Coming out as transgender

I suspect many having voted in the shower now in charge are desperately finding another reason why they will vote for them again,
We could look at what the Tories have done for women in the past and which party has really fought for women's rights.

Rosie51

^Doesn't answer my question though.^

Is it more important that a politician says women can't have penises, than protecting the NHS and giving places to Ukrainian refugees?
No of course it's not! I shan't be voting Tory OK? What's important is that a politician acknowledges there are conflicts of interest and that women (females) need certain protections. Are you saying that protecting the safety of women and girls is the lowest priority of all for you? You haven't answered the questions in the first part of my previous post, any chance you could?

Some posters would be berating you for demanding answers, luckily I'm not one of them

Its OK, I'm not being personal.

Even if they present as a woman and dress that way? what does this mean? I'm a woman, how do I ensure I'm presenting as a woman? How do women dress? Is there a uniform I've not been party to? Who decided the standards for 'present as a woman and dress that way' Nobody consulted me or any woman I know. Somebody who most people would look at and think was a woman? Who might feel vulnerable going into a men's toilet?

Are you saying that protecting the safety of women and girls is the lowest priority of all for you? That standard of debate doesn't even merit an answer.

DiamondLily

Whatever MPs, and Johnson, think about transgender, it looks as though they are going to have to nail their colours to one of the masts soon.

Three biological women, female activists seem to starting an organisation/movement insisting that they say, before votes are cast.

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-10674135/Three-women-launch-significant-female-movement-Suffragettes.html

As this is posted here again I make no excuse for the same comment. A woman's movement created by an ex Tory councillor and an ex company director who dragged in a heroine of the gender critical to give them street cred. The Tories must be seriously worried. Basically it comes down to this which is worse a few women with penises, or poverty and starvation,which is what many in the UK are facing now.

You have never heard me say any of those things so maybe you could stop 'lumping people into a group' too. Sone of the worst homophobia and racism I have seen has been by some who argue TWAW . There is bigotry everywhere. I think telling women that their sex is unimportant is bigotry to be honest.
I dont think wanting single sex spaces is bigotry, in fact I think taking those spaces away is misogyny.

Doesn't answer my question though.

Is it more important that a politician says women can't have penises, than protecting the NHS and giving places to Ukrainian refugees?
No of course it's not! I shan't be voting Tory OK? What's important is that a politician acknowledges there are conflicts of interest and that women (females) need certain protections. Are you saying that protecting the safety of women and girls is the lowest priority of all for you? You haven't answered the questions in the first part of my previous post, any chance you could?

Some posters would be berating you for demanding answers, luckily I'm not one of them

OK, we're getting somewhere.

So what we want politicians to say is quite complicated, it's what DoodleDog wrote. But the way that the debate is presented, in the Daily Mail of all places, is "CAN WOMEN HAVE PENISES? COME ON, TELL ME NOW!!! YES OR NO!!^

I have seen on this site, people writing things such as "its only the big hairy men who want to transition." or "Keep out of my space if you've got dangly bits, or I'll come for you" Paraphrasing, but only just.

So when some people talk about phobia, and bigotry, its again naïve to protest that there is none of this going on. Because we see it every day. All trans people get lumped in the same group, portrayed as predatory old men after our children. And is it any wonder that people just trying to get on with their lives feel discriminated against and at risk?

I have answered yours question I said labour for example shouldnt have touched the subject. Monumental stupidity. They surely saw what happened in other political parties with regards to this.

Cross post Doodledog.

Its not naive. Wes Streeting answered it quite competently the other day I thought. If you change the definition of women to include men dont be surprised if people ask questions about that. If you are unable to answer those questions it might be worth thinking about whether there might be issues about the idea that has been put forward that you can 'change sex'.

In my area my vote wouldn't matter however cast, we're a safe seat so I may spoil my ballot paper for the first time in my life unless we get an independent who I feel I can vote for. I don't care they wouldn't stand a chance of being elected it would cast my vote in a positive way.

Doesn't answer my question though.

Is it more important that a politician says women can't have penises, than protecting the NHS and giving places to Ukrainian refugees?

So, is answering the question the way you want more important that ruining the economy?

It's not about answering 'the way I want', and it's not a binary choice between being honest about sex and ruining the economy. I would like the person I vote for to understand biological differences, to be able to balance female rights and trans rights, and to be able to 'not ruin' the economy.

The answers I would like to hear would be along the lines of 'No, a woman can't have a penis, but a transwoman can, and both women and transwomen have rights. The challenge is to balance those rights, and we intend to carry out a full review by X date with a remit to . . .'

and

When it comes to the economy, we will renationalise transport and utilities, and build X number of social housing which will come with guarantees that they will not be sold.

or similar.

I know that they are not yes/no answers, but the first answer is a qualified no, and the second (about ruining the economy) wasn't a question, so that was more difficult.

Even if they present as a woman and dress that way? what does this mean? I'm a woman, how do I ensure I'm presenting as a woman? How do women dress? Is there a uniform I've not been party to? Who decided the standards for 'present as a woman and dress that way' Nobody consulted me or any woman I know.

