Sunak. Men are men and women are women.

As long as men aren’t invading women’s safe spaces or trying to join in with women’s sports then it’s doesn’t matter if they call themselves Arthur or Martha does it? Let them get on with it. If they think they are women then they have a psychological problem.

As a member of the labour party I am fully aware of Starmers changing position on this, he has been deeply disappointing on the issue and has only arrived at his current position very recently. His position has not been drowned out by hysteria it has been observed by women for years. This wont impact my vote but to pretend he hasnt just realised that his previous strategy wasnt a vote winner is inaccurate. He is I am afraid playing a similar game to the Tories. Neither cared about womens rights throughout this debate.

Galaxy, I think you’re right about strategy. Faced with a group of TW/TRA I suspect he would back down and reiterate his 99.9%.

I agree with both CoolCoco and Galaxy.

Neither Labour nor the Tories have covered themselves in glory over this, and their behaviour is disappointing on so many levels. All the same, the only way to hope to drag the country out of the mess we are in is to get the Tories out, so I will vote for Labour - I see no alternative. I won’t forget though, and I am still unsure of Keir’s meaning when he uses the term ‘woman’. What are ‘women’s spaces’ if being a woman is a matter of ‘identity’ rather than biology? I’d like him to clear that up with no ambiguity (apologies if he has done so already and I missed it).

Glorianny

LovesBach

Keir Starmer told Rosie Duffield she was wrong to say that only women have a cervix. I was tempted to email him to ask where he keeps his. As we are far more tolerant today than in the past, surely it is possible for a person to tell friends and family that they want to use a different name, and dress differently, and then just get on with it. Why do we have to endure the complete nonsense of suggesting that there are many different sexes? Have these people not heard of chromosomes? Two sets are available - male and female.

Some transmen and non-binary people have cervixes. Are you saying they have to be called women? Because they don't want to be.

Where have I said they must be called women? I reiterate, people should be allowed to live as they wish, call themselves whatever they wish, and be left in peace to do so. At no point have I said those with a cervix must be called women - please read what I actually posted.

I also agree with LovesBach. People should be able to live as they wish, call themselves whatever they wish and be left in peace to do so, so long as they are not making life difficult for others in the process.

That is when I lose patience - when one person's 'living as he wishes' means that other people (ie women) are unable to have privacy and dignity in places where traditionally we could be sure we would be out of the male gaze, and where their presence means that women from some religious groups are excluded.

As long as transwomen understand that they are not women and respect the wishes of those who are - basically leaving us in peace - there should be no reason why we can't all rub along well. I don't know how anyone really believing they are a woman wouldn't understand that self-id has meant that there is a threat from dangerous men piggy-backing on that by claiming to be trans and gaining entry to women's spaces. Of course it is true that the vast majority of transwomen wouldn't do anything of the kind, but if even one woman is raped or killed by an impersonator, or because it is too difficult for people to challenge an imposter, it is one too many.

Before I am accused of excluding transmen, AFAIK there are few, if any, instances of women claiming to 'identify' as men for nefarious purposes, so they don't cause the problems that concern me.

Until you are confronted by a man changing to dress like as a woman streetwalker in the ladies' loos in a busy hospital where elderly ladies are struggling with Zimmer frames because of cramped conditions. You will never know what your feelings are.
I was and it certainly changed any" live and let live", attitude I might have had. He dared to use the ladies but did not dare to use the Mens which was right next door. One final comment, why did he feel it was safe in the ladies?

I agree. Keep saying it Doodledog.

Glorianny

So what does he want people to do? Demand to see evidence of someone's sex before admitting them? I must say at all the events I have attended to celebrate and promote women's causes no one has ever asked to see proof I am a woman and I hope they never do.
Be very careful the far right have set out their agenda- pick off the obvious first-trans people- then work on the rest. Only the hetero-normal family will be permitted. It's happening in Europe irr.org.uk/article/feminism-biological-fundamentalism-attack-on-trans-rights/

I think it's women's rights being trampled on by the trans activists, from what I've seen . Vicious, nasty people.

