Good posts Jinty44
Thank you. I am in complete agreement.
Allege rape in Epsom by asylum seekers
What time do you get up and go to bed?
Sign up to Gransnet Daily
Our free daily newsletter full of hot threads, competitions and discounts
Subscribe
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.”
Good posts Jinty44
Thank you. I am in complete agreement.
I just looked up this one - www.stonewall.org.uk/media/lgbt-facts-and-figures - which actually has a higher figure, but for young people.
Had a look, the page refers to two studies, one mentions suicide only in passing, the second :
"Data was collected between 2011 and 2014, through two sets of interviews with 58 people in total and a national survey of 2078 people in England. "
58 people. And if the national survey of 2078 is the one I'm thinking of, only 20 or so of the 2078 were trans. These are not numbers that can be considered likely to be representative.
And the question asked in that survey was along the lines of 'have you ever attempted or thought of attempting suicide'. Thought of. Of course the percentage would be high from such a question.
That's the problem with stats, if you're willing to drill down into the sources they usually turn into a can of worms.
You should beware of doing the 'be nicer or people will suicide' thing. The best-known group for threatening suicide are abusive men blackmailing their partner to not leave them. That's not a group you should want to be associated with.
Lovin’ this thread....
OK - another piece of research - williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/AFSP-Williams-Suicide-Report-Final.pdf
Actually it is well known to medical people that victims of abuse are more likely to self harm, including attempting suicide. Some of us are angry about the sort of abuse that leads to suicide attempts, and sometimes completion.
But is saying that there are loopholes in this proposed legislation which could lead to abuse of women of all kinds (both cis and trans) really an abuse of transwomen?
I really do object to the use of the word ‘cis’ to describe a biological or natal woman. It has NO valid meaning - it accepts the concept of gender uncritically and that is not acceptable to many of us. I really would appreciate it if it wasn’t used as if it validity in the debate about trans women and self id.
I am not keen on it either, but it seemed appropriate in the context of my post.
Sorry but I can’t see why in the context of your post it seemed appropriate - why not natal/ biolical women and transwomen? The word ‘cis’ has no valid meaning when describing a woman as it is predicated upon an unacceptable understanding of gender
And we shouldn’t be normalising it’s use
I'm not normalising it, MaryEliza. I've used it once, and I very nearly put inverted commas round it. Would that have placated you? If not, go to those who invented it and use it a lot and beat them around the ears with your rolled-up newspaper, not me.
Well you didn’t put inverted comments around it - and what on Earth makes you think for one minute that I’m not challenging it’s use wherever I see it? What a ridiculous idea. And every time it’s used and not challenged it’s part of the normalisation process. So I’ll carry on challenging you or anyone else who uses it.
So what did you think of the rest of the comment, or were you concentrating on one word and ignoring the rest?
Of course saying that the proposed legislation is wide open to abuse is not being abusive to transwomen.
Not all transwomen think it is.
I agree with the point that use of the term 'cis' should be avoided just as the term 'terf' should be.
They are both terms that have been introduced by trans activists as insults.
They are not used by all trans people and certainly shouldn't be accepted into general speech.
So having condemned "self identification" as unacceptable what would the posters on this thread like to see in order to identify someon's gender?
Are we all to be subjected to medical examination? Or to have chromosome tests?
Personally I think it's all being blown out of proportion and things will settle down eventually. just as they did with a lot of other legislation- like decriminalisation of homosexual sex. Which some once thought would destroy society.
In fifty years time our great-great grandchildren will probably look back at our hesitations with amazement, but that doesn't make them less valid. If people are disturbed by the prospect, then they are affected by it and they need to be considered, as well as those who will be using the Act..
It is a big change in the way people are perceived. That is bound to cause a lot of ripples and throw up a lot of problems, both real problems and ones that are predicted but prove not to happen. Until it has been in operation for a while it will not be clear which problems actually occur, and how widespread and serious they are, but to introduce it without discussing the possibilities is to work with good intentions but the eyes closed.
"So having condemned "self identification" as unacceptable what would the posters on this thread like to see in order to identify someon's gender? Are we all to be subjected to medical examination? Or to have chromosome tests?"
Well I usually use my eyes. For most people it's perfectly obvious whether you're a man or a woman.
And you're using 'gender' to mean 'sex'. In my opinion this is how all this nonsense started, being so prissy and Victorian that using the word 'sex' was just too embarrassing. Sex is male and female. Gender is masculine and feminine. A man can be as feminine as he pleases, which I suppose its what is meant by 'gender non-conforming', but he can't ever be female.
Ok Jinty44 Pick out the woman
Interesting that you're asking whether any of these are women (that would be the musician, whatsename). Testosterone has no trouble overcoming oestrogen, so a female body with excess testosterone (be that through PCOS or otherwise) quickly acquires male characteristics such as facial hair. But a male body - testosterone still wins. Unless they started as a fairly androgynous type, and at a fairly young age, likelihood is they'll still be identifiably male. Nobody mistakes Jenner for a woman.
But you said you could identify a woman by looking Jinty44 are you now saying you can't? And one of them is certainly a woman.
I said "Well I usually use my eyes. For most people it's perfectly obvious whether you're a man or a woman." MOST. And I do believe I mentioned the musician?
It's true that even for the average person in the street, if you look at them with the thought "Could that person be the opposite sex to the one they appear to be?", very often they easily could be.
Which means that unless we have real restrictions and real intrusive investigations into gender people will effectively "self identify" anyway. And challenging anyone as to the gender they appear to be could be very difficult.
The government consultation should cover a range of issues re ensuring the dignity, privacy and safety of biological women and their right to express a preference for the provider of a service to be a biological woman as well without being accused of being transphobic or a hate crime. Identity checks, DBS checks for employment/ voluntary work etc will simply have to cover ALL the names the self id person has and is known by - there will have to be (confidential) disclosure of the self id and the previous life. Out of the wok situation eg loos,changing rooms etc then there are solutions - none of which should include a penis in a designated woman’s space. As for sports, women only awards, scholarships etc then again I would lobby for woman meaning biological woman and if necessary some system for proof of biological sex. A key word here will be reasonable - people with disabilities can only expect ‘reasonable’ adjustments - that concept will also have to be applied to those who self id- they should not expect to self id and then have open access to every aspect of the world of biological women. At the moment the TRAs think the world revolves around them and they want to ( and often succeed in so doing) close down any debate - WPUK is to be commended on how hard they are trying to ensure women have a voice in this debate.
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.