Thread by @MForstater

Back in September 2018 I asked this question, which lead to a twitter discussion, which lead to me losing my job.

The Q wasn't about Bunce really but about whether, when you have a policy that is about empowering women, you change the definition to suit a man?

People who responded, smart people, usually robust economists said things like this.

I was surprised...but I could why they might fence sit, or SEK to be (apparently) inclusive, since the #manels question is fairly minor.

But when it really matters people might say no?..no?

Like when someone who has lived all their life as a man and has recently "become" a woman asks for a seat on a forum where women have a chance to talk to medics about how women are treated in pregnancy and childbirth.

You'd say no then right?

https://twitter.com/MForstater/status/1354594569950818309?s=19

Or when a doctor who's lives all their life as a man "becomes" a woman and then demands to be able to out his fingers inside women's vaginas when they've asked for a female doctor

You'd say no then, right?

a-question-of-consent.net/2020/09/16/doc…

Or when a person who has lived all his life as a man "becomes" a woman after raping one, and demands to be called "she" by the court and the victim.

You'd say no then, right?.

https://twitter.com/CambridgeIndy/status/1350132271098064897?s=19

(should say "seek" here)