If the very word Women becomes meaningless, how can we protect and develop our rights ?
What time do you get up and go to bed?
blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/05/meet-the-man-standing-to-be-a-labour-party-womens-officer/
Sometimes it’s hard to be a woman. Except in the Labour Party, when it’s surprisingly easy. Just ask David Lewis. David, 45, is a member of the Labour Party. After several years of supporting the party, he became a full member last year having been “inspired” by Jeremy Corbyn. Tomorrow, David will be a candidate for election as an office-holder in his Constituency Labour Party in Basingstoke. He is standing for election as women’s officer, a post that Labour rules say can only be held by a woman. David is standing for that post because he is a woman. On Wednesdays, at least. When we spoke yesterday, he put it like this:
“I self-identify as a woman on Wednesdays, between 6.50am when my alarm goes off and around midnight when I go to bed.”
What does self-identifying as a woman mean? In what way is David a woman on Wednesdays?
“My womanness is expressed by my saying ‘I self identify as a woman’ now and again on Wednesdays. I make no changes in my behaviour or my appearance. I keep my name, David and my male pronouns. I wear the same sort of clothes I wear the rest of the week. I keep my beard. I enjoy the full womanness of my beard.”
The Basingstoke Labour Party last week accepted the womanness of David and his beard. He is listed as a candidate for election as CLP Women’s Officer, a post that involves encouraging women to join the party and generally speaking for women, their concerns and their experiences. But who is a woman? In the Labour Party, among other places, the answer to that question is not always as simple as some people might expect.
Labour operates a policy of self-definition: if someone defines themselves as a woman, the party recognises that person as a woman, with no question, verification or scrutiny of that definition. This approach is intended to make the party inclusive and supportive of transwomen, people who were born male and later say they wish to change their gender and be recognised as female. Many advocates of greater legal rights for trans people say that accepting such self-identification is right and fair because “gatekeeping” checks, where trans people are required to “prove” their gender identity to another person or authority, are discriminatory and intrusive. “Transwomen are women,” they say, as if those three words are all that’s needs to settle this matter. More on this later.
The Labour approach on self-defining women also extends to the all-women shortlists used to select the party’s candidate in some parliamentary seats. Some Labour members have doubts about the policy of self-definition. Some are feminists who worry that a policy that allows male-born people (who might have enjoyed the social and economic advantages that are often associated with being male) to compete for and hold women-only posts is unfair to people who were born female (and thus prone to social and economic disadvantage.)
Some raise legal questions. Generally, equalities law doesn’t allow organisations such as Labour to reserve jobs or services for any particular group, but the Equality Act 2010 includes some exemptions for single-sex services, because Parliament wanted to ensure that women could be guaranteed that there are some roles and places where men cannot enter.
Some Labour members have sought to bring a legal challenge against the party for opening up women’s roles to “self-defined” women. They argue that where transwomen are not legally recognised as women (i.e. they do not hold a gender recognition certificate) they cannot be entitled to posts that the law reserves for women. Some women have resigned from Labour over this issue.
Labour’s NEC, meanwhile, has insisted that the policy of treating self-defined women as women will stand. Which brings us back to David Lewis, candidate to be Basingstoke Labour’s women’s officer:
“After I looked at the NEC position and what it really meant, I thought, I’ll put my name forward for women’s officer. After all, what’s the worst that could happen? I expected them to say, ‘don’t be silly’ and politely decline my application. But they didn’t. They accepted my candidacy as valid.”
So he’s standing for a woman’s post. Why?
“My priority here is to inform the CLP, and maybe some other people, about what this policy means, about what happens when you say that someone’s gender depends only on what they say and nothing else.”
How would David respond to those who might say he is being offensive or bigoted, that he is trivialising the issues that transgender women face?
“I’d say those people don’t have any right to criticise my gender-identity. If I say I am a woman on Wednesdays, then all they can do is accept that. After all, there are other people who only identify as women on some days of the week and not others, and they are accepted, not criticised.”
David adds:
“In any case, anyone else’s criticism or questions about my gender identity are just not relevant to the Labour Party at the moment, given the current policy. If I say I’m a woman, I’m a woman.”
Now, if you’re new to this topic, you may by this point have come to appreciate that yes, in today’s Labour Party, anyone can be a woman if they say they are a woman, even David with his beard and his complete lack of any outward effort to live or pass as a woman. And maybe you might think “Yes, well, that’s the loony lefty SJW Labour Party, and nothing to do with the rest of us who aren’t part of it.”
