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.”

Elegran Sun 03-Jun-18 19:08:20

Thank you for enlightening me , Farnorth. My guess was right. I suppose the equivalent would be to continue referring to someone as Miss Smith after she married Mr Jones, or as Mrs Jones when they decided to keep their maiden name of Miss Smith, (now there is an outdated concept - maidenhood). Maybe as Ms Jones when Ms Smith is preferred or Ms Smith when they want to be Ms Jones.

It is already a minefield.

I foresee a lot of ordinary folk who have plenty of goodwill towards transpeople will be walking on eggshells and still inadvertently get it wrong and be blasted as insulting them. That won't help with the goodwill. The tail not only wagging the dog but snarling and biting too.

trisher Sun 03-Jun-18 17:41:01

In fact it is obvious that you do not agree with trans genderism at all being born as male or female means you remain that sex for life, In other words some must be condemned to a life of pain and unhappiness because of other people's prejudices.

trisher Sun 03-Jun-18 17:37:36

But Jack has consistently identified as non-binary Far North so has chosen not to be classed as female. I ask again why would you not do that? Why would you ignore personal choice unless it is that you have a real bias against people who change their gender.

FarNorth Sun 03-Jun-18 16:43:00

Deadnaming occurs when someone, intentionally or not, refers to a person who’s transgender by the name they used before they transitioned.
www.healthline.com/health/transgender/deadnaming

FarNorth Sun 03-Jun-18 16:41:19

I stated that Jack was born female and that that is still a physical fact.

I was presuming that Jack also thought that was a good reason to be headlining a conference on women's equality, but maybe I got that wrong.
(Do you know what the reason would be, trisher?)

I didn't use any pronoun for Jack and would be happy to use whatever pronoun Jack would like, if I knew what it was.

maryeliza54 Sun 03-Jun-18 16:34:17

I follow JM on Twitter and I can’t keep up with them - they flounce off, comes back again - they share all their physical and mental health problems. They do not seem well at all and they present no coherent philosophy of the whole gender debate

Elegran Sun 03-Jun-18 16:29:52

I assume it means calling someone by a name that is dead, not being up-to-date with their change of status.

Elegran Sun 03-Jun-18 16:26:38

So define deadnaming, please. I haven't come across that term before. It must be newly coined.

Elegran Sun 03-Jun-18 16:22:47

I was wondering too.

trisher Sun 03-Jun-18 16:20:34

Sorry made an error you are just misgendering aren't you. No harm done then. Except it is a big deal for someone who has chosen to be non-binary. I wonder why you have such objection to someone choosing their gender and how they are referred to. It can't be the "Women need safe spaces" argument because Jack is non-binary, and therefore no threat at all.

FarNorth Sun 03-Jun-18 16:06:33

Deadnaming, trisher?

trisher Sun 03-Jun-18 10:25:02

Bit of deadnaming going on here. I don't think Jack would be happy with that.

FarNorth Sun 03-Jun-18 09:23:15

Jack Monroe says :
"Some people have a real issue with me headling a conference on women’s equality because I define myself as non-binary and transgender."

I think most people, including feminists, would have no issue with it at all because Jack is a natal female.

That is the main point being made by those who are gender critical - being born as male or female means you remain that sex for life, whatever you do re hairstyles, clothing etc, or even surgery.

Iam64 Sun 03-Jun-18 07:50:41

Yes all the issues matter but the fact services to women are being decimated as a result of cuts doesn't mean we should ignore the genuine concerns that exist about SI.
As SueDonim says, it's yet another issue being used to shut down women's voices.

SueDonim Sat 02-Jun-18 23:20:13

Why can't we be concerned about more than one thing at a time? All this 'whataboutery' is just trying to shut down women's voices in the debate over SI.

newnanny Sat 02-Jun-18 22:44:56

You are so funny Luckygirl. If the interview was held on any other day would surely he would complain of inequality and say he will perform better if his interview is on a Wednesday. Therefore any other day would be discrimination.

minesaprosecco Sat 02-Jun-18 22:07:48

And all issues we should be concerned about.

Falmer Sat 02-Jun-18 21:53:03

Separate issues. 1) Womens Rights. 2) GRC-self id. 3) closures of services.

bmacca Sat 02-Jun-18 20:23:26

I think Jack Monroe's article is worth a read:
"While a very tiny minority of women concern themselves with closing the doors of womens refuges and spaces to transgender women, the greatest threat to women suffering abuse is not women with XY chromosomes, but the women who are voting to close the very few services available to them in the first place. Theresa May’s Government poses a greater threat to vulnerable women than any trans woman seeking refuge does."

wp.me/p2gfve-26b

Falmer Fri 01-Jun-18 21:31:06

It's sneaky isn't it FarNorth? And I wouldn't like to be sleeping in the same room without even being informed/asked.

FarNorth Thu 31-May-18 23:22:29

You know those single-sex dormitories in Youth Hostels? Well, now you can't be so sure.

Of course, many hostels have mixed-sex dormitories so why don't YHA just say that's what they have now too?

Maybe because they are often used by parties of young people and YHA don't want to worry them or their parents?

trisher Thu 31-May-18 17:15:40

Falmer you posted rules for mysogyny, I asked if you knew any for misandry, that isn't confusing the two, it's just asking. Many imagine there isn't a term for women who hate men and of course there is.
I sympathise with the women's problems on the link posted, but it would be wrong to assume that all trans men behave in such a manner. There always have been and probably always will be people who behave badly in relationships, to draw the conclusion that such behaviour is widespread is very wrong.
My ex was serially unfaithful, but it would be very wrong of me to assume that all heterosexual men behave like him.

Iam64 Thu 31-May-18 16:00:51

Thanks for the mumsnet link FarNorth. The real life examples of women whose husbands/partners cross dress etc are absolutely the experience of two women I know. One cross dressing husband used it to control not only his wife but his children. He threatened to meet his 12 year olds friends in his nightwear if the children didn’t instantly obey him.
I’m sure there must be some decent trans or cross dressers out there but it’s naive to pretend there aren’t some extremely unusual personalities as well.

Falmer Thu 31-May-18 16:00:12

This "reactionary old bigot needs to go now". Remember, women will support transpeople, but not budge over for them. Even the transwomen who genuinely believe they are menstruating. Sympathy, support but NO to budging over.

Falmer Thu 31-May-18 15:49:26

You think the misogyny rules are misandry? Think this one applies to that; Men are whatever men say they are and women are whatever men say they are. Actually, more this one; Men always know the "real reasons" for everything women do and say. Ooooerr, you're behaving like a male trisha.