I've thought for a while that the worm was turning when it comes to 'trans' issues. It is finally getting through that support for self-id is misogynistic and that gender-criticism is not the same as transphobia. Slowly but surely, court cases and policy changes are moving towards (to my mind) a more sensible approach.
Ironically for many women I know who are broadly left-wing, it has been the Tories who have caught on to this first, and it's interesting that at least two of the leadership candidates have mentioned 'gender politics' or 'culture wars' in their campaigns. Meanwhile, the LP has been woefully behind the times, with idiotic comments about men having cervixes and how transpeople are the most marginalised group in society.
But now it appears that they realise that they are behind the curve, and that many feminists and female-supporting men will struggle to vote for them - or maybe it's that they realise that it's becoming more acceptable to speak against the tyranny, and they are now saying what they really think. Either way (and I speak as a member of the LP) it's not a good look, but it's a better look than the craven adherence to Stonewall's No Debate mantra that we've seen so far.
This is from James Kirkup in the Spectator and for those who don't like links the text is at the bottom of the post.
It's probably obvious that I would be delighted if the LP did a U -turn on this. I'm not delighted at the display of what I see as cowardice that has held sway for so long, but it will be such a relief to be able to vote for the party whose policies are closer to my heart than any of the others without fearing that by doing so I am betraying my daughter and future generations of women.
What do others think? Am I being naively optimistic? Will the Lib Dems, the Greens and SNP rethink their ideas ahead of the GE? Will any of it make a difference to how you vote, or do you think that it isn't important compared to other issues?
Here is the text of the Spectator article:
Amid the noise of the Tory leadership fight, some significant comments in the papers could be missed today. Here’s the quote, from a Sunday Times interview with an intelligent, ambitious female politician in her forties:
“Biology is important. A woman is somebody with a biology that is different from a man’s biology. We’re seeing in sport sensible decisions being made about who cannot compete in certain cases."
Could it reflect a new approach to trans issues from the Labour leadership?
She says she would ‘have a problem’ with someone with male genitals identifying as a woman and using a female changing space, and isn’t entirely sold on the use of gender pronouns. ‘You don’t have to say to someone, “Shall I call you he or she?” – it’s pretty obvious. But there are also difficult cases of somebody who is born as one sex and defines as another. I wouldn’t want to deny their right to define themselves in the way they want to be defined.’
Even by the standards of recent days, that’s pretty punchy. In particular that line on rejecting pronouns because ‘it’s pretty obvious’ strikes me as potentially controversial. I certainly know people and groups who would find that offensive. No candidate in the Tory race has thus been so outspoken on sex and gender. So are those quotes above yet another Conservative attempt to stoke a culture war?
That phrase has been used a lot recently, generally with disapproval and often by people keen to dismiss the concerns that some women raise about the impact of trans-rights policies on their rights and standing. And framing women’s concerns as the product of right-wing, social conservative politics makes them easier for lots of people in politics and the media to ignore and denigrate those concerns as marginal and ideological.
Of course, there’s nothing illegitimate about being either right-wing or socially conservative (I’m neither) but in much of our public discourse, those things are routinely denigrated, put beyond the pale of acceptability. So it’s significant that the author of those comments above cannot possibly be described as a right-winger or a social conservative. She is Rachel Reeves, Labour’s shadow chancellor.
The fact that Reeves, as smart and decent a politician as you’ll find in the Commons today, has said these things could have many implications. Could it strain Labour unity? It’s pretty hard to reconcile those comments with the position of some of her frontbench colleagues.
Could it reflect a new approach to trans issues from the Labour leadership? Reeves is today taking a much clearer line than Sir Keir Starmer, who has been more equivocal. I don’t know the answer to those questions, which can wait for another day.
My point here today is simpler. Rachel Reeves, the Labour shadow chancellor, has backed banning transwomen from women’s sport and excluding them from women’s spaces. And she’s rejected using gendered pronouns. By doing so, Reeves has provided yet more evidence to prove that concerns about trans rights policies and their impact on women’s rights are not right-wing or conservative. Nor are they marginal or ideological.
James Kirkup
Wes Streeting was quite open minded I thought. If you listen to him theres a lot of stuff going on between the lines I think.
Stormystar
Daisy Anne the immutable fact is the difference between male and female anatomy. This has never changed in the whole of the history of humankind. And the few abnormalities only prove the point. Yes we form an opinion but the perspective we take mostly arise from the beliefs we hold, but beliefs are not truths. Come on You know this.
