Oh, and trisher what is your view about trans dukes? I know there's only a few of them, but their viewpoint on all of this is mind boggling.
Racist rapist of Sikh woman in Walsall
The (benighted) Sounds Of Summer
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.”
Trisher, what is your view about the fact that crimes committed by trans women (not necessarily people who have fully transitioned) will be classified as crimes committed by women, thereby making it seem as if women have suddenly become less law abiding? What is your view about the fact that if a woman requests a female to examine her, she will not be able to refuse being examined by a trans woman (again, not necessarily fully transitioned)? What is your view about the fact the the Guides Association now allow trans girls (i. e. boys who say they are girls) to share sleeping accommodation with other girls, who will not be able to object? What is your view about the trans activist who proudly wore a T shirt pronouncing 'I punch Terfs'? No one here is saying that a person who wants to transition shouldn't be able to do so, and be treated with dignity and respect as a human being. What we are arguing against is the men who are abusing this, and the organisations which are blindly rushing into policies to protect transgender people without considering the consequences. And which are actually making it all so much worse for true trans gender people.
But one can be pro-women's rights without feeling that you have to condemn other people to a life of unbearable confusion and pain. Not all transgender women hate what you describe as biological women. And yet you will say Have you any idea about how much TRAs absolutely hate women? No I haven't and I suspect that even if a few do you cannot prove that they all do.
And strangely enough there have even been men who have spoken up for women's rights.
The problem you have is that you may not care about anti-abortionists but those are the people you will find agreeing with you.
Personally I think not only are you fighting yesterday's battle because trans gender people are already with us, but you are creating and imagining scenarios that may never happen to justify some sort of moral outrage that has no real foundation. And when one of those is destroyed , like having a choice for medical examination you bring up another irrelevancy.
And actually the figures for domestic violence against men by women are closer to those of men against women than you might think
www.theguardian.com/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence
I don’t actually give a fig what anti abortion women think about trans gender issues - I’m not anti transgender I’m pro women’s rights which anti sbortionists aren’t.
The statistics show very clearly that most domestic violence, most physical violence, ,most murders, most rapes are carried out by biological males - of course within any group there will be a range of behaviour but that doesn’t mean they are equally distributed
I really don't care who has what sort of genitalia maryeliza54 And if I am obsessed by loos your obsession would seem to be penises. I can, and have, asked for another person to deal with a medical matter. And there is always choice. If I look at a person and judge that person not to be someone I wish to examine me I can refuse to be examined.
I don't, you see, confuse choice with other matters. Bringing the abortion debate into this is interesting as some of the most vehement anti-abortionists are women who would no doubt agree with you about trans gender people. I wonder how feels to be on the same side as such reactionaries.
And the question which no one seems to be able to answer still remains what would you replace self identification with?
People of any gender, and of any sexual inclination can be aggressive or passive, violent or not, gender or sexual inclination has nothing to do with it.
The same as not all "little old ladies" are "nice", I've known some who are downright nasty old bats!
I suppose what I'm trying to say, is that there are nice people and not nice people, age, gender, sexual persuasion, doesn't necessarily come in to it.
Would you wait to board a large red vehicle with lots of seats and windows and "Town Centre" writ large on the front, without the category "bus" entering your mind?
Some aspects are visible, some are not, and two consecutive buses may have different combinations of features. Not all buses are red, they don't all go to the town centre, and some don't have stairs, and some are minibuses, but there is a general impression which you recognise as a bus. Some stop at the library, some don't and if you don't know the routes you have to ask the driver what this one does, but it is still a bus, and you don't get onto a bin lorry or the pillion of a motor-cycle and say, "Single to the Town Centre, please". If a converted ice cream van stops at the bus stop, and the driver shouts "All aboard for the town centre!" you would probably check whether it really is now being used as a bus before making use of it.
