Sunak. Men are men and women are women.

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

Oreo

I agree with what you say Doodledog and just wish that Starmer and the Labour Party would now come out as strongly about this as Sunak and the Conservative Party have just done.I don’t care if it’s done for votes or not, just do it!!

I agree that it would be good to have a clear idea about what either Sunak or Starmer would actually do about the problem if they were in power. Deeds, not words etc.

I am far from convinced that either man believes that men have cervixes or women have penises. They are both too intelligent for that. But they have both been scared of the bullying tactics used by the trans lobby. They know that had they refused to bow to Stonewall's demands they would have been accused of all the things I mentioned above, and until recently a significant number of people would have believed that protecting women meant being 'unkind', exclusionary, out of date, behaving like the homophobes and racists of the 70s.

I have a certain sympathy with Starmer, who took office when the LP had a very long way to go to become electable. He had to do a lot of no-doubt unpalatable things to turn things round. Sunak doesn't have that excuse - his party had a huge majority, and could have nipped the whole thing in the bud, but didn't.

Neither of them has behaved truly honourably, IMO. Sunak has no excuse for waiting until now to say anything, and it comes across as little more than a dig at Labour. Starmer's definition of 'woman' is not clear - when he says that 'women should have safe spaces' does he include transwomen in that?

This is why I believe the 'Transwomen Are Women' mantra was so important to the trans lobby, and also why I believe it is so dangerous. Messing with the language removes the ability to discuss in meaningful ways, and to take people at what may or may not be face value. It's insidious, and if I am out of touch, unkind, exclusionary etc for saying so, I really don't care.

I see no explanation of gender ideology then just attacks.
As for what Sunak intends to do- well you have really no idea (and I'm not sure he has!)

Nice attempt at diversion, Glorianny. But you’re right about one thing.
Nobody who isn’t actually living in poverty now has any idea what it’s like today.
Even if you (generic) think you were poor when you were younger, it’s not the same.

What does that have to do with this particular issue Glorianny? The answer is nothing.

In addition to crimes being incorrectly documented, some with the lie that a woman has committed rape, is the horrific fact that some victims have been forced to refer to their assailant in court as 'she' because between the alleged offence and appearing in court, the accused has decided to identify as a woman.

Sunak and the Conservative Party have just done. I don't care if it's done for votes or not, just do it!! yes Oreo just do it.

Oreo

I agree with what you say Doodledog and just wish that Starmer and the Labour Party would now come out as strongly about this as Sunak and the Conservative Party have just done.I don’t care if it’s done for votes or not, just do it!!

So how has he "come out strongly" and what does it actually mean?
What is he going to do?
Personally I think it is just words and meaningless. He may claim to know what a man is and what a woman is, but he has absolutely no concept of what a poor person is, or of their needs.

I agree with what you say Doodledog and just wish that Starmer and the Labour Party would now come out as strongly about this as Sunak and the Conservative Party have just done.I don’t care if it’s done for votes or not, just do it!!

Please could someone explain the ideology to me. Because on this I'm with the Chair of the London Assembly -Gender ideology- there's no such thing!

Yes, and a notch further away from an acceptance that women’s rights are as important as men’s.

I agree. Wherever did this ‘gender neutral’ come from. You are born either male or female and I do think that all this nonsense tempts developing adolescents to experiment just because they can.

Doodledog

*How on earth have we got to the stage where our politicians are going along with this?*
Because it was framed as ‘be kind’, and presented as a tolerance issue. The whole script of the trans lobby is designed to portray dissenters as uncaring, reactionary and out of touch.

We see it on here - constant references to the 70s, comparisons with homophobia and even racism, how ‘young people’ are more accepting (as though they are a homogeneous mass with one mind between them), dubious figures about suicide risk that don’t correlate or screen out mental health issues that might have led to people trying to change their lives in the first place, paranoia about right-wing conspiracies along with the suggestion that anyone who questions the idea that sex can be changed is a ‘rabid righty’ - it’s all a deliberate attempt to narrow the Overton Window to the point where discussion is impossible.

It worked until recently, but some of the more egregious examples of trans extremism have made people realise that it is not about ‘inclusion’ at all, but about the imposition of a dangerous ideology, and politicians have realised that.

When you want to shift the Overton Window, what better way than to suggest a ridiculous and extreme concept - that a man can become a woman by a simple declaration that he is... then any thinking between that extreme and the middle point becomes more acceptable by comparison - thus shifting the window along a notch!

How on earth have we got to the stage where our politicians are going along with this?
Because it was framed as ‘be kind’, and presented as a tolerance issue. The whole script of the trans lobby is designed to portray dissenters as uncaring, reactionary and out of touch.

We see it on here - constant references to the 70s, comparisons with homophobia and even racism, how ‘young people’ are more accepting (as though they are a homogeneous mass with one mind between them), dubious figures about suicide risk that don’t correlate or screen out mental health issues that might have led to people trying to change their lives in the first place, paranoia about right-wing conspiracies along with the suggestion that anyone who questions the idea that sex can be changed is a ‘rabid righty’ - it’s all a deliberate attempt to narrow the Overton Window to the point where discussion is impossible.

It worked until recently, but some of the more egregious examples of trans extremism have made people realise that it is not about ‘inclusion’ at all, but about the imposition of a dangerous ideology, and politicians have realised that.

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?

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..

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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 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

TRANSMEN

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