There are, of course, plenty of women out there who disagree with other women on this whole issue. I'm not here to mansplain to them; I want to listen to them. To ALL women.
The following tweets will ask 16 questions. To be answered by women only.
I make no apology for the detail within those questions, nor for requesting and hoping for as much detail as possible in the answers.
When legislative changes such as self-ID are being proposed, detail is vital if what results is to be good, effective law, not bad law.
One other thing too. Trans rights are human rights. Brilliant: we all agree on that. But it's not what the detail in the questions is about.
Once I've set out all the questions, I will not comment on any of the responses. I promise to read all of them.
I may retweet, without comment, those responses I find particularly interesting or thought-provoking. Absolutely including those which disagree with my position on all this, which is irrelevant.
Because I'm a man - and this issue fundamentally concerns women and girls.
I have 2 other requests. Without trying to tone police anyone, I hope what results is a comprehensive discussion on ALL the issues - but a respectful, civil one without judgement. I want all women who read this thread to feel comfortable about answering some or all the questions.
This is Twitter, so that may be too much to hope for, but we'll see.
And finally: if you're a man, please stay out of the thread. You'll be telling on yourself if you don't. Butting out is what I'm about to do the very moment I've listed the questions, which are as follows.
1. Do you think anatomical males should be allowed in protected women's spaces such as prisons, rape refuges, hospital wards or lavatories if they say they’re a woman?
If so, why?
2. Do you think anatomical males should be allowed to get changed in women and girls’ changing rooms if they say they’re a woman? If so, why?
3. Do you think someone born male should be allowed to compete in women’s sports? If so, why?
4. Do you think schools should have only unisex lavatories? If so, why?
5. Do you think anyone should be able to self-declare as the opposite gender without having transitioned first, and immediately be able to access protected women’s spaces? If so, why?
6. If legislation allows for anyone being able to self-declare as the opposite gender without transitioning first, how do you propose to stop male sexual predators and/or violent criminals claiming to be female and taking advantage of said legislation?
7. If a child of any age in any circumstances decides one day they’re of the opposite gender, do you think they should be automatically supported in that by their parents, guardians, schools and/or teachers, with no questioning in any way by any of the latter? If so, why?
8. If you answered ‘yes’ to all or most of the above, how do you propose to deal with any issues around safeguarding?
9. Do you refer to ‘pregnant women’ or ‘pregnant people’? If the latter, why?
10. Do you refer to ‘women’ or ‘cervix havers’ / ‘menstruators’ / ‘bodies with vaginas’? If any of the latter three terms, why?
11. Do you think rape survivors should be required in court or elsewhere to refer to anatomically male rapists by their preferred pronouns? If so why?
12. Do you think statistics on violence against women and girls should treat anatomically male perpetrators as ‘women’ if they self-identify as a woman or girl?
If so, how should policymakers respond to the data which results?
13. Do you think surveys such as but not limited to the census should ask for someone’s sex, or their gender?
If the latter, how do policymakers accurately account for the needs of all people born female?
14. A question for lesbians only: is it ‘transphobic’ or in any way bigoted not to be sexually attracted to someone who does not have the same anatomical parts as you, but who consider themselves a woman?
If so, why?
15. Do you think it’s possible for someone to change sex? If so, how?
16. Finally, how do you define ‘woman’?
I very much hope as many women as possible respond to some or all of this.
And with that, I'm off to feed the pigeons. 🙂
IMPORTANT ADDENDUM: if, in any way, you feel uncomfortable answering these questions on a public platform, which may apply to many, please feel free to DM your answers.
Everything you say will be treated in absolute confidence. Thankyou!
And a clarification: I'm not conducting research, or collecting data, or writing an article or a book.
The purpose of this thread and any DMs I receive is purely to give women the space to discuss all this. And educate and inform others, including me, through their perspectives.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
There's already been plenty of complaints on here that the Prime Minister is 'sucking up to Trump'.
No folks. He's trying to maintain the most incredibly fine balancing act. And so is Macron by the way.
Both of them have to do that.
Macron has more leeway for several reasons.
1. He's known Trump for much, much longer. He's one of very few world leaders who's been in office almost as long as when Trump first became President.
2. He has no more elections to fight, so can be a little freer in what he says.
3. The long, long tradition of Gaullism in French foreign policy means that France usually sides with the US - but is more independent and critical in how it conducts itself.
Yet despite that, and the images yesterday of Macron challenging Trump, he also did the following.
UNPOPULAR OPINION (among the left and probably many of my followers): the modern liberal left, of whom I've always been a card carrying member, got it VERY wrong on mass immigration.
And all because it didn't try to remake society after Thatcher wrecked it and the working class.
What the UK has been crying out for for many decades now has been huge investment across the country.
When Johnson spoke of 'levelling up', he was more than onto something. He'd hit the nail on the head. But because the Tories are a bunch of shysters and crooks, nothing happened
Britain's has been a quite ludicrously unbalanced, unsustainable economy for as long as I can remember now.
Skewed completely towards property, financial services, speculators and billionaire leeches. And quite unbelievably skewed towards south-east England too.
While Andrew Neil - who played more than a minor part in turning Britain into an ungovernable failed state through his complete non-journalism over Brexit: which had no consequences for him but terrible ones for most - wets himself in excitement, a note.
About the UK media.
You'll recall the hysterical cries of LABOUR CRASHED THE ECONOMY LABOUR SPENT ALL THE MONEY when Gordon Brown actually *rescued* the economy.
And the hysterical cries of WE'RE GOING TO TURN INTO GREECE when the coalition negotiations weren't allowed to run their proper course.
And the hysterical cries of WE HAVE TO LIVE WITHIN OUR MEANS IT WOULD BE IMMORAL TO LEAVE OUR DEBTS TO OUR CHILDREN as Cameron and Osborne set about state-sponsored manslaughter of the poor and disabled, and devastated the supply side of the economy.
For almost a quarter of a century, you've had to put up with fear and hatred for the crime of your being a Muslim.
You've been stigmatised, you've been stopped and searched, and going through airport immigration is a nightmare.
Everyone else walks through customs with no problem at all. You don't. You randomly get stopped by officials again and again and again.
And you know why. It's because you're brown. It's because you're a Muslim.
Through the 2000s, amid horrific terrorist attacks in New York, Washington, Bali, Madrid, London and elsewhere, the Labour government says "our quarrel is not with Islam" - but it bombs Iraq, it bombs Afghanistan and it kills many, many, many Muslims there.
Ireland have qualified for 6 major tournaments. They reached the knockout stages 4 times.
Wales have qualified for 4. They reached the KO stages 3 times.
Northern Ireland have qualified for 4. They reached the KO stages 3 times.
(Technically, twice in their case - because of FIFA's daft format of four groups of three in the 1982 second phase - but Northern Ireland reached the last 12 and BEAT HOSTS SPAIN, so we'll ignore that).
Scotland have qualified for 12 major tournaments in their history.
This being the twelfth. They have NEVER reached the knockout stages. Is today, Sunday June 23 2024, when the interminable, excruciating wait finally ends?
By the way: they've actually qualified for 13. But in 1950, they refused to take up their place!