'Real feminists' are already active in this, trisher. I'm surprised you don't know that.
Good Morning Friday 24th April 2026
What do you find yourself avoiding more as you get older?
Gransnet forums
News & politics
I'm a woman on Wednesdays
(342 Posts)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.”
"I don't care if they are trans gender men or women. They have a right to feel they belong somewhere."
They don't have a right to take over single-sex spaces for themselves to feel comfortable in, while making others very uncomfortable.
They have a right to campaign for their own spaces to belong in.
In other words they must always be different FarNorth.
Trans gender people want to be accepted and not made to feel they are somehow different, they have enough problems without adding more. If there are trans men in men's spaces why not? if there are trans women in women spaces why not?. As I have already said it won't impact much on our lives. It will just be a small number of people who have had many difficulties and deserve to be accepted.
FarNorth I believe much the same comments were made about apartheid
The size of a problem doesn't matter. In any case, as SI has yet to occur, we have no idea of what will happen, number-wise.
The main issue is that the hard-won sex-based rights for women that are currently in place will be erased if there is no longer a biological definition of woman.
I wonder why tra's and their handmaidens do want to encroach into womens/girls spaces and sports? Even though they know that a number of transwomen, women and girls don't want this? Disabled people lobbied for their own spaces, sports, swimming sessions. They didn't encroach on others. Autistic people now have their own swimming sessions, cinema showings, sen education, supported living. Yet tra's don't want to lobby for their own spaces, choosing instead to injure, upset, silence women and girls, taking away their rights. Wonder why?
I can’t help but feel Falmer that this is a misogynistic backlash to try and put uppity women back in their box
That's it mary. It's all about them and no care whatsoever for women and girls.
I agree 100% with you, Maryeliza. When women are told that its transphobic to talk about pregnant women and breastfeeding and that suffering from such awful conditions as endometriosis is a cis-privilege, it's misogyny writ large.
Looking at it another way, let's suppose it becomes commonplace to see transwomen like Alex Drummond and Danielle Muscato in female changing rooms and toilets, taking part in sports, applying for scholarships etc that were set up for girls and women.
Do you think it likely that some men, who are not transwomen at all, will start to take advantage of that?
www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/07/19/this-trans-woman-wants-to-widen-the-bandwidth-of-gender-by-keeping-her-beard/
Of course some men are misogynistic, of course some women hate men and the same can be said for trans women and trans men. But that doesn'tmean they all are. And if someone can explain to me how this self identification is going to remove any of the rights I have now I would like to know which. We've dealt with medical examination-you. can ask for someon else without giving a reason. Which leaves single sex places and quite honestly I think they will remain with a small amount of use by trans gender people.
I see that the true nature of the debate is now emerging. That people are not to be allowed to change their gender but are to be put in a seperate category and labelled for ever as different. Or to be considered as 'disabled' a term by the way disability rights campaigners dislike. Now that's prejudice!!!
Wow! The handmaidens will really stop at nothing to suck up to their masters. Disgusting!
We see you.
Falmeryou may see something but what you see is not reality or indeed what you mistakenly imagine. Name calling may be very satisfying for you but it doesnt really constitute an argument does it? Or perhaps it does for you..
Having lived a long independent life and not being dependant on any man I think I probably have far more experience in matters than you imagine and a far longer involvement in women's activism.
But carry on. I will continue to assert that everyone matters, that no-one has the right to condemn anyone else to a life of pain and misery and that the fight for women's rights consists of far more than blaming trans women for everything. And that the establishment of human rights for everyone is more important than anything else
Falmer I have just re-read your post and frankly I am shocked. You misunderstand the demands of disabled people. You want trans people to be classified as disabled-a term even disabled people dislike and many refuse to use. You are in favour of complete segregation which has never been the aim of disability rights activists. They demanded facilities so they were able to compete in sports at a high level not so they were seperate. And many successful sports people with a disability are now seeking to compete in sports at the same level as everyone else.
Segragation is wrong and it doesn't work.
Trisher, you don't seem to understand that it is' born' women who are having to budge up on the bench to allow tranwomen to take our space. How can you have categories such as all-female short lists or equal pay & opportunities for women when there is no longer any definition of what a woman is? The Green Party already talks of men and non-men. Do you really want to be regarded as a nonperson?
