UK Labour party can't say what a woman is.

[Metaphor]

Labour STILL can't say what a woman is

Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, refused three times to offer a definition of what a woman is, saying she was not going to go down a 'rabbit hole'.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Yvette Cooper yesterday became the second Labour frontbencher to decline to define what a woman is.

The Shadow Home Secretary refused three times to offer a definition, saying she was not going to go down a 'rabbit hole'.

It came a day after her colleague Anneliese Dodds, Labour's equalities spokesman, said the meaning of the word depended on 'context'.

...

Asked on Times Radio what a woman was, Miss Cooper said: 'I think people get themselves down rabbit holes on this one.

'Let's just celebrate International Women's Day and amazing women all over the country, amazing women all over the world, but also challenge inequalities and say what it is we need to be doing for the future.'

Asked whether she was confident about what a woman was, Miss Cooper replied: 'Yeah, but I'm not going to get into rabbit holes on this. Why are we all getting ourselves tangled up?'

Pressed once more, she said: 'As you can see I'm avoiding going down rabbit holes because I just think this is pointless. We had a great celebration of International Women's Day, I think there's still all kinds of inequalities, I think we still see problems around violence against women and girls where there needs to be action.

Apparently, even though Cooper is confident about what a woman is, explaining what a woman is would be going down 'rabbit holes'.

Cooper is married to a man called Ed Balls. You couldn't make it up.

...

On Tuesday, Miss Dodds told BBC Radio 4's Women's Hour 'there are different definitions legally around what a woman actually is' – and said its meaning depended on the 'context'.

The MP also said the Equality Act, passed by Labour in 2010, did not define what the words 'adult' and 'female' meant.

Apparently UK Labour is proud to pass appalling legislation that does not define what it is even talking about.

BBC host Emma Barnett asked what Labour's definition of a woman was and she replied: 'There are different definitions legally around what a woman actually is.'

When asked again, Miss Dodds replied: 'It does depend what the context is surely.

'There are people who have decided that they have to make that transition. It's been a very difficult process for many of those people. Understandably, because they live as a woman, they want to be defined as a woman.'

I wonder what it means to live as a woman if you can't define what a woman is?

 

[Tigers!]

XX chromosomes.

 

[TSwizzle]

We live in very strange times.



And the Tartan Taleban up north are just as bad.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So what? For most purposes I don't think a technical definition is needed.

 

[Metaphor]

So what? For most purposes I don't think a technical definition is needed.

Spoken like a true gender cultist.

When governments pass legislation that are about women, don't you think that legislation should define what it means?

When somebody says their value system includes 'empowering women', don't you think it's important to know what a woman is?

Also, no 'technical' definition is needed. There's already a dictionary definition which up until 5 minutes ago, everybody used and believed. Women are adult human females.

 

[Arctish]

We've been down this rabbit hole before.

All definitions have their limitations, especially when they describe general properties which are presumed to be the characteristics of individuals even when they're not.

'Men' and 'Women' are a perfectly fine words to describe nearly all adult people in a general way but they do not properly describe every adult individual.

People like Hayley Haynes fit both the 'male' and 'female' designation, and that's fine. Sometimes we have to split very fine hairs in order to use the terms 'man' or 'woman' correctly. But if someone doesn't want to get into an hours long debate about chromosomes and karyotypes and gonadal tissue or whatnot in order to decide if they should call Haynes a 'man' or a 'woman' , that's fine too. The subject is a complex one and we're learning more about it all the time.

 

[laughing dog]

We've been down this rabbit hole before.

All definitions have their limitations, especially when they describe general properties which are presumed to be the characteristics of individuals even when they're not.

'Men' and 'Women' are a perfectly fine words to describe nearly all adult people in a general way but they do not properly describe every adult individual.

People like Hayley Haynes fit both the 'male' and 'female' designation, and that's fine. Sometimes we have to split very fine hairs in order to use the terms 'man' or 'woman' correctly. But if someone doesn't want to get into an hours long debate about chromosomes and karyotypes and gonadal tissue or whatnot in order to decide if they should call Haynes a 'man' or a 'woman' , that's fine too. The subject is a complex one and we're learning more about it all the time.

Why fill up the rabbit holes of the gender bigots cultists? There'd be no reason to come up with misleading OP titles about the UK Labor party based on the actions of two members.