You believe that Stormystar. At the other extreme some people believe, just as strongly as you do, the complete opposite. If you are a believer what are they?
You are not interested in my description of men and women? The description of how their bodies differ, in their structure and how they work?
So you are not interested in the differences between men and women - the differences which make it impossible for a man to be a woman or a woman to be a man. A man can feel womanly, and a woman can feel manly, and if that is so then they are free to live their lives as they wish without molestation and to act as though they are the sex that they feel but that doesn't make a man into a woman or a woman into a man. It means that they are men who have a strong preference for being women, or women who have a strong preference for being men. It is aiding and abetting a fantasy to confirm their misconception.
It's very difficult to proceed really if words can mean anything. We are talking about the labour party, what if Elegran for example believes that the labour party is a cricket club and I believe that the labour party is a political party, how do we proceed in a discussion about the labour party.
Sex is a spectrum moving from male to female
All organisms that reproduce by sexual means have two sexes. Not 3 or 4, nor a whole spectrum of sexes, just two. That goes for mammals down to flowers. That sometimes there is a fault in one organism's developmental makeup does not invalidate that truth. Humans are bipedal and binocular. An individual born missing a limb or blind through a defect in the eye or its total absence does not invalidate those truths. A person born with an absence of a digit, or an extra one does not invalidate the truth that humans have 10 fingers and 10 toes.
It is not my 'belief' that sex is immutable and there are only two, that is a fact. Whether I believe it or not matters not one jot, the fact is unaltered.
Elegran excellent posts. All of them.
You're right Galaxy and I've never taken the trouble to look into the scientific research on what the labour party might be.
It has changed over time, I've heard, so how can we really have any idea what we are talking about?
If the differences between male and female are to be ignored, and any man can legally declare he is a woman, purely by saying that he believes he is a woman, then he can go wherever women go, with his male body and his male hormones.
If some men can go wherever women go, what is to stop other men with male bodies and hormones and instinctive male reactions to seeing women partly clothed, from also going wherever women go?
As someone said above, we put great efforts into making it possible for women and girls in third world countries to have places that are closed to men. Yet we are reversing the efforts that were made by previous generations of women to secure those safe places in our own country.
Has something happened to the women and girls recently to stop them needing and wanting privacy when they are at their most vulnerable? Has something miraculous happened to men recently that takes away their instincts, and makes women and girls safe from ALL of them?
Yes that's a really good point Rosie. My belief has absolutely zero impact on the reality of biological sex. If everyone on this thread said crikey you are right it is possible to change sex, the actual reality of biological sex would remain. I am really sorry that people cant change sex but I didnt create that situation.
Elegran
You are not interested in my description of men and women? The description of how their bodies differ, in their structure and how they work?
So you are not interested in the differences between men and women - the differences which make it impossible for a man to be a woman or a woman to be a man. A man can feel womanly, and a woman can feel manly, and if that is so then they are free to live their lives as they wish without molestation and to act as though they are the sex that they feel but that doesn't make a man into a woman or a woman into a man. It means that they are men who have a strong preference for being women, or women who have a strong preference for being men. It is aiding and abetting a fantasy to confirm their misconception.
Brainwashing. I said I do not want it. Not from you. Not from those diametrically opposed to you.
My first post was because someone posted about "the women in the street" implying we all feel as you do. I objected. It appears I am still having to object against people who feel they know what and how I should think.
You believe that Stormystar. At the other extreme some people believe, just as strongly as you do, the complete opposite. If you are a believer what are they?
Two things spring to mind here, although Stormystar may, of course, disagree. One - I might believe in Islam, which would make me a believer. Someone else might be a Roman Catholic. They would also be a believer, although we believe in different things. I, as a hypothetical Muslim could respect their right to believe as they do, and the reverse could also be true.
Two - the idea that human anatomy is at the root of what makes people male or female is not, as I understand it, in doubt. The TRAs belief is, I think, that that is irrelevant to what makes them men and women (which is different), and that so-called 'gender' is more important than sex. So if a man changes gender they can become a woman, whether or not he changes his body.
There is no spectrum of sex on which intersex people sit, and there is no magical transubstantiation of gametes - it's all about the 'gender'.
Either way, the issues that the LP would have to deal with if in power are nothing to do with belief - they would include things like whether men should be housed in women's jails, or whether all public buildings should have 'gender-neutral' toilets, even when this means that the Ladies' is sacrificed and the Gents' stays as it was.
