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.”

SueDonim Sun 27-May-18 21:44:26

Sorry, that came out garbled. I meant to say that the issue had to be dealt with in those terms by the powers-that-be, and that's what you read in the papers. As I said, there is more to it.

Now I see that the TRA are moving in on the recent referendum in Ireland, because, of course, it's all about them. www.facebook.com/notes/trans-voices-for-repeal/trans-voices-for-repeal-call-on-the-together-for-yes-campaign-to-formally-apolog/542180469511675/

minesaprosecco Sun 27-May-18 22:04:20

And on the GG issue, no girl should have to say she doesn't want to share sleeping accommodation with a trans girl (because he's a boy) because the GG is a girls'group. She shouldn't have to be put in that position in the first place! suedonim, so sorry for your friend - another situation that a woman just should not have to be put in. I cannot fathom why some women just don't get the argument and keep seeing transphobia where it does not exist.

SueDonim Sun 27-May-18 22:07:12

Thank you, minesaprosecco It was very difficult and traumatic for her but in the end she felt she needed to make a stand, for herself and others.

maryeliza54 Sun 27-May-18 22:12:16

Fgs trisher the GG policy now is that parents must NOT be told if there’s a trans girl in the same sleeping accommodation. The parents and the girls - real ones with vulvas- have NO choice - they are NOT given the information. W hat is the matter with you? This is a huge issue with the GG but you clearly haven’t been following it.

minesaprosecco Sun 27-May-18 22:12:50

A very brave woman. flowers for her.

maryeliza54 Sun 27-May-18 22:16:47

It is not a requirement - or best practice - to tell parents that a trans person will be attending a residential event.

From the GG policy - ffs

maryeliza54 Sun 27-May-18 22:20:15

Sue just read that link - you really could not make it up. I absolutely despair

FarNorth Sun 27-May-18 22:36:41

Clearly it would be unfair to draw attention to an individual transgirl who will be attending a particular residential event.

However, the Girl Guiding Association has not even informed parents that their policy now is to include transgirls (physically male people) in general.

maryeliza54 Sun 27-May-18 22:40:05

I agree that an individual girl should not have attention drawn to her but perhaps the solution is that sadly she can’t go because the other girls have rights to and why should they be denied safe female only spaces?

FarNorth Sun 27-May-18 22:41:51

Here's the petition link again, in case anyone missed it.

petition.parliament.uk/petitions/214118

FarNorth Sun 27-May-18 22:45:34

Parents may think it is totally fine for transgirls to be included, as the GG now intends to do.
I think they should at least be informed of the policy so that they and their daughters can decide for themselves if they are happy with it.

dbDB77 Sun 27-May-18 22:46:46

SueDonim - thank you for the link - as Maryeliza said - you couldn't make it up. A bit like those transactivists who complained about the use of the word "vagina" in a campaign because it excluded "women" without vaginas ?

maryeliza54 Sun 27-May-18 22:58:29

Well yes Farnorth to informing everyone explicitly of the policy but I still think there needs to be far more discussion, thought and consultation before female only spaces/activities/ services are taken away - the GG were very high handed and arrogant about all of this and many Leaders were very angered at how their concerns were swept aside/ ignored.

SueDonim Sun 27-May-18 23:17:12

Have a look at one Morgane Oger, who stood for a position as mayor in Canada. 'They' say that FGM is gendered violence and not sex-based violence. Presumably all those young girls who are mutilated could simply have identified as boys and the problem would go away all by itself.

mobile.twitter.com/MorganeOgerBC/status/999694382658813952

FarNorth Sun 27-May-18 23:18:35

I think that too, maryeliza, but as they are going ahead with it anyway the least they should do is inform guides and parents about it.

FarNorth Sun 27-May-18 23:24:13

trisher, you said "Any parent can request that their child is not accommodated in the same room as another child, they don't have to say why."

How do you see that working in relation to transgirls in all-female spaces since, as you also said, it can be very difficult to know someone's sex just by looking at them?

trisher Mon 28-May-18 10:20:29

Sorry but some parents (and I have taken lots of kids on co-ed residentials) object to their child sleeping in the same room as other children of the same sex on many grounds X doesn't get on with Y X&Y are Ok together but please don't put Z with them because they will never sleep. And actually quite often as they get older the children decide for themselves. And perhaps it is no bad thing that young children learn about people who feel they are the wrong gender. It might result in a more understanding society.
I can see in all this prejudice many similarities between the dire warnings given about homosexuals before the law was changed. They might hit on other children. They are promiscuous. Boys can't be left with them.They will destroy family life. Strange none of that happened.
Now you're bringing FGM into it SueDonim you do realise it is mostly women who persist in practising this don't you?