 

[Metaphor]

We've been down this rabbit hole before.

All definitions have their limitations, especially when they describe general properties which are presumed to be the characteristics of individuals even when they're not.

'Men' and 'Women' are a perfectly fine words to describe nearly all adult people in a general way but they do not properly describe every adult individual.

People like Hayley Haynes fit both the 'male' and 'female' designation, and that's fine. Sometimes we have to split very fine hairs in order to use the terms 'man' or 'woman' correctly. But if someone doesn't want to get into an hours long debate about chromosomes and karyotypes and gonadal tissue or whatnot in order to decide if they should call Haynes a 'man' or a 'woman' , that's fine too. The subject is a complex one and we're learning more about it all the time.

Why fill up the rabbit holes of the gender bigots cultists? There'd be no reason to come up with misleading OP titles about the UK Labor party based on the actions of two members.

It isn't limited to two members. Kier Starmer can't tell you what a woman is either, and he's the Labour Party leader.

 

[Patooka]

Today I learned that refusing to get dragged down into a bullshit argument about semantics is exactly the same as not knowing what a woman is.

 

[Metaphor]

Today I learned that refusing to get dragged down into a bullshit argument about semantics is exactly the same as not knowing what a woman is.

If you are passing legislation about sex, you damn well better know what a woman is and be willing to share your understanding.

 

[laughing dog]

We've been down this rabbit hole before.

All definitions have their limitations, especially when they describe general properties which are presumed to be the characteristics of individuals even when they're not.

'Men' and 'Women' are a perfectly fine words to describe nearly all adult people in a general way but they do not properly describe every adult individual.

People like Hayley Haynes fit both the 'male' and 'female' designation, and that's fine. Sometimes we have to split very fine hairs in order to use the terms 'man' or 'woman' correctly. But if someone doesn't want to get into an hours long debate about chromosomes and karyotypes and gonadal tissue or whatnot in order to decide if they should call Haynes a 'man' or a 'woman' , that's fine too. The subject is a complex one and we're learning more about it all the time.

Why fill up the rabbit holes of the gender bigots cultists? There'd be no reason to come up with misleading OP titles about the UK Labor party based on the actions of two members.

It isn't limited to two members. Kier Starmer can't tell you what a woman is either, and he's the Labour Party leader.

I see no evidence presented about Mr. Starmer's alleged inability to tell anyone what a woman is or is not. The two people mentioned in the OP are refusing to engage in petty semantic games of gender bigots. That does not mean they lack the ability (i.e. can't) tell what a woman is.

 

[Patooka]

If you are passing legislation about sex, you damn well better know what a woman is and be willing to share your understanding.

Today I learned that refusing to engage with bad faith journalists from a tabloid rag is exactly the same as not knowing what a woman is. I am learning so much from your rage boner against nuanced gender.

 

[Metaphor]

We've been down this rabbit hole before.

All definitions have their limitations, especially when they describe general properties which are presumed to be the characteristics of individuals even when they're not.

'Men' and 'Women' are a perfectly fine words to describe nearly all adult people in a general way but they do not properly describe every adult individual.

People like Hayley Haynes fit both the 'male' and 'female' designation, and that's fine. Sometimes we have to split very fine hairs in order to use the terms 'man' or 'woman' correctly. But if someone doesn't want to get into an hours long debate about chromosomes and karyotypes and gonadal tissue or whatnot in order to decide if they should call Haynes a 'man' or a 'woman' , that's fine too. The subject is a complex one and we're learning more about it all the time.

Why fill up the rabbit holes of the gender bigots cultists? There'd be no reason to come up with misleading OP titles about the UK Labor party based on the actions of two members.

It isn't limited to two members. Kier Starmer can't tell you what a woman is either, and he's the Labour Party leader.

I see no evidence presented about Mr. Starmer's alleged inability to tell anyone what a woman is or is not. The two people mentioned in the OP are refusing to engage in petty semantic games of gender bigots. That does not mean they lack the ability (i.e. can't) tell what a woman is.

You see no evidence presented about Kier Starmer because I didn't present any, though he can tell you it's 'not right' to say only women have cervixes. David Lammy can't tell you either, though understandably so, as his three children were born without a sex so perhaps we can give him a pass.*

However, my OP does not say they lack the ability to recognise a woman. I said they can't say what a woman is. They can't articulate it. They've even passed legislation about it without articulating it.

