Gransnet forums

News & politics

I'm a woman on Wednesdays

(342 Posts)
FarNorth Tue 22-May-18 21:22:29

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.”

Beammeup Thu 24-May-18 11:48:08

It's a tragic confusion between biological sex and 'gender' as a cultural norm that is imposed on them both. I mean, gender rules say how a biological sex is supposed to look, dress, feel, talk, etc. I am most worried about this ideology spreading to schools, even at primary level. Apparently, there is a transgender kit for teachers to use to explain to pupils how to respect boys who think they are girls and girls who think they are boys.

MaryXYX Thu 24-May-18 11:46:13

In my experience, limited as it is, the people who regard cis people as the only "real people" as the same one who regard white people as the only "real people".

There are people on this forum who are deliberately confusing the right of trans people to exist with the quite different question of sexual predators, some of whom are lesbian. This whole argument of "We have to keep predators out of the public toilets" which I agree with, is being used to imply "Trans people have no right to stay alive", an entirely different question.

FarNorth Thu 24-May-18 10:53:01

A clicky link for the petition again -

petition.parliament.uk/petitions/214118

FarNorth Thu 24-May-18 10:51:54

MaryXYX, I don't understand how your last post related to the two people you mentioned.
Could you explain further?

Day6 Thu 24-May-18 10:44:07

“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.”

grin
I like this man/woman wink and am cheering him on. He has highlighted the lunacy AND frightening disregard to all the alarming issues self identity has raised. Not only that, Labour has lost many, many female members because it is favouring a small minority of (confused?) men (who may need psychiatric help) over hard won women's rights.

MaryXYX Thu 24-May-18 10:37:40

OK TerriBull - I object to being called "White". I'm Human (not Coloured). Is that any more or less acceptable?

Elegran: If someone is in a cubicle in the toilets having a pee and you are poking your camera under the door to look at their genitals, you are the one committing an offence. If someone else is committing an offence then complain, whether they are male or female.

Theoddbird Thu 24-May-18 10:24:41

I lost the will to read a quarter of the way through that....

maryeliza54 Thu 24-May-18 09:41:34

TerriBull I couldn’t agree more about the use of ‘cis’. It’s an absolute red line as far as I’m concerned. It also is based on a faulty understanding of gender. Some transwoman yesterday on Twitter posted about a trans woman being born with the body of a male and the mind of a woman and really couldnt understand that this is sheer rubbish.

TerriBull Thu 24-May-18 09:30:03

I wonder why transwomen think it's acceptable to redefine women by adding the prefix "cis". Do they seriously think women are now going to refer to themselves as "cis women" ? most will have never heard the expression anyway thank God. Yes lets all alter the terminology, used since the beginning of time to describe adults of the female sex, to accommodate a very, very tiny minority angry Surely the word "transwoman" makes the distinction between women per se and those who have transitioned.

Bagatelle Thu 24-May-18 08:10:24

petition.parliament.uk/petitions/214118

Keep going with this petition. It needs another 89,000 signatures.

Elegran Thu 24-May-18 08:03:02

How about falsely replying to a challenge of lurking where they have no right to be with "I should be here. I am female!" ? The person who challenged them would be guilty of a hate crime for doubting their femininity - and would not have had the option of asking to see documentary proof that there was a legal declaration in existence. There is no point in being able to charge someone with making a false declaration if there is no right to ask to see that declaration in circumstances where it is relevant - a law that cannot be implemented is like a stick of limp celery.

MaryXYX Wed 23-May-18 23:47:25

You are totally missing the point Jinty44. Signing a false Statutory Declaration is perjury, with a penalty of up to two years. This attention seeker hasn't done that, so he hasn't "self declared" as female.

Nobody is proposing to change the existing laws about voyeurism or assault, or anything else like that. You would have exactly the same rights to complain about a woman who "doesn't look female enough" as you do now. That has been done several times, and I think it has always turned out to be a slightly masculine looking ciswoman.

Oh, and there are no changes to the use of toilets either. Women will be just as free to use the Gents when there's a long queue for the Ladies as they are now. Do you scream for the police every time there's a male toilet cleaner? Probably not.

eebeew Wed 23-May-18 23:26:30

Clearly I have lived too long. The world has gone mad!

