Sunak. Men are men and women are women.

I think you are both saying the same thing, really

Sorry, perhaps my post is confusing.
As far as I’m concerned, male is male no matter what they call themselves.
A certain group of these TW cause trouble, harm and distress to females (and to the TW who wish simply to live in their chosen gender without encroaching on female rights, safe spaces etc.)
The sad thing is that some of the TRA who condone the violence or refuse to condemn the violence against women, those who try to find excuses and those who scream TERF, transphobia etc. are female. I see that as women supporting misogyny rather than females.
If that’s still confusing, my excuse is I’m planning and marking for tomorrow.😊

Mollygo

^What is this other than men behaving as misogynists have always behaved towards women? This is simply men attacking women.^
You said it!
Refuse to condemn the men’s behaviour, find reasons to excuse it, allow incorrect biological details to be spoken as truth, call women Terfs, it’s not just men doing the attacking.

I'm a biological woman who understands discrimination. As much as I might sympathise with men who identify as women in that 'inner' place, wherever it is, and do not feel comfortable as men, or dislike the stereotype that society wants to force on them, the fact is the path of their life and mine will have been very different, physically and culturally, emotionally and mentally. Until they decided on their gender identity, they were part of the male hierarchy - unless they fully transitioned at a very early age... which is doubtful. They may have been, and are, very nice men, and I don't want to see them picked on, harassed, abused, attacked, or vilified because they want to go their own way.
But the fact remains they are still men - unless they've managed to change the billions of cells in their body. And they cannot alter the status of natal women, change the language that relates to women, invade their intimate spaces, tell them that they must be quiet and not question, insist that we ignore the science and that they are the arbiters of what womanhood is or isn't.

They cannot erase biological women as a sex because it doesn't chime with what they want.

What is this other than men behaving as misogynists have always behaved towards women? This is simply men attacking women.
You said it!
Refuse to condemn the men’s behaviour, find reasons to excuse it, allow incorrect biological details to be spoken as truth, call women Terfs, it’s not just men doing the attacking.

Galaxy

Yes after all my forgiveness there are certain people I will never forgive and OJ is one of them. I think that JKR was right in that this issue has been a litmus test as to which men are misogynists. I may be naive but I dont think lisa nandy is a misogynist I think she was probably trying to be kind. Although terrible things have been done throughout history under the guise of kindness.

Apart from the matter of the 'involvement' of children - some very young children - in transgender 'issues' (I'm beginning to dislike that word but can't think of another to describe the questions arising from the whole scenario of gender-identity - it appears to boil down to one essence and that is that women are losing their previous status in intimate situations and spaces and in healthcare because of a very vocal, aggressive and demanding minority - of men. Men who are insisting that, almost at the flick of a switch, they can be women if they choose... with the same status as biological women. And if those women - we - want to debate the matter, we are told that it's not up for debate, cancelled, no-platformed, verbally abused and insulted and called transphobic, bigots and TERFS. In some cases even threatened with violence and rape.

What is this other than men behaving as misogynists have always behaved towards women? This is simply men attacking women.

Frankly, OJ could recite that whilst walking on hot coals and it wouldn't be enough, though. that really did make me laugh out loud Doodledog I share the same thought. He really is the most loathsome misogynist.

Yes after all my forgiveness there are certain people I will never forgive and OJ is one of them. I think that JKR was right in that this issue has been a litmus test as to which men are misogynists. I may be naive but I dont think lisa nandy is a misogynist I think she was probably trying to be kind. Although terrible things have been done throughout history under the guise of kindness.

Galaxy

Lammy was deeply misogynistic about it all.
With regard to Lisa Nandy I think it's very difficult and I have said this before but we have to recognise that people will change their mind on this issue, and I dont know how helpful it is to say but in 2020 they said this. We have to give people room to look and say hold on a minute I might have got this wrong. It's very hard though. Oh and it doesnt apply to Owen Jones

I agree with this. People can and do change their minds about all sorts of things, and that's fine. I also believe that if we (collectively) make that difficult for them it will be counterproductive.

The problem is that if people change their minds when the wind blows in the wrong direction it makes them look untrustworthy, and that's the last thing Labour needs just before an election.