As Galaxy says toilets are easily addressed, it's all other areas where single sex is required that are the minefields. When the mantra is transwomen are women then transwomen are expected to be allowed access to women (female) only spaces. And yes we know the law allows for some restrictions but if organisations are too frightened of being labelled transphobic, or if they have believed Stonewall's interpretation of the EA, then it doesn't happen.
In my area my vote wouldn't matter however cast, we're a safe seat so I may spoil my ballot paper for the first time in my life unless we get an independent who I feel I can vote for. I don't care they wouldn't stand a chance of being elected it would cast my vote in a positive way.

So the 6-word question that everyone is being urged to ask is naïve then, isn't it? Reducing such a complicated and important topic to a yes/no answer is disingenuous.

Still nobody saying that they'd sacrifice the economy for this, I see.

Toilets can be solved easily and anyone has been involved in this know that its prisons refuges sport crime statistics that are the issue. We dont segregate those places by how people dress (who cares) we segregate by sex.

Also politicians who are lying and they are lying (as everyone can see) isnt something we want more of.

But the question "Can a woman have a penis?" is not without subtle undercurrents.

Most people would answer no, a woman can't have a penis. I suspect. But does that mean that people with gender dysphoria who in day to day life are indistinguishable from the opposite sex should be made to use the toilets of the sex that do not identify as? Even if they present as a woman and dress that way? Should they have to use the Gents?

The politicians who are not answering this in a way that is as straightforward as you think they should, are not stupid, and they are not anti-women, generally. They understand that there is a lot more to this than just "Can a woman have a penis".

So, is answering the question the way you want more important that ruining the economy?

Its quite important that those politicians who are dealing with the issues of poverty and immigration etc, are trustworthy honest and coherent if a politician was going around saying the earth was flat and wanting everyone else to believe that I might have concerns about their ability to tackle the complex issue of poverty. Oh and for what its worth I think Labour shouldnt have touched this topic with a bloody bargepole so I am quite cross too. But you know what if women are told they are bigots, and to shut up and lose their jobs for thinking biological sex is important then yes you are going to end up with questions like this.

I'm trying to find out if saying women don't have penises is more important than perpetuating the need for foodbanks, demonising immigrants and ruining the economy. That's all really.

I dare say that as with all political issues, people will prioritise differently. In an ideal world, I'd like so vote for someone who cared about all of those things, but if no such option exists, I would have to make choices, as would everyone else. Those choices will differ between supporters of the same party as well as between voters for different ones.

The point, surely, is that asking a simple yes/no question allows for comparisons between responses in a way that open questions will not. Open questions are great for 'rich picture' research which explores nuance, but not so good for quantitative or 'countable' findings.

If you are having a doorstep conversation with a potential MP you can ask about single-sex spaces, and debate possible differentials in the answer. If representatives of all the possibles turn up when you're in, you can cross-reference your answers. If, as is more likely, however, you get a few leaflets, but want to compare all the views on a particular topic, it is far easier to read simple statements or yes/no answers.

Ask a proper question. Do you agree with safe single sex spaces? Do you agree that prisons should be single sex? Do you agree that people should not be allowed to identify as the opposite sex/gender just to escape punishment?

I suppose all politicians could answer Yes to those questions; but if someone is allowed to self-identify as a woman i.e. claim to be of that sex, it comes back to what is a woman and can one have a penis?

DiamondLily

Well, there is usually more than one Independent candidate.

I've got no problem with how others live, or what they wish to identify as - their business.

But, I want the safe spaces of biological women left alone, and sports to be run fairly.

I also want politicians to have the courage to say the obvious - women do not have a penis. And probably never will have.

But they all say women have penises in my hypothetical situation.

I'm trying to find out if saying women don't have penises is more important than perpetuating the need for foodbanks, demonising immigrants and ruining the economy. That's all really.

Well, there is usually more than one Independent candidate.

I've got no problem with how others live, or what they wish to identify as - their business.

But, I want the safe spaces of biological women left alone, and sports to be run fairly.

I also want politicians to have the courage to say the obvious - women do not have a penis. And probably never will have.

So what if your independent candidate said that women could have penises DL?

Ok, so nobody so far saying they would vote Tory even if they are the only ones who answer that women can't have penises.

So what is the point of the question, please?

It couldn't be stoking up false anger, could it?

Ask a proper question. Do you agree with safe single sex spaces? Do you agree that prisons should be single sex? Do you agree that people should not be allowed to identify as the opposite sex/gender just to escape punishment?

But no. Much easier to simplify it to a simple yes/no that stokes up discord. It makes me angry, sorry, but it does.

I haven't voted Tory since 1979. I was a Labour party member until the day Corbyn took over.

After that I voted for an independent.

I thought, with Starmer, they finally had a decent leader, with sensible views, worth voting for again.

But, unless he and the Labour Party clarify, honestly, where they stand, I will just carry on voting independent..

There's no way on earth I'd vote Tory.

Nobody cares a great deal about those involved in 'sex work' and if they were underage it was obviously abuse (sorry I dont know the case). They chant the mantra sex work is work without any thought of the exploitation involved.