Easy. Ask them a simple question.
Until very recently, the question of what is a woman was guaranteed to make any politician squirm. Sex was embarrassing; biology so last century. No one quite seemed to know any more: on the one hand a woman was anyone who claimed to be one, on the other women had ceased to exist entirely. Not as any kind of distinct, measurable category. Female souls could exist in male bodies, according to Liberal Democrat MP Layla Moran, but only she could see them. A fraught question all in all, best avoided.
Still, if one wished to sidestep and get a little more technical, there remained the question of female body parts. Specifically cervixes - the neck of the womb that dilates during child birth to allow a babies head to pass through into the vagina, for example. It was wrong, pronounced Keir Starmer, to insist that only women had a cervix. It was “something that shouldn’t be said.” It was “not right.” David Lammy seemed confused. It was probably the case, he said, that trans women did not have ovaries, but he understood a cervix was something you could have following various procedures, hormones, and “all the rest of it.” Someone ought to ask him if women wee out of the same hole babies come out of and see if he knows the answer, God bless him.
Despite his no glimmer of a clue when it comes to female biology, Lammy has nevertheless had rather a lot to say on this issue. Indeed, at a Labour Party conference fringe event he once referred to women wishing to retain their sex-based rights as “dinosaurs” who wanted only to “hoard” rights. Which suggests something of a surplus; a stash to be saved for later, meaning what exactly? That he feels women have quite enough rights already? That we’ve been given the vote so what more do we want? Again, someone should ask him. Is it that you think we’ve rights to spare, David? How about dinosaurs? Do dinosaurs have a cervix? Never mind, forget it.
It doesn’t matter anyway. Because everything’s OK NOW. They all know the answer to the original question despite it having been a complete mystery just two months ago. It’s adult human female you dumb-dumbs so let’s just clear that up. Thanks Keir (for clearing that up, I mean.) Were it not for you and your bold, striding leadership we’d all still be as confused as David.
Except wait, oh dear, some of us still are. Lisa Nandy, for example, who was once totally sure that any male person at all who claimed a female identity belonged in a women’s prison, regardless of what crime he may have committed, now says she was “unduly swayed” by young activists. I mean, I do empathise. Who among us has not been unduly swayed by young activists in our time – I rue the day I ever allowed my children to persuade me to see Batman v Superman at the cinema, that is three hours of my life I’ll never get back. Violent, intact, male rapists locked up with vulnerable women though? Deliberately? By the state?? Women who are statistically already likely to be survivors of male violence??? And who have no means of escape???? I don’t know Lisa, somehow – just somehow - I was able to find some firm moral ground on that one. Did it all by myself too.
Stella Creasy, on the other hand, is copping to nothing. Apparently male people who identify as trans and hold a gender recognition certificate are legally women, surgery or no surgery, so HA! Don’t be coming at her with that shit about how she sold everyone down the river with the lie that women can have penises. Except that’s not what you said, Stella, is it? You didn’t say that those holding GRC’s were legally (if not actually) women. You made blanket statements claiming that trans women were adult human females and that women could have penises. Except now the party line is that women do not have penises. So wriggle out of that one.
If I sound furious it is because I am. Watching politicians squirm can be uncomfortable, but that is no reason to let them off the hook. In fact, I vote we keep Labour (and various other politicians) very much on the hook by continuing to ask them such awkward questions as: So, did you actually believe all that bollocks when you were saying it? Like, really? Actually?? Did you??? I want to know. It’s important because a no answer proves a liar. And a yes answer points to what? A weathervane at best; a clueless careerist without the courage of their convictions. A public servant prepared to put women they are accountable to at grave, grave risk in order to be seen doing what they mistakenly believe to be the popular thing. Someone who really doesn’t actually know what a woman is? Which is it? We need to ask them all: Starmer, Lammy, Nandy, Creasy, every single last one of them. It’s called accountability, which is what I was assured I was being held to when I was told repeatedly to die in a fire for expressing the exact same beliefs Labour has now vowed to make policy.
Look, it’s isn’t that I’m not pleased everyone has suddenly “changed their minds.” Given that the Labour party is almost certain to form our next government, this sudden u-turn is very welcome indeed. Quite apart from anything it signifies a huge victory and vindication for all the women who campaigned tirelessly on the issue and so I’m pleased, yes, although relieved may be more accurate. Even if the only reason this change came about was due to a realization within the Labour Party that it will add up to a few more votes (or at least be less of a vote loser) then ok I guess – that’s politics. And again, the women who did so much work to shift the public mood and so force Labour’s hand could take a bow. A commitment to women’s rights is a commitment to women’s rights, and a commitment to women’s rights is what we all wanted.
The issue is what has gone before. It is women served up as collateral damage, the brutal injustice and misogyny of it all brushed under the carpet as politicians squirm, offer weak excuses, and attempt to get themselves off on a technicality. If what the Labour Party hopes is that women will now clap like seals and stay silent in the name of gratitude then they have underestimated us for the second time. There can be no reconciliation without an acknowledgement of truth.
And the truth is this:
For believing what has now been promised by Labour, women have been subjected to real political violence.
For believing what has now been promised by Labour, women were threatened just a few weeks ago, in the public square, with a punch in the face. This was met with cheers from the crowd before being minimized and dismissed by Labour politicians.
For believing what has now been promised by Labour, women’s meetings discussing these issues have been surrounded by activists who try to deliberately intimidate and frighten participants. One meeting was subject to a bomb threat.
For believing what has now been promised by Labour, women were put onto blacklists and expelled from the party.
For believing what has now been promised by her party, Labour MP Rosie Duffield was ostracized and intimidated by her own colleagues in the house.
For believing what has now been promised by Labour, myself and other women were bombarded with messages such as these from male members of the party.
And we want to know what you have to say about it. It is all very well to “change your minds.” But as tomorrow’s leaders you must grapple with this culture of misogyny that allowed women to be subject to so much abuse, simply for expressing opinions you now claim as your own. You must own your part and seek to rectify it. Anyone can be a weathervane, blowing in whatever direction the career winds take them, but people with real integrity - who deserve respect and women’s votes - stand firm.
Thorough and satisfying. Thank you!
Excellent read, well done. Thank you