FarNorth Wed 23-May-18 23:13:32

Elegran wrote 'there doesn't seem to be anything to stop anyone claiming to have made the declaration when they are in fact fully and rampantly unchanged'

There is also nothing to stop anyone actually making the declaration when they are fully and rampantly unchanged, simply because they feel they want to do that - for whatever reasons of their own.

There are already transwomen who say that they are lesbians and that any lesbian who doesn't want to have sex with an owner of 'lady-dick' is transphobic.

The public, in general, has felt that these issues only concern a tiny minority and are nothing to worry about.
I hope that view is now changing.

FarNorth Wed 23-May-18 23:02:13

Hollycat, for saying those things, you would be considered, by many transgender people and their supporters, to be committing literal violence against them as well as the hate crime of transphobia.
(I agree with you, btw)

lemongrove Wed 23-May-18 22:58:53

Good for David Lewis!
#timethismadnessceased

Jinty44 Wed 23-May-18 22:46:00

starbox
"So if they propose all you have to do is 'self identify', what's to stop a pervert nipping into the ladies' changing room , shower or whatever for his own nefarious purposes??"

Nothing. Nothing at all. Indeed, knowing we'll be unlikely to challenge him (lest we commit a hate crime) is quite the incentive.

Elegran Wed 23-May-18 21:22:11

The intention of this self-identification proposal is that people will be able to declare themselves once in a lifetime as the gender they feel themselves to be without the painful and stressful process of surgical and medicated transition, and to get their paperwork changed to reflect that declaration. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be anything to stop anyone claiming to have made the declaration when they are in fact fully and rampantly unchanged- it is to be illegal to ask for documentary proof that someone is now of the other gender, so if you suspect someone of ulterior motives and say so, you could find yourself arrested.

Elegran Wed 23-May-18 21:21:15

Sorry, I posted the wrong reference. It should have been consult.gov.scot/family-law/review-of-the-gender-recognition-act-2004/

Elegran Wed 23-May-18 21:15:21

In Scotland there has been a public consultation on the subject of self-identifacation of gender. The consultation questions and some really helpful information and notes for those replying to it can still be seen at consult.gov.scot/equality-unit/draft-gender-representation-on-public-boards/ Reading the notes dispels a lot of misconceptions.

Hollycat Wed 23-May-18 20:02:35

I don't understand how anyone can currently consider they have changed gender anyway. However clever the plastic surgery, however anatomically correct the changeover may appear, until and unless every chromosome in every cell in the body can be altered these people remain the gender they were born into. The consequence is, for a man, shall we say, that if he takes all the hormones and submits to all the surgery in the end he is merely a badly mutilated man wearing a fancy dress he can never remove. How absolutely dreadful!

POGS Wed 23-May-18 19:34:48

There is a real problem with 'Self Indentifying '.

What is ' Self Identifying ' if not simply the individual stating ' I Self Identify as a Female/Male '.

The Labour Party has backed ' Self Identifying ' for eligibility to gain entrance onto it's All - Women Short
lists and Women's Officer Roles ' without the need for medical certification that they have changed their gender '.

The case of David Lewis and his ' Self Identifying ' for a Labour Party role means he technically did nothing wrong if you go by Labours own remit.

Yes he was pushing the point , yes he was making a mockery of it but he did nothing the Labour Party does not consider to be a right . That has subsequently caused him to be temporarily suspended from the Labour Party.

The question is who or what in the Labour Party will define/decide for all other cases of Self Identifying ? How will they decide because the terms / conditions for Self Identifying are wide open to abuse.

Jalima1108 Wed 23-May-18 19:33:51

But he will not be available for business except on Wednesdays, presumably.

starbox Wed 23-May-18 19:31:43

So if they propose all you have to do is 'self identify', what's to stop a pervert nipping into the ladies' changing room , shower or whatever for his own nefarious purposes??

Beammeup Wed 23-May-18 18:23:47

Technically they (Labour Party & government) are consulting with women in as far as transwomen can be said to be women. Therein lies the rub.