I think if there is going to be a change of direction it has to be open and honest, with an explanation of why it has happened - something like 'I believe in supporting the very few people who are genuinely trans and will do what I can to ensure that their lives are not made more difficult because of their trans status. All the same, I have listened to women, and I also believe that they have a right to privacy and dignity in same-sex spaces, and that the language needs to continue to reflect the fact that sex is separate from gender.' Something like that is clear and unambiguous, and might be enough to convince people that a change of heart is not just expedient.

Frankly, OJ could recite that whilst walking on hot coals and it wouldn't be enough, though.

Galaxy

He also got confused between women and dinosaurs.

I’d laugh, if it wasn’t so worrying that our MPs are so ignorant of biology.

He also got confused between women and dinosaurs.

Lammy was definitely talking about transwomen. He said transwomen don't have ovaries, but a cervix is something he understood they can have following, surgery, procedures and hormones. He obviously hasn't the faintest idea what a cervix is or he'd never spout such rubbish. A cavity created out of an inverted penis does not connect to anything, let alone a cervix and connected to a uterus!

twitter.com/LBC/status/1443125834626260993

Starmer should have the sense not to comment 'off the cuff 'about transgender matters.
You can guarantee that off the cuff remarks will be the remarks that are remembered and dragged up again and again.
If he meant transmen, why didn’t he explain that he acknowledged that a transman may well have retained her cervix?
Or was it a Disraeli “never explain” moment?

Lammy was deeply misogynistic about it all.
With regard to Lisa Nandy I think it's very difficult and I have said this before but we have to recognise that people will change their mind on this issue, and I dont know how helpful it is to say but in 2020 they said this. We have to give people room to look and say hold on a minute I might have got this wrong. It's very hard though. Oh and it doesnt apply to Owen Jones

Absolutely, but journalists love catching people out like that - the Gotcha! is a bit of a coup. Politicians can't have ready-made replies for everything, so if the question sneaks up it will be difficult. Look what happened to Nicola Sturgeon over Isla Bryson, and NS was excellent at media engagement and communication in general.

I suspect that the 'men can have a cervix' comment (was that Lammy?) was meant to be a nod to transmen, who are born women, so do have cervixes. It's such a minefield when you try to stick to an 'everyone is who they say they are' mantra, when you know it is nonsense.

But it would have been so much better to say that trans rights are important, but have to be considered alongside existing women's rights. A few assurances (with examples) that women's rights would be retained would have gone a long way.

That is all that needed to be said - you're right!

Starmer should have the sense not to comment 'off the cuff 'about transgender matters. He knows it's a controversial subject and should take a more reasoned and thoughtful approach instead of trying to appease by saying "it's not right to say that only women have a cervix". It would've been better not to comment at all.

A doctor or surgeon would certainly make a distinction between a natal cervix and one that had been constructed.

I very much hope that they do get in. I don't think that a victory would signal a belief that women don't care about rights - to be honest, I think that a lot of women still don't realise that the trans issue is about a lot more than a few vulnerable people wanting acceptance. I'm not really convinced that Keir or any of them really think that men can have a cervix either. I think, as I said in my previous post, that they were forced into a no-win situation - Stonewall was very powerful until relatively recently.

But it would have been so much better to say that trans rights are important, but have to be considered alongside existing women's rights. A few assurances (with examples) that women's rights would be retained would have gone a long way. The gaffes about how defining a woman is difficult are examples of how anything being said can be used against the speaker, rather than expressions of genuine belief, I think.

Good post as always.
Re your last paragraph
I fully expect labour to get in next time. It’s hard to see how they wouldn’t, even if they promised to do nothing.
But I am concerned that if they do get in it will be used to prove that women don’t care whether they are sidelined by men or that women’s rights, obviously don’t matter because they still voted for labour.
I can imagine hearing that from at least one person.

Anyway. Back to the topic.

JK Rowling has said that many women will be put off voting Labour because of Lisa Mandy’s stance on women’s rights. I’m inclined to agree, as although I will vote Labour myself I struggle to forgive their behaviour on this. It’s not fair to single out Nandy, IMO though. David Lammy, Emily Thornberry, Jess Philips and others have all said quite ridiculous things, as has Keir himself. They are backtracking now, but still.