Hetty58 there are gender based rights though with respect to health and care and those need to be considered carefully.

Also, I was actually in the lingerie department at a well known retailer recently where a manager was called to remove a serial offender from trying to enter the lingerie changing facilities, so lets not pretend this stuff doesn't happen as I hardly go out

oh bella23 I'm sorry

I'm also sorry I have missed several pages again, apologies to all

LovesBach

Glorianny

LovesBach

Keir Starmer told Rosie Duffield she was wrong to say that only women have a cervix. I was tempted to email him to ask where he keeps his. As we are far more tolerant today than in the past, surely it is possible for a person to tell friends and family that they want to use a different name, and dress differently, and then just get on with it. Why do we have to endure the complete nonsense of suggesting that there are many different sexes? Have these people not heard of chromosomes? Two sets are available - male and female.

Some transmen and non-binary people have cervixes. Are you saying they have to be called women? Because they don't want to be.

Where have I said they must be called women? I reiterate, people should be allowed to live as they wish, call themselves whatever they wish, and be left in peace to do so. At no point have I said those with a cervix must be called women - please read what I actually posted.

You apparently think only women have cervixes and agree with Rosie Duffield. You are therefore either denying that transmen and non-binary people may have cervixes or you are insisting they are women. Either that or you have to admit that Rosie Duffield was wrong and it isn't just women who have cervixes. You can't have it both ways.

It might help if some people stopped blaming transpeople for the actions of predatory and abusive men because such men are not only a danger to natal women they prey on the vulnerable of any gender.

some women don't have a cervix, if we are going to be picky. Sometimes they are taken away if you have a hysterectomy for example but I personally believe using language like cervix owners rather than women excludes vulnerable groups of biological women who will find difficulty in the language used and that does include trasnmen

TRANSMEN

Glorianny

It might help if some people stopped blaming transpeople for the actions of predatory and abusive men because such men are not only a danger to natal women they prey on the vulnerable of any gender.

no one is blaming transpeople Glorianny, people (women mainly) are highlighting the dangers of the namby pamby nature of people just deciding which groups they belong to, to commit crime and offences and have protection to do so. That is the gist I get

Glorianny

It might help if some people stopped blaming transpeople for the actions of predatory and abusive men because such men are not only a danger to natal women they prey on the vulnerable of any gender.

Some people?

Nobody is denying that predatory or abusive men are a danger to all. Can you point us to where 'some people' are saying that, please, as when you use such vague language it is hard for anyone to know whether to agree with you or not.

I don't know if I am one of the 'some people', but my take on it is that of course these men are dangerous, and of course not all transwomen are predatory - the vast majority aren't, as I said very specifically in my last post - but the fact that self-id means that anyone can enter a women's space on the basis of their word that they 'feel like a woman' puts women are at risk.

How is anyone to know the difference between a transwoman and a predator if all men are able to access women's spaces?

Glorianny

It might help if some people stopped blaming transpeople for the actions of predatory and abusive men because such men are not only a danger to natal women they prey on the vulnerable of any gender.

No I don’t blame transpeople.
I blame those TW who are, as you describe them predatory and abusive men.
They, together with the TRA are responsible for the damage that has been done to the reputation of all transwomen and to females.

Transwomen belong to the same sex as the abusive men, and as it's impossible to tell which men are abusive we segregate places by sex. It is one of the reasons why my brother my husband etc who are all decent non abusive men are not welcome in womens spaces

Glorianny however much you want to dispute biological facts, as I have said repeatedly, it is impossible to alter your biological sex - determined at conception. Surgery no doubt makes people feel happier in the body they occupy, and it's great that it does for those who are desperately unhappy in their own skin, but no man is born with a cervix. If that man wants to become a woman, then he should be free to do so. It won't give him a cervix, it won't alter his chromosomes. Similarly if a woman wishes to live as a man and has her primary female characteristics surgically removed, she may not then have a cervix, but she will still have XX chromosomes. This is getting really boring - I've bored myself almost to sleep with this. Enough.