I was in an office the other day and was served by someone who could have been a trans-women-tall, well built dark wig, lots of heavy make up. She was quite young and was being trained by an older woman. There were 4 women in the office and there was no-one to be served after me. The 4 women all chatted together in a friendly way. That is the reality of what trans women means. I don't know if the young woman still had a penis or indeed ever had had one, I don't suppose the women who worked with her did. The problem is that you base almost all your opinions on the words of a few militant extremists and not on the realities. Much the same I think as if I was to base my ideas around the girls appearing on reality programmes such as Geordie Shore

maryeliza54 Mon 28-May-18 10:28:44

Can you tell me how being served by someone who may or may not be a transwoman equates to having the right to have a biological woman carry out my cervical smear or be my rape counsellor? Are you aware of WPUK and tge struggles they have to let women have a voice on this issue? The TRAs may be small in number but they are disproportionately influential amongst the metropolitan elites and Stonewall back them unconditionally. And this nothing like the struggle fir gay rights which I backed whole heartedly - gay rights don’t take away rights from straight people but self id takes away rights from biological women by wanting to take away their safe spaces and women only services.

trisher Mon 28-May-18 10:42:51

maryeliza54 the point is that you are trying to make the voices of activists the voice of all trans women (Can you expain what TRA means by the way?) There was in the 1970s a lot of militant feminism around, some of which involved joining groups and examining your sexual parts with a mirror. Most women didn't do that, but equality was acheived through them. The same could be said for the very vocal and militant gay voices that promoted a gay agenda. In each case there were people who vociferously proclaimed how disasterous the outcomes would be. Just as you are doing now. Nothing they proclaimed would be the outcome happened and things actually remained much as they were with a little more tolerance each time.
It is possible to be on the side of tolerance for one issue and remain intolerant on others.
You can refuse to have a cervical smear carried out by someone if you want to. What do you envisage? Demanding everyone attending drops their knickers so you can examine them and see if they are really a biological woman?

FarNorth Mon 28-May-18 18:31:57

TRA = Trans Rights Activist

MRA = Men's Rights Activist

FarNorth Tue 29-May-18 00:31:59

This bank holiday Monday some ManFriday people self-identified as men to swim in Hampstead Men's Pond.
The police were called and they were asked to leave.
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3261705-Turns-out-Hampstead-swimming-ponds-are-single-SEX-after-all?pg=1&order=

Apparently, tho, Hampstead Women's Pond is open to people who self-identify as women.
www.independent.co.uk/life-style/transgender-women-hampstead-heath-ladies-pond-kenwood-kate-moss-a8136581.html

FarNorth Tue 29-May-18 01:28:49

In case you think that part-time self-identification is not quite legitimate, here is an article on Philip / Pippa Bunce.

In 2017, Pippa became one of the 'Top 50 Female Champions of Women in Business' despite being a heterosexual male.

Admittedly Philip / Pippa, unlike David Lewis, makes the effort to put on make-up and a dress on certain days.

mirandayardley.com/en/cross-dressing-all-the-way-to-the-top-where-all-the-transvestites-have-gone/

Iam64 Tue 29-May-18 06:18:22

Thanks for the links FarNorth.
Current references linking The fearful response by some to more liberal laws and social attitudes to homosexuality in the 1960s often ignore the reality that those opposing the changes tended to be largely from more conservative people. Feminists expressing concern on social media don’t tend to be classically conservative thinkers. We’re leading to commemorations of (some) women being given the right to vote. Why should a x dressing privileged white man be rewarded for going to work in a frock occasionally.

maryeliza54 Tue 29-May-18 07:23:20

trisher quote frankly if you had to ask what TRA meant then you simply do not know enough about the whole self id debate.

TerriBull Tue 29-May-18 08:04:01

Following your post FarNorth apparently there was a hoo ha at the ponds the other day, when the ManFriday women turned up en masse at the male designated ponds as self identifying men. The powers that be who gave permission for self identifying women (men) to use the women only ponds strangely didn't grant that right to women identifying as men. There is of course the mixed pond the self identifying women (men) could use but I suppose that would be provocative enough. I hope the self identifying women (men) continue to turn up to male only venues if only to illustrate the absurdity of self identification.