I do appreciate that when being interviewed on divisive topics like this one it must be difficult to choose your words carefully. As on here, interviewers will aim for ’Gotcha’s that will make good headlines, and the opposition (on both sides) will seek out inconsistencies and any cracks in your argument.

It’s easy to forget that Sunak and his predecessors were seemingly on the side of Stonewall at one time - they may have read the room better and more quickly than Labour, but they were. I don’t think for a moment that they are any more sincere in their stated views, but had Labour taken an opposing stance it could very quickly have become polarised with their being presented as all the things that get thrown at anyone who speaks up for women on this issue - exclusionary, homophobic, bigoted and so on, and the ensuing arguments would have completely eclipsed all the other things that needed to be said. It’s been a difficult path to tread, and I sympathise.

But it could have been handled so much better, and it’s disappointing that they were so willing to tread on women for political reasons. As it is, many women have been alienated from Labour, and it’s hard to see how that can be turned around without accusations of insincerity when the inevitable backpedaling starts.

Yes, unless people have been banned, it is easy to change a username. Often there is good reason - someone thinks they’ve given too much away about themselves, they’ve lost their password, they just fancy a change, or even it’s just that they want a new start after an argument.

Others, as you say, make a habit of it, or flounce off and return under a new name to save face, which is less honest, IMO. It’s usually obvious though. People have their own posting style which is difficult to hide for any length of time.

Doodledog It's hardly surprising that you feel discomfited. You have expended effort in order to defend yourself, moving away from the original post. This tactic is employed to deflect from a point that has presumably struck home or is not answerable with logic. There was a poster months ago who attacked all and sundry on every topic, clearly for the 'fun' of attempting to rattle other posters. She seems to have gone - or has she? Presumably it is easy to change your name and reappear with new aggresive ammunition.

True. Well, the truth is that I do feel discomfited - a bit battered, to be honest, but I won't be silenced. I know the 'racist' slur is untrue, and I know that people I respect are aware of that, which is what matters.

It's a shame that things can't be discussed reasonably - maybe not all debating societies are equal - but life goes on. This is a subject that matters to me. I don't argue for the sake of it, or to score points, but increasingly it feels as though that is the game, you're right. Referring to things I said pages earlier in a different context and gloating when I don't remember, telling me I am twisting things when I point out inconsistencies in logic, addressing 'some people' when it is clear that digs are being made, conflating a concern for women's rights with racism, homophobia and even anti-feminism, etc etc - all the usual tactics are in play, and its wearing. In some ways all the more so because they are so clumsily used, and it's so obviously not a simple case of something being misworded. Wording badly is easy to do when posting between other activities - I do it all the time - but the 'Gotcha's, the set-ups and so on are deliberate and would be unnecessary if proper arguments would hold up on their own. They cause these threads to become about these tactics rather than about the fact that women's rights are being squashed in the name of 'inclusivity' and 'kindness'.

Anyway, I shall await a response from Glorianny. Maybe there is an explanation for what she said. I doubt that one will be forthcoming, however. Past form suggests that either there will be an aggressive response, or that she will disappear for a while in the hope that the thread will move on or die and nobody will remember. If that fails she can always reinvent herself again and try to disassociate herself with the comments she made in this name.

Doodledog

I'm sure most debating societies would have rules against personally attacking someone with an allegation like racism though?

Maybe they do, but it is a effective weapon so could be brought into use by someone who enjoyed discomfiting a poster they couldn't silence.

Doodledog I've been out all day, but I can say with 100% certainty that you are not racist, either consciously or unconsciously. I think sometimes it's people with a racist bias that see racism where there is none. I have mixed race family, they don't see racism everywhere, just believe that most people take them as they find them. Some will like them, others won't, but not because of skin colour, personality clashes happen all the time.

Sorry, LovesBach. I think I am a bit sensitive just now .

Doodledog that was part of the point I was trying to make - hugely unsuccesfully it seems. (Sigh)