Ask your general election candidates what a woman is: results

[generalelectionfish]

I have decided to ask all major parties in my constituency how they define a woman, particularly with regard to women in sport and prisons.

My constituency (currently, subject to borders changing) is Aylesbury Vale.

Conservative: Rob Butler - no reply. This doesn't surprise me because he's a useless tosser who only ever turns up to stuff being opened and has never answered a single email I have sent.

Labour: Laura Kyrke-Smith - replied! She says, "I define a woman as someone who has female sex at birth or defines herself as a woman.
This piece by Annelise Dodds is a good summary of where Labour stands on trans rights more broadly."

Weasel words in my opinion, but useful to know where she stands. We are a (ugh) Tory safe seat here, but if anyone can challenge it, it would only be Labour.

Anyone else have any assurances or otherwise from their local candidates - and where are you (if you are happy saying)?

"someone who has female sex at birth or defines herself as a woman." What a muddled phrase. One of the things that continually amazes me about gender identity ideology is the complete lack of thought given to it by its proponents. People too lazy to listen carefully to their own words.

So is someone who has a female sex at birth and defines herself as a man classed as a woman according to Laura? After all, that does fit one of her criteria

Ha! Good point! She would accuse me of petty semantics (maybe not to my face) if I suggested that though.

But the muddled thinking is absolutely there. Her answer is basically "anyone who says they are", and she totally dodged the question about sports/prisons.

Though, to be fair to her, at least she replied.

Ask her if that means the rapist Isla Bryson is a woman. (He's not)

She did not think that through. Her definition seems to mean that she accepts people as female who were identified such at birth, and those who identify as a woman. But if you are female at birth by her definition you are a woman, so that means a transman is a woman. And vice versa. A person identified as male at birth who identifies as a woman is, under this criteria, a man. Which is true.

That's because she's given this issue all of 5 seconds consideration before deferring to the superior wisdom (lol) of Anneliese Dodds.

I define a woman as someone who has female sex at birth or defines herself as a woman

So anyone

I define a woman as someone who has female sex at birth or defines herself as a woman

It's an either/or?

So a transman, being someone who has female sex at birth, would be a woman, according to her.

So transphobic!

One of my candidates is Helen Belcher so I think the question may be slightly moot there.

Labour: Laura Kyrke-Smith - replied! She says, "I define a woman as someone who has female sex at birth or defines herself as a woman.
This piece by Annelise Dodds is a good summary of where Labour stands on trans rights more broadly."

Quite apart from the nonsense definition, you asked her about women and she's sent you information about trans rights. Not about women's rights.

Good to know their priorities.

Do reply and point that out to her! Plus the Isla Bryson question.

I'm waiting on a reply from my Labour candidate. Been a week now.

YellowHairband · 01/06/2024 12:59

One of my candidates is Helen Belcher so I think the question may be slightly moot there.

Oh dear!

Oh interesting, the reply from my Labour candidate was almost word-for-word, including having outsourced his thinking to Dodds. Maybe this is the centrally approved line? With the added benefit that the thought police only have to manage one person 🙄

I would reply with a list of all of the worst transwomen offenders eg Karen White, Isla Bryson and check that she means that they are women. If so, I assume she thinks they should be in female prisons/toilets/rape centres etc

I think that the Conservatives may be monitoring us

Tories pledge to tackle 'confusion' over legal definition of sex - BBC News

Have just seen a separate thread...will go back to bed

Our Tory MP has been very supportive & has previously passed my concerns onto Kemi Badendoch & she replied (a few years ago now).

I keep asking our Labour candidate questions on Twitter which he ignores. I will email him this week.

We've been Tory safe seat for years but it's looking marginal now so pressing questions are important.

I have replied to her, expressing the fact that I'm coming from it from a safeguarding perspective, and trying to show how it's impossible to separate out people intending to do harm from genuinely innocent people if you take everyone at their word.

I also wrote about how it's fine to believe that a sense of gender is innate - but it's just that, a belief. But belief is an ideology and not really something you can build a law around. And if we all agree that stereotypes are harmful, how do you define a woman without using stereotypes (other than by biology)?

I'm not expecting a reply. I expect she thinks that I'm a raging transphobe.

I have voted Labour all my life, and whilst I still can't bring myself to vote Tory (having seen what they've done to education, how the corruption is so blatant and unrepentant)... but I really don't know who I will vote for now, as I can't in good faith vote for a candidate who believes the exact opposite to me on one of my most important election criteria.

I will pose the question.

I can't ask Labour at present as they've not published an email address but I am hunting it down. Interesting the candidate is part of the Labour Women's Network and they've also arranged some local women-only campaign meetings so she should have an opinion on this.

So I'm in the same Constituency & I'm going to vote tactically to get Rob Butler out!

Have you written to Steve Lambert? He was a Counsellor for my neck of the woods & he was great, did loads for the community.

I haven’t asked because knowing what a woman is doesn’t mean you give a fuck about them 🤷‍♀️

I spotted our Labour candidate at the station yesterday and I gave him a piece of my mind about misogyny in the Labour Party. He told me he agreed with me and that Labour hadn't done enough to support Rosie Duffield. I doubt he'll get in, mind.

In a quandary over whether to vote for him, as I've never voted Tory but I still don't trust Starmer because of the way he continues to treat Rosie.

It's so hard though, isn't it? Having potentially to hold my nose and vote for a woman whose views absolutely oppose mine... just to get out the useless Tory twats who've been in their safe seat for literally 100 years.

Steven Lambert unfortunately doesn't represent my part of the constituency, but he seems like a good guy.

Labour, on the doorstep: Well, a woman is someone with female attributes, genitalia, of course, and um, also there are some people who identify as women...
Me: So what about prisons?
Labour: I'm sure you're familiar with that case in Scotland, I can't remember the name...
Me: <Mutes 'Pink Leggings Rapey Man'> Isla Bryson, formerly Adam Graham.
Labour: Ah, yes, that's the one. Well, that would never happen under Labour, we will have blah blah policies blah SNP blah...
Me: Women's sports?
Labour: Well, obviously some sporting bodies are coming to their own decisions but that does seem to be one for case by case decisions.
Me: So is it fair that my niece who does MMA should face someone who has gone through male puberty and enjoys the stronger bones and continuing additional muscle strength that goes with being a bloke?
Labour: Well, ah, as you say,
Me: Look, some sports, it doesn't matter. Anything equestrian, it's the horse and your rapport with it. Stuff like MMA, it's a bit different.
Labour: <Look on face indicating he has never been near a horse> Wurfle case by case blah blah. Anyway, wonderful to speak to you! <aims self up street>
Me: Yeah, the second thing I wanted to ask you about...

Writing it down has made me realise how much vaguely-well-intentioned-but-clueless flannel there was. And that they had noticed N Sturgeon's fall from grace, and what might have given her a bit of a push.

Indeed. And worse than "muddled", even. The proposed definition is viciously circular: "I define a woman as someone who has female sex at birth or defines herself as a woman".

Fill in the second use of 'woman' there with its definition: "I define a woman as someone who has female sex at birth or defines herself as someone who has female sex at birth or defines herself as a woman".

And continue ... "I define a woman as someone who has female sex at birth or defines herself as someone who has female sex at birth or defines herself as someone who has female sex at birth or defines herself as someone who has female sex at birth or defines herself as someone who has female sex at birth or defines herself as ...".

... As what, ffs? A woman? But what is the definition of 'a woman'? -- And off we go again ... Aargh!

Does this person Laura Kyrke-Smith really not see the absurd empty futility of her (non-) answer? Is she really so stupid? And does she really think she's a suitable candidate for election to Parliament? Really?