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.”
wouldn't be
"I hope the self identifying women (men) continue to turn up to male only venues if only to illustrate the absurdity of self identification."
You mean the self-identifying men (women) should keep turning up to male-only venues.
(Although it would be good if the other lot stuck to doing that too.)
Yes that's it FarNorth, I'm 
I see nothing wrong with any of them doing it and don't understand why the police should intervene. Personally I don't see what someone's gender has to do with anyone else really. As for this assertion that only feminists are involved in the actions against self Id ing, well some may be feminists but there also an awful lot of reactionaries involved, and many women who have never been feminists until this issue emerged. And actually having a been a long-term feminist I do see problems with "women only spaces" it isn't a huge step from that to "Women must be kept in certain spaces" something which is very worrying and far more likely to impact on our future than a few men who want to be women.
We should be far more concerned with educating young women about their hard won freedoms and encouraging them to enter and demand equality in areas where they are still underrepresented and underpaid rather than banging on about a few men with problems.
"Women must be kept in certain spaces" It not really a matter of being kept in certain spaces so much as a desire by the majority of women to quite rightly maintain their female designated areas, especially where they might be in various forms of undress. I have heard many testaments about why females wish their ponds to remain "women only" teenagers who are self conscious, women on their own who feel more comfortable in such an environment. I can identify with that, when I am in the locker room at my health club it's a sanctuary where some choose to walk about completely naked. Such places must remain female only spaces, otherwise I imagine there will be an even greater backlash than present reactions that amount to a trickle probably because the wider population is unaware of proposed changes in the law.
Going back to the Hampstead debacle, Transpeople can of course use the mixed pond, but I suppose there wouldn't be an opportunity for a confrontational adrenaline rush then!
If a lot of women are becoming latent feminists, possibly that can be attributed to not being confronted by such an extreme version of male entitlement before.
But the argument can be twisted TerriBull to fit the agenda and those who would like our society to fit in with some religious convictions. So they take the argument about "Women only spaces" and use their beliefs- women need to be protected from men, women and men should be seperated because men cannot control them selves around women,- to restrict women to certain areas. It is happening in certain areas and communities now. It isn't a huge step from one to the other.
Cubicles can be provided and my local swimming baths has now banned stripping in the communal showers in both changing rooms. Presumably because inappropriate behaviour was happening in both of them.
Yes I agree with that argument Trisher when it pertains to separating the sexes as has been the case in some universities or schools. I wasn't suggesting a division of the sexes per se and certainly not because a religion decrees that fits in with their beliefs, a retrograde step for sure. I'm talking about areas where a fair proportion of women and indeed some men want privacy. My thoughts on the matter are particularly with teenage school girls, not an easy time for some transitioning into an adult, many feel self conscious, I know I did, although I went to an all girls school. I think some girls will not want to share toilet facilities with boys particularly when they are menstruating a time when many girls want privacy.
I am one of those women who is comfortable showering naked at the gym. I’m quick, discreet and don’t get up to anything inappropriate. I do hope the gym I use never bans ‘stripping in communal areas’, providing the shower and changing areas remain separate for men and women.
If men who self ID as women used the female changing areas, I’d be in the queue to have the no naked rule. I’d revert to showering in my swimming Cozi and waiting for one of four cubicles to change
There are notices up all over my local swimming pool changing areas advising that stripping is not acceptable Iam64 I don't know why. It used to be common for some women to strip and shower. I can't help thinking that we are all a bit uptight about the whole thing and if only we were like the Swedes (although I must confess I'm not keen on stripping myself) still I do try to overcome my prudery.