*The sentence above marked by the asterisk at the end is satire. This particular example of satire is a counterfactual statement and is used as a rhetorical device.

 

[Metaphor]

If you are passing legislation about sex, you damn well better know what a woman is and be willing to share your understanding.

Today I learned that refusing to engage with bad faith journalists from a tabloid rag is exactly the same as not knowing what a woman is. I am learning so much from your rage boner against nuanced gender.

I am learning so much about how much effort gender cultists will expend in avoiding answering questions about the ideology they wish to impose on others.

 

[Patooka]

I am learning so much

Possibly, but I remain skepitcal. Your posts exhibit a depressingly predicable pattern. To be fair though, I am impressed with you ability to carry that cross around and not trip over your rage boner - that does require some serious coordination.

 

[Metaphor]

I am learning so much

Possibly, but I remain skepitcal. Your posts exhibit a depressingly predicable pattern. To be fair though, I am impressed with you ability to carry that cross around and not trip over your rage boner - that does require some serious coordination.

I've never considered uttering basic facts an act of co-ordination but some of us are more endowed than others, I suppose.

 

[JohnG]

If you are passing legislation about sex, you damn well better know what a woman is and be willing to share your understanding.

Today I learned that refusing to engage with bad faith journalists from a tabloid rag is exactly the same as not knowing what a woman is. I am learning so much from your rage boner against nuanced gender.

I am learning so much about how much effort gender cultists will expend in avoiding answering questions about the ideology they wish to impose on others.

So you instead you get to impose your ideology on others.

 

[laughing dog]

We've been down this rabbit hole before.

All definitions have their limitations, especially when they describe general properties which are presumed to be the characteristics of individuals even when they're not.

'Men' and 'Women' are a perfectly fine words to describe nearly all adult people in a general way but they do not properly describe every adult individual.

People like Hayley Haynes fit both the 'male' and 'female' designation, and that's fine. Sometimes we have to split very fine hairs in order to use the terms 'man' or 'woman' correctly. But if someone doesn't want to get into an hours long debate about chromosomes and karyotypes and gonadal tissue or whatnot in order to decide if they should call Haynes a 'man' or a 'woman' , that's fine too. The subject is a complex one and we're learning more about it all the time.

Why fill up the rabbit holes of the gender bigots cultists? There'd be no reason to come up with misleading OP titles about the UK Labor party based on the actions of two members.

It isn't limited to two members. Kier Starmer can't tell you what a woman is either, and he's the Labour Party leader.

I see no evidence presented about Mr. Starmer's alleged inability to tell anyone what a woman is or is not. The two people mentioned in the OP are refusing to engage in petty semantic games of gender bigots. That does not mean they lack the ability (i.e. can't) tell what a woman is.

You see no evidence presented about Kier Starmer because I didn't present any, though he can tell you it's 'not right' to say only women have cervixes. David Lammy can't tell you either, though understandably so, as his three children were born without a sex so perhaps we can give him a pass.*

So your claim about Mr. Starmer is false.

However, my OP does not say they lack the ability to recognise a woman. I said they can't say what a woman is. They can't articulate it. They've even passed legislation about it without articulating it.

Again you do not know what their ability to say is. So your statement. "they can't say what a woman is " is unproven opinion.

*The sentence above marked by the asterisk at the end is satire. This particular example of satire is a counterfactual statement and is used as a rhetorical device.

Thank you for the explanation. Frankly, I didn't recognize it as satire or as a rhetorical device. I saw it as just plain fucking moronic.

 

[Metaphor]

If you are passing legislation about sex, you damn well better know what a woman is and be willing to share your understanding.

Today I learned that refusing to engage with bad faith journalists from a tabloid rag is exactly the same as not knowing what a woman is. I am learning so much from your rage boner against nuanced gender.

I am learning so much about how much effort gender cultists will expend in avoiding answering questions about the ideology they wish to impose on others.

So you instead you get to impose your ideology on others.

Oh yes. My ideology that there are two sexes and humans cannot change sex? That isn't an ideology. Those are facts.

 

[dannyk]

XX chromosomes.

Nope.