Galaxy

Transwomen belong to the same sex as the abusive men, and as it's impossible to tell which men are abusive we segregate places by sex. It is one of the reasons why my brother my husband etc who are all decent non abusive men are not welcome in womens spaces

Hurray! You’ve got it at last. No men should be in women’s spaces because we can’t tell the difference.

Since the men who are decent and non-abusive like your brother and husband, would not be in women’s spaces,
which means what I’ve been saying.
The TW/males who are in women’s spaces are dishonest and quite frequently abusive or threatening and will lie that they are women.

There are other issues that arise from the determination to refer to transwomen as women - data about all sorts of things from crime rates to poverty become meaningless when we can’t tell the sex of the respondents.

Here is an extract from an article in today’s Telegraph that outlines some up to date figures on rape and sexual assault:
Police have wrongly labelled hundreds of suspected rapists as women, The Telegraph can reveal – despite the Home Secretary saying they should not do so.

Figures obtained under the Freedom of Information (FoI) Act show for the first time the scale of police adopting the self-declared gender of alleged sex attackers.

Over the past four years, police forces have referred 260 “females” to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to consider a charge of rape.

A further 209 suspects have been recorded with an “unknown” sex, which is understood to include those who identify as non-binary. By law, rape can only be committed by a biological male.

Obviously the misconception that women as well as men commit violent sex crimes can be used to suggest that no harm is done by putting transwomen in female prisons, and can lead to calls to downgrade rape by merging it with sexual assault. If ‘women’ commit rape too, then why are biological women calling for protected spaces? The misogyny is breathtaking.

Sorry Galaxy. I saw the G and misread the poster. I got really excited .

Doodledog

There are other issues that arise from the determination to refer to transwomen as women - data about all sorts of things from crime rates to poverty become meaningless when we can’t tell the sex of the respondents.

Here is an extract from an article in today’s Telegraph that outlines some up to date figures on rape and sexual assault:
Police have wrongly labelled hundreds of suspected rapists as women, The Telegraph can reveal – despite the Home Secretary saying they should not do so.

Figures obtained under the Freedom of Information (FoI) Act show for the first time the scale of police adopting the self-declared gender of alleged sex attackers.

Over the past four years, police forces have referred 260 “females” to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to consider a charge of rape.

A further 209 suspects have been recorded with an “unknown” sex, which is understood to include those who identify as non-binary. By law, rape can only be committed by a biological male.

Obviously the misconception that women as well as men commit violent sex crimes can be used to suggest that no harm is done by putting transwomen in female prisons, and can lead to calls to downgrade rape by merging it with sexual assault. If ‘women’ commit rape too, then why are biological women calling for protected spaces? The misogyny is breathtaking.

So that's going on for 500 cases of alleged rape committed by "other than men" despite the fact only men/males can commit rape since it requires a real penis. Anything else is penetration by an object...an equally serious crime that carries the same punishment guidelines. Of course the TRAs want rape to be reclassified to include penetration by an object to relieve the male population of guilt, but there is absolutely no need, the sentencing guidelines are exactly the same for the two different offences..

Research (such as it is) indicates that the majority of transwomen retain their penis.

I don't understand how anyone cannot see the danger in allowing such men to self-identify as women. When and if they feel like doing so. Which then allows them access to women's safe spaces. It's absurd, how have we even got here?

The more aggressive and 'mouthy' activists - hopefully still a minority - are so angry at being challenged over this that they are insisting their penis is a "female sex organ"... their girl-dick as they like to call it. With which they will threaten to rape those that disagree.

These individuals do not identify with or as women, they are misogynists mocking and taunting women. They are anti-feminists who want to eradicate women, remove their rights and dominate. And they are doing what men who hate women have been doing for centuries, using their penis as a weapon.

How on earth have we got to the stage where our politicians are going along with this?