If so, you’d be wrong, because that policy of “self-identification” could become the law for everyone. The Government will shortly bring forward a consultation on amending the law on gender recognition, where some groups will argue that people should be able to define themselves as a woman or a man (and thus obtain the associated legal rights and entitlements) without external check or verification.
Some people think that’s a good idea, because they say the current system institutionalises unfairness to trans people. Some people have doubts, because they worry that such rules could be (ab)used to erode the legal status of women, opening up their roles, jobs and places (for instance, domestic violence shelters, all-women colleges, hospital wards) to people with male socialisation and anatomy.
Many (but not all) of the people who raise questions about self-identified gender rules are women, women who are struggling to make their voices heard in what passes for the public debate about gender, because those who speak out are at risk of abuse and accusations of transphobic bigotry. Or even being assaulted.
Which is why what David Lewis is doing strikes me as important and worthy of attention beyond the lovely town of Basingstoke. David Lewis is a man standing for a post that the rules say should be open only to women. He can do so purely because he has said the words “I am a woman” and rigid adherence to the orthodoxy of “transwomen are women” means no one can question his claim. And if anyone who says “I am a woman” must be treated as a woman and granted the status and rights of a woman, does the word “woman” still have any meaning? You do not, I submit, need to a radical feminist to see that the logic of complete self-identification raises some quite profound questions.
Although I worry he’ll get his share of abuse for it, I think David Lewis deserves praise for what he is doing. He is standing for a woman’s job to make a point about what can happen to women when rules that affect them and their rights are made and enforced on the basis of blind dogma, not balanced debate. “We need to be able to debate this, we need to be able to talk about this without being told we are transphobic and to shut up,” David says, before adding:
“I completely understand the problems that trans people face and I can see the case for reforming a system that some people find difficult and undignified. But I think we have to have a proper debate where both sides are heard and there are people who raising valid questions who are not being heard. In the end, we need to have a compromise. And a good compromise is one where both sides are equally unhappy.”
Does he think there is any chance he might actually win his election and end up being elected as women’s officer? “I am hoping that my local party will be sensible.”
If the very word Women becomes meaningless, how can we protect and develop our rights ?
It’s a relief that mumsnet has active discussions on their feminism boards. Feminists are Always with us and it’s part of our lot to be shouted down, marginalised and criticised. One tactic is the divide and rule approach, another to ask why we don’t put our energies into more ‘important’ issues such as the fact women are not equally represented in positions of power, like Parliament.
It is terrifying frankly, that a small but vociferous group of trans activists have such a sense of entitlement.
Falmer's description of the abuse both verbal and physical against the women (Terfs) who oppose transwomen is shocking but I guess it's symptomatic of the way some men deal with women who put their heads above the parapet and challenge them, one only has to look at social media to see that, sometimes over the most innocuous matters, such as the "bank note" a while back. Some men really don't like women, or certainly ones that don't conform to the submissive ideal, it's amazing therefore that there is this small, vociferous minority who want to be one and happy to batter any female opposition into submission, ironically exemplifying some of the worst excesses of the dominant male aggression.
If some women haven't taken up feminist causes before but are inflamed by any prospective changes in their law, I don't see how that matters, perhaps injustices regarding inequalities have never entered their consciousness. I think a large proportion of women may be unaware of the proposed changes to the law and will only appreciate what they have lost when it's gone. At such a time there could well be an almighty backlash when they find their personal and private spaces invaded and there is damn all they can do about it and if they complain they could be charged with a hate crime. This change will affect all women and girls and will be far reaching will enormous consequences and disadvantages for females as a whole.
From the news coverage of the women going into the "male only ponds" it seems some of the men were less than happy about that. How can the pond's management, whoever they are, think it's fair to allow men who identify as women into the women only ponds and not extend that quid pro quo, but maybe they didn't want to upset the men. Once again it's the women who get stuffed 
with not will
Exactly TerriBull. Here’s hoping the mumsnet Manfriday activists continue to make sure this issue is widely reported.
I agree with your comments that many men just don’t like women who don’t fit their stereotype of ‘feminibe/submissive’. The trans activists are scarily similar to other groups who want to silence and marginalise women
Ok then here's a question-well 2 questions for you. When did you last access a "women only space" apart from a loo or changing room? and "How many women did you have the choice of as MPs in the last election?
Then consider which will have more impact.
Iam64 I don't want to "seperate feminists"although some seem determined to label me simply because I am arguing for consideration for all, and freedom from persecution for everyone. I do want to distance myself from the people who are using this issue and terming themselves "feminists" when in fact they are just reactionary old bigots.
