Anas Sarwar says 'men have a penis, women have a vagina'

[ArabellaScott]

Here with the latest in ferret manoeuvres is Times Radio:

https://twitter.com/TimesRadio/status/1787099676430238103

'It's very simple,' says Anas.

Odd how he voted in favour of the GRR, and whipped all Labour MSPs to do the same, then.

Did PIE ever really go away? I'm unconvinced. Just look at the amount of completely unsuitable RSE materials. And the adults inveigling themselves with sex education and/or charities going on about being your authentic self. Seems like it just shapeshifted.

This is actually worse because politicians feel they’ve resolved it so women can finally stop bugging them

Labour still haven’t said where GRCs grant access. We’re a year or so on from asking where

They are incapable of understanding, they cannot grapple with the implications of their absolutely shit laws

Cowardly and dishonest

I think they do understand. They choose not to. Not dissimilar to PIE. Hardly difficult to understand, as the language is instructive.

So, it's just more doublespeak. Promising two mutually exclusive things:

'Women's single sex spaces are protected on the basis of biological sex'
'A GRC changes your sex and should be easy to get'

It will be interesting to see how this type of announcement goes down with the general public, and with trans rights activists.

Indeed. They got pushed to one side but the door wasn't closed...

https://twitter.com/Jonnywsbell/status/1748484179430404292?t=urDV-aGEnR1YW1EFQVt9dA&s=19

It's why safeguarding needs to evolve as the threats themselves evolve.

Hopefully JKR's incredible contributions will help shrink this timeframe.
Social media isn't all negative - her reach would be nowhere near as wide if it wasn't for X.
Also she's a less controversial figure than Mary Whitehouse, whose excellent points on safeguarding and the queering of boundaries were served up with a side salad of racism.

Naomi Wolf obviously isn't a politician but 7 years is an improvement on 40 😁

https://twitter.com/naomirwolf/status/1787237645329764482?t=rJmI6vJdslhRUCOKZrliQ&s=19

Clearly she's not fully there yet because she hasn't joined the dots with the conflation of LGB (fact) and T (predicated on belief) but it looks like she's well on her way.

Absolutely. That’s definitely a person who has not <cannot?> join the dots from point A to point B. Ergo someone who has not bothered to understand the issues and concerns of the biological women.

Absolutely right - why is there such an urgent need to make changing your legal sex easier?

Regarding your second point - even a GRC does not entitle men to be in women's single sex spaces like communal toilets, changing rooms, rape crisis centres, etc. But because of Stonewall Law "training" everybody thinks it does.

Yes indeed! Given that disabilities and chronic illness often cause exhaustion, brain fog and/or lack of energy, there’s a lot more need to simplify the process for people with disabilities.

Changing gender is a simple and self-chosen process already, usually carried out by people with no special needs. Nobody chooses to be disabled.

And men wanting to enter women’s spaces should be required to show a valid GRC. It’s pointless otherwise.

Yes, they are, one cancels the other, more gaslighting!

This!

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

I don't know if I am just being naively optimistic, but I got a different impression from his words: He seems to be saying that it should be easier to get a GRC, but that this is 'separate' from biological sex:

I think if you’re having a separate conversation around the process in which someone obtains a GRC, that’s a very different argument, but biological sex, there are hard fought rights for women that must be protected, we have to protect single sex spaces, based on biological sex, but I think there’s also a separate conversation around how someone obtains a GRC and how we make that process as humane as possible’.

The trouble is, though, that they just flaff around with words that play well to the demographics they want to score with. They don't actually use words as vehicles for meaning. So his superficially encouraging words could mean bugger all.
And also, if my pathetic optimism is justified, what on earth is the point of a GRC anyway?

No Labour pol is ever going to admit the the GRA is bag o' shite, cos it's their baby, and they're so proud of it! 😃But it is a bag o' shite, of course.

"But Shadow Minister, people might have been just about able to say this with straight face back in 2004, but right now "living permanently as a member of the opposite sex" can surely be seen as a complete and utter load of bollocks, can't it? And it has no connection with how people live in the real world around us? Did you even consider such things as criminal records, NHS stats, DBS checks?"

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

I think I understand what he was trying to say. I translate it as "Do we really have to tlak about such base, undignified stuff when we ought to be taking about actual politics."

It's the equivalent of the TRAs' stock insult "Terfs are soooo obsessed with people's genitals!There's something wrong with them! Why are they so obsessed with bathrooms when there are so many bigger things happening in the world?"

Total gaslighting. Women are a sex class, in Marxist terms, they are a material reality. Nothing can be done for women's rights unless that material class can be accurately defined.

No it didn't. But it rebranded itself with a cutesy looking flag with baby blue and pink stripes.

It’s entirely repugnant to gaslight in that way

Craven political cowardice

Did you really expect anything better?

No it’s so bad to see it though

Do you think Labour will ever say where a GRC grants access?

He means ‘usually…unless it as important person in the Party with a Trans relative, or someone with a a lot of money who might give us some’.

No it suits them to leave it fuzzy and vague so nobody knows.