get our experiences dismissed as "that old chestnut" by those with no knowledge or experience of pregnancy and childbirth. Whatever happened to affirmation?

Oh, I forgot, women and babies don't count

What I find weird is people who say they're leftwing defending the commodification of women's bodies.

Trading in babies is quite the thing in certain quarters I hear. All part of reframing modern day slavery.