Still waiting for the 'feminists' on this thread to post the other areas they are active in.
Great post TerriBull.
Incidentally I do think women identifying as men should be allowed in the men's pool and vice versa. I think though it destroys the whole argument of women being afraid of men with penises even if they identify as women. Just think how many there must be in the male pond and none of the self identfying men had one. In ft it makes me realise how ludicrous the whole argument is. Ah well " Girls will be boys and boys will be girls. It's a mixed up muddled up shook up world." And that was written 50 years ago.
Didn't realise you get GF's over here on gransnet! How amusing.
"Reactionary Bigots" at least Trisher, we cannot be sure of the ages of women who aren't open to the idea of men sharing their private spaces. After all, MN has been running with this subject for a while so one can only assume they aren't as decrepit as us, the reactionary old bigots here on GN. Incidentally, what of the sometimes violent transwomen, one who was recently up in court for punching a "reactionary old bigot" in the face, could they possibly be described as reactionary, or bigoted ?or does that term only apply to those who challenge them ?
God how many times???? I abhor violence in any shape or form. I condemn utterly the persecution of anyone, for any reason whatsoever.
As for the reactionary old bigots on here. You only have to read other threads to discover who they are. Some posters have feminism written right through them, for others it's just a mask behind which they nuture their prejudices.
You abhor violence trisher but sine of the TRAs revel in it, and as their voice is being heard, so women's voices are being silenced.
Some, not sine.
GF's and TRA apologists, over here on gransnet. Who'd have thought? Wish I'd come earlier, very entertaining!
All violence is wrong whoever is responsible for it, And no-one has silenced my voice, or the voices of any of the women on this thread.
Still no response from the feminists on this thread about the other actions they are involved in.
Given the definition of "bigot" is a person who is intolerant of others, surely that could equally be applied to those who would label others a bigot 
Name calling and condemnation. If you can't destroy the argument attack the poster. Have I "apologised for TRA activists"? I condemned all violence theirs included.
No I don't mind anyone being a bigot I simply don't want to be linked or associated with them in anyway. They can stay as bigotted as they like. I'm perfectly willing to tolerate them just not join them.
I don't see the relevance of asking posters to declare what other feminist issues they have or are involved in Trisher, how is that any of your business anyway? As far as I am aware asserting one's self as a feminist is not a prerequisite to having an opinion on prospective legislation that will have serious and negative implications for women.
Just pointing out that being a "feminist" consists of more than just opposing one piece of legislation and that the real feminists would surely already be active in the field. But I accept TerriBull that some aren't, and never have been, active feminists but are simply using the issue to pursue their own prejudices. Otherwise why not tell?
I'm proud to be a member of 50/50 and to actively support the WASPI women although I'm not the right age.
Jon here 5050parliament.co.uk
Illogical argument trisher - what you're saying is that (a) other women's issues are more important than (b) trans activism, therefore (b) does not need to be addressed. You're also saying that anyone who is not involved with fighting (a) should not be involved with fighting (b). In my view, a person can be involved in fighting for any one of, or all of, women's rights (or any other rights) and shouldn't have to say which ones they are to justify why they are fighting for any of them.
Whataboutery isn't an argument, Trisher. That's just trying to displace the discussion at hand. I might just as well say 'what about women who live under repressive regimes, aren't they more important than equal pay/opportunity issues here?'
To clarify, by trans activism I mean the extreme activism which seeks to put the right of self identification before the rights of women, not the activism which seeks to ensure transgender people are treated with dignity and respect - they are very different forms of activism.
What I'm saying is that some women have jumped on the bandwagon not because they have any strong feminist principles not because they actively care about women but because they actually have a very narrow and restricted view. Now I don't think all of the women involved are like this, but I do think some are. I support and campaign first for human rights and then for women's rights. And some posting on this thread show little support for either. It isn't helpful or supportive to condemn and vilify a whole section of society just because there are activists who use violence to further their aims.
I have real problems with the message being sent out by this campaign which,much as some may wish it didn't, does say to trans gender people, that they cannot be accepted for what they are, but must always consider themseves as different. And I don't care if they are trans gender men or women. They have a right to feel they belong somewhere.
If someone, woman or man, has an opinion about this matter, they are entitled to hold that opinion regardless of whether they call themselves feminist or not and regardless of whether they have some kind of feminist credentials or not.
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join the discussion, watch threads and lots more.
Register now »Already registered? Log in with:
Gransnet »Get our top conversations, latest advice, fantastic competitions, and more, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter here.