Someone was always going to try this

A local Labour party has suspended a man who previously made it onto the list of candidates for women’s officer because he “identifies as a woman on Wednesdays”, under their “self-id” rules.

In order to stand for the women-only position, the candidate has to self-identify as a woman, but there are no other stipulations about gender.

David Lewis, a Labour activist, told the Spectator he identifies as a woman “on Wednesdays, between 6.50am when my alarm goes off and around midnight when I go to bed.”

Some feminist activists have raised concerns about self-identification, arguing it could cause men to stand on the all-women shortlists the Labour uses to improve gender equality. They have tried to bring a legal challenge against the party, saying where transgender women do not hold a gender recognition certificate, they should not be allowed to stand in posts the law reserves for women.

Mr Lewis said he stood as candidate to: “inform the CLP, and maybe some other people, about what this policy means, about what happens when you say that someone’s gender depends only on what they say and nothing else.”

He added: “anyone else’s criticism or questions about my gender identity are just not relevant to the Labour Party at the moment, given the current policy. If I say I’m a woman, I’m a woman.”

And of course no one is happy that he’s exposed the contradictions in the policy. Everyone would rather he just shut up.

If it is possible to gain privilege through simple self-identification then people will self-identify in order to gain privilege. You know, incentives matter?

49 comments on “Someone was always going to try this

  1. Are these the same morons who legislated to make hate crime a specific offence, based purely on the subject choosing to identify it as hate crime?

  2. Self identification is the key to the socialist utopia – there is nothing here to mock.

    Self identify as rich and you are rich! Self identify as in good health and you are healthy! Self identify as being under a benevolent socialist government and you will recognise all the lies promulgated about Venezuela.

    So you see to self identify makes the world a better place. How can you not believe it!

  3. Some feminist activists have raised concerns about self-identification, fearing that their enemies might use the process exactly as they intended it, namely as a means of making a nuisance of themselves and generally being a bit of a c*nt

  4. I think I’ll self identify as a Grade 1 listed building so I don’t have to pay VAT on anything needed to maintain me in my current state of repair.

  5. Given the wide range of privileges afforded to women, especially by government and the courts, I’m surprised that more blokes don’t self-identify as women. However, an enterprising geezer in Argentina recently got the ball rolling, as it were.

    An Argentinian man has recently been accused of changing both his gender and his name so he could retire at the age of 60, instead of 65.

    http://www.odditycentral.com/news/argentinian-man-legally-changes-gender-so-he-can-allegedly-retire-sooner.html

  6. An Argentinian man has recently been accused of changing both his gender and his name so he could retire at the age of 60, instead of 65.

    Note also that the headline says ‘legally’. So someone is ‘accused’ of doing something legally.

    That’s the problem with joke laws created to push the Progressive narrative and other lunacies – they are absurdly vague and intended to be applied or not applied subjectively, solely on political criteria.

  7. “By 2050 one person will die every three seconds if we don’t tackle antibiotic resistance”

    Public Health will be delighted – non-communicable diseases will fall behind infections and communicable diseases again. Trebles all round!

  8. Me failing it, obivously! Oh well, I couldn’t read it anyway (paywall).

    I’ll stick with the popcorn and this one.

  9. So why have they suspended him? Because he admitted he was simply making a point?

    Whereas if he genuinely had been barking (or in his case “a woman on a Wednesday”), then that would have been absolutely hunky dory. and the Labour party would have whole heartedly endorsed his application?

  10. I’ve got a reasonable death rate of 10 people every 3 seconds (10 billion at 