I'm away to find some fog to knit, about as likely as getting a concise, clear vision of what the Labour party stand for. Many of us won't vote for the Conservatives, but neither will we vote for any party that doesn't know what we are, and what protection women as a sex class need, which at the moment is all of them.
That's precisely the position I'm in too Rosie51; politically homeless.
DaisyAnne
My first post was because someone posted about "the women in the street" implying we all feel as you do. I objected. It appears I am still having to object against people who feel they know what and how I should think.
I find it hard to read posts where people object to others expressing their feelings whilst wanting to express their own feelings without objection.
I’ve not really grasped what you are trying to say about the LP.
Chewbacca
That's precisely the position I'm in too Rosie51; politically homeless.
And me, hence the thread 
. It's a miserable state of affairs, and one that is shared by a number of people I know - including supporters of the Lib Dems and SNP. the Greens are as bad but I don't know anyone who will have the chance to vote for them in a GE.
If you put this highest on your list of what you need from a political party Rosie, you won't vote for them unless they chant the right mantra.
However, for many people, it is not at the top of their list; it cannot be. Being able to eat, have a roof over their head and have their houses properly insulated, etc., will mean they are looking for those things first. On the day we all watched people's houses burn because of climate change, I cannot think of anything that comes further down in my priorities.
I do hope you all count yourself extremely lucky to be able to see this as the most important thing a government can do.
I'm not disagreeing with that.
Nor me.
Interesting, as that is back where I started. Your question was about the Labour Party. When I read the assumption about the "women in the street", I did not want anyone to suggest others found this subject so important when there are real, national problems for the Labour Party or any other party to solve.
But then, it was probably more fun to descend on me or to lecture me on men, women and other humans.
someone posted about "the women in the street"
I commnted about the woman in the street, not women, because someone else mentioned the man in the street - a standard phrase.
Oh, FFS.
Nobody has descended on you. You have made some basic errors and people have pointed them out, but that is not descending or lecturing.
Yes, there are real problems for the LP to solve. Nobody is denying that. It so happens that I feel that so-called 'gender' issues are a real problem, and it is up to me how I cast my vote, and how I prioritise my reasons for voting, as we still live in a democracy.
I have not said that I will not vote for them - I have said that I will struggle to do so, as IMO voting Labour now would be selling out women, and feminism is a priority for me. You can decide on your own priorities and I won't be lecturing you ab out those. I am not going to be guilt-tripped into feeling bad because I currently have food on the table and a roof over my head. I don't know your circumstances any more than you know mine, but I do know that you have the luxury of being able to post on the Internet from a device of some description, which doesn't put you amongst the disadvantaged either. We are back to the false consciousness again, and it was tedious the first time round.
On the day we all watched people's houses burn because of climate change At last! You've expressed a 'belief'. I assume you are accepting climate change as a fact to be recognised, accepted and acted upon. Yet you think the fact there are only two immutable sexes may be discounted in the future so it's not worthy of respect at the moment. Bit of bias showing there.
I'd rather you not patronise me thank you.
I cannot think of anything that comes further down in my priorities. so women being impregnated or sexually abused in female prisons, on female hospital wards is your lowest priority? Women of various faiths being unable to participate in communal life because they can't accept certain mixed sex spaces is your lowest priority. Women being denied rape victim counselling because these groups are now mixed sex is your lowest priority.......right you are.
I care about a multitude of issues but if a political party says they care less than nothing for the dignity or safety of 51% of the population then I think that's a party that doesn't want my vote.
DA you said I don't feel quite as strongly if those starting these threads make it completely apparent what it is about, then I can avoid it.
Since this thread does have 'gender' in its title, and you have told us that women's rights are your very lowest priority, I can't imagine why you looked at the thread at all.
But then, it was probably more fun to descend on me or to lecture me on men, women and other humans. oh do tell, what are these 'other humans' that are not male/men or female/women? Do your climate change scientists, who you obviously believe, have any insights on these 'other humans'
As you will have guessed I couldn't find any fog to knit, it's blooming hot, or maybe that's just my belief, although the scientific thermometer appears to agree ..........29C
Here is a video of transwoman Rose of Dawn considering What is a Woman & What is a Transwoman.
(12 mins long)
youtu.be/P3mTZ9c82T8
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.