Why shouldn't born women be able to speak of menstruation, pregnancy and abortion without being accused of being TERFs? Why should lesbians have to endure accusations of transphobia because they don't want to have sex with a transwoman with a 'lady penis'.
You seem to think these are small concerns. A quick look online will inform you that they are not small worries.
trisher your posts are written with the ignorance, deliberate misunderstanding, self serving entitlement as per usual from tra apologists. Some women do not want male born people in their womens spaces and sports. They do not have to give reasons, they are saying NO. Many feminists are saying fight for your own spaces and we will fight with you, try to take womens/girls spaces and we will fight against you. It's as simple as that. You can put as much spin on it as you like, the answer will always be NO. You also assume you know my life, as per usual from tra apologists. I have been physically disabled for over 20 years. I have no problem whatsoever with being classed as disabled and this classification enables me to receive the help and support I need. I have two adult sons with autism, one mild and the other full autism. They also have no problem with their classification and again it has enabled them to obtain the services/accommodation they need. I feel that comments like yours stigmatises disabled people. Our lives are a mixture of inclusion and at times necessary segregation to enable us to live "normally".
Further, my adult dd is lesbian, has no sexual interest in transwomen at all (as is her right) yet is being subjected to verbal abuse and accusations of transphobia (as in SueDonim post). Also, I was married for many years to a secret transwoman who made our lives a misery by taking his frustration out on me and at times threatening suicide. Therefore I am extremely happy that transpeople are at last feeling able to "come out" and that in general, people are accepting. I wish my ex could have done that and saved us both a lot of pain. In future you should think before insulting people and assuming they have as little knowledge as you. Although, it needs repeating, this is the usual behaviour of tra's and their supporters. And again as usual, you don't mind male born people being in female only spaces/sports, but other women do. What about those women, they obviously don't matter to you, do they?
I am not a TRa or a TRA supporter. I have been active in disability rights and children's rights for many years and although you may be happy to be labelled as disabled Falmer I could introduce you to hundreds of people who are not. Who believe that it is not the job of society to provide them with help and support but to include them and adapt to their needs. I have personal reasons for both of these causes which I certainly don't intend to discuss on an open forum. But I have been succesful in seeing the UN charter on children's rights adopted by at least one large organisation and policies to enable differently abled people to have equal access adopted by many organisations.
If you are insulted by any of my posts I apologise. However I remain convinced that segregation for any group never leads to real equality.
I also condemn all name calling, accusations and derogatory remarks made by any group or individual about anyone. It simply isn't necessary.
As for solutions if you are not happy can I suggest that those who wish to, adopt the feminist term (once regarded as laughable by many) "Wimmin" and leave the name women to be used by any who want to. The core root of the word "woman" has always been regarded by strong feminists as unacceptable.
And as I have said before there are some women I would prefer not to share any spaces with. I have to adapt to accommodate them and I don't see trans people as being anything except another adaptation to be made. I understand that you don't agree with me but it is a perfectly valid argument to be made without being labelled and accused of being somethng I am not. Simply because someone approves and embraces a principle does not mean they endorse the actions and comments of everyone involved.
I accept your apology trisher. Many women particularly rape and sexual assault victims who are usually silenced, will have their voices heard. Despite threats, attacks and false allegations of being bigots and transphobes.
There is a thread on mumsnet titled Trans Widows escape committee which people may find interesting. Apologies, can't do links.
Why on Earth should any woman have to change their name to something such as wimmin because male-bodied 'women' want to muscle in on the word? The TRA has truly won if that's what people think.
Even if every female was overnight called wimmin, wouldn't transwomen start saying Transwomen are Wimmin?
They wouldn't accept suddenly being sidelined in that way and I'm surprised you suggest it, trisher.
Wow, Falmer, I had a look and that thread has some horrific stuff in it.
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3101834-trans-widows-escape-committee?pg=1&order=
I don't knowFarNorth they might. But it seemed to me to be something that might be explored, simply because the word has a rich history in feminist terms, but I think we have to accept that what is happening is that people are digging trenches and preparing for warfare and shouting loudly "No surrender". The irony is that there is never a true victory for any side in a battle and compromise is always needed.
Join the conversation
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join the discussion, watch threads and lots more.
Register now »Already registered? Log in with:
Gransnet »