This discussion has been going on for months over on mumsnet feminism chat. The same difficulty of some people being unable to understand that; 1) feminists have Nothing whatsoever ever against tranwomen. Nothing! Only against the new laws they are demanding which infringes womens safe spaces. 2) Transwomen could fight for their own safe spaces and sports instead of infringing on ours, but they don't. There has been a small number of transwomen who don't want the new GRC, but get shouted down or insulted by TRA's. 3) There are women rugby players who have been badly injured by a transwoman in the opposing team (for which they were given no notice of them coming. 4) There have been posts deleted because someone has pronouned a TW "wrongly", which is now a hate crime. 5) There's been a number of women who will not be able to use public toilets for fear there are male born people in there, genuine fear.
6) Because feminists are fighting to stop this infringement which sets women and girls back 100 years, they are being threatened, attacked and called TERF's (trans exclusionary radical feminists). 7) There are links on munsnet such as; A library in Canada showing a display of weapons such as baseball bats to be used against "Terfs", Chat rooms where they say " kill the terfs", Womens Rights Meetings which are physically blocked by masked trans activists. 7) A womens weight lifting contest which was won by a transwoman. There'll be no point in women and girls sports in the future. I thank and support the Feminist movement for fighting to keep our hard won rights.
Exactly, Falmer. All facts about things that are actually happening as a result of TR activism, and not as a result of people transitioning between genders, and all things women should be concerned about.
It's strange when women call themselves feminists yet don't know what TRA means, in this biggest battle for womens and girls rights in our lifetime?
8) Some parents are having to withdraw daughters from GG because they don't want them sleeping in the same tents as boys, without at least being consulted first.
Carry on Feminists and thankyou. Many of us can see and understand what's happening. Just to remind the hard of thinking; Feminists are NOT anti trans. They simply want them to lobby for their own spaces and sports. As have Womens rights, Disabled rights, Animal rights, etc, in the past.
Yes minesaprosecco and there's still an awful lot of women who don't really know what's going on.
According to the BBC, women who 'speak out against the dangerous dogma of trans ideology' are now being banned from Twitter. Yet another attempt to silence women. 
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44288431
It's amazing how many "feminists " there suddenly are. One wonders then why women doctors are still earning less than men, why there are fewer women surgeons, Why there are so few women MPs, why young women are now so obsessed with their appearance that they will subject themselves to invasive surgery and treatment to acheive the perfect face and body. Could it be that these "feminists" have in fact spent the last 30 years denying the women who really fought for change? And that the only reason they have suddenly become so outspoken is because they have a chance to express prejudice?
And of course violence against anyone is wrong. But using such stupid tactics as an excuse for opposing change and subjecting trans gender people to unnecessary stress simply because of the actions of a few violent activists is much like condemning all vegetarians because of the actions of violent animal rights' protesters.
There are so much more important things to fight for. Like a 50/50 Parliament.
You obviously are unable to understand any of my posts tisher or others who have tried to explain. Bye bye.
I understand them Falmer I just don't agree with them. Take the business of sports. I know a lot of women in some sports would like to compete against men and believe they would win.
If you think this is "the biggest battle for women's and girl's rights in our lifetime" you must have missed the fight for equal pay, the change in the abortion act, the Reclaim the Night marches and a lot of other stuff. Which makes me think that you are a recent convert to feminism.
Gosh, are we now being told not to worry our fluffy little brains about these issues?
It is possible to have concern for more than one thing at a time, Trisher.
OK so who is active in 50/50 Parliament, WASPI Women or another women's rights organisation?
I don't think I said anyone shouldn't bother about things SueDonim I simply said there are more important things necessary to acheive equality. And questioned why some have become activated by something which won't impact on our daily lives, unlike equal pay.
I think we're all capable of deciding what it important to each of us, Trisher. You don't think the potential erasure of women is important. I do. Not so much for myself, as I am older now, but for my daughters, dils and granddaughters.
You also have no idea what other campaigns GN contributors have been involved with. None of us has to account for ourselves to you.
The last two posts have pointed out the problem.
trisher believes that the daily life of women won't be affected by transgender people self-identifying.
SueDonim believes that the erasure of women is a likely consequence of the same thing.
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.