If you were a witness asked by the police to describe a suspect 5ft 5 tall with long hair, a bust and a distinct smell of Chanel number 5, who walked as though her hips were hinged onto a broad pelvis and squatted for a pee, and sang to themselves in an excellent soprano voice, would you do it without mentioning the word "woman"? The category may be interpreted by some as shorthand and cliche, but it conveys the general impression given by that individual. The details vary, and any two individuals may not share any of them, but the wide category is still valid. Perhaps she was born with those characteristics (not the Chanel, she bought that) perhaps she has cultivated them later, when she decided that was her persona.
No-one is saying they want to decide someone else's gender, they are saying that if that person has chosen a new gender, they want to be able to know that they have genuinely chosen to leave the gender which could make them ineligible for certain situations involving other, sometimes vulnerable, people.
You don’t have to be in a box at all but your views seem to be that women have no rights at all to choose to have a biological women to provide them with certain services or to keep penises out of women only spaces. If you don’t care about who does your rape kit or cervical smear, fine, but what gives you the right to take away that choice from other women? We’ve just had that refendum which was about women - and in this case- biological women being given the choice ( not forced) to have an abortion if they want to. Their body - their choice. I really have a problem with people who want to take choice away from women - why? The wishes of trans men - most of whom have fully functioning penises - are supposed to trump the rights of women who for whatever reason do not want a biological man performing certain services. And why should trans women represent biological women when the views of women are needed in services which are sex sensitive?
No it isn't. Not all lesbians are butch, not all lesbians are agressive. But there is a section- probably a minority, who are both, and to quote a gay friend "are more scarey than most het men" - Het=heterosexual
I am simply asking how would you find out what gender people claimed to be? In other words what will you replace self identification with? And the only answer seems to be that we must all carry ID. Something many of us would be uncomfortable with. It isn't possible to tell someone's gender just by looking at them. Much as some may wish it was. I am also fed up of hearing about "biological women". There is no common or "lived" experience that all women share. Some women give birth, some don't, some women have functioning reproductive systems, some don't. There are any number of differences. There are women who have experiences in life similar to mine but there are women whose lives are very different, and in fact there are men whose lives are more similar. I find this desire to stick me in a box with all other women highly objectionable. I am a woman. but I am also a human being and the diversity and difference of human beings is something I rejoice in, and I don't want to be stuck in a past, where some people are unable to be the person they want to be because some others think they have the right to decide someone else's gender.
Trisher, what a ghastly stereotypical statement about lesbians. You do seem to be missing the point about the concerns around self id, the main one being that in the rush to give transgender people the rights and dignity they should have as human beings, the hard fought for rights and dignity of women are in danger of being trampled all over.
Much like asking a smoker to leave a non-smoking area, or a burly teenager to get off the swings in the children's play park, or a fly-tipper to out that sofa back in his boot - but I don't think the smoker, the teenager or the fly-tipper could accuse you of breaking the law by challenging them. Their counter-attack woud be verbal and/or physical, not threatening legal action..
I’m really fed up about your always bringing this back to loos trisher as if self id was about this and not about the erosion of not only just women’s rights but in fact the erosion of the concept of biological women and the importance of their lived experiences as biological women. Have you any idea about how much TRAs absolutely hate women?
So I take it Elegran that if you see a maculine looking person in the ladies you will challenge them and ask for ID? I wouldn't want to do that.There are some very aggressive butch lesbians out there who would take pleasure in attacking and physically hurting someone who did so. It isn't just men who are agressive you know.
Buying something from a shop involves a transaction which the owner of the business is entitled not to participate in if they wish, for any valid reason. Accessing and using public facilities is very different and most don't have attendants to monitor users anyway.
Nice example Elegran I’ll borrow that.
The sale (or rather non-sale) of alcohol is similar. Anyone who doesn't appear old enough to legally buy alcohol can be challenged and asked to produce proof of id without the challenger being guilty of ageism. It produces some anomalies, but on the whole it works.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Ok Jinty44 Pick out the woman
"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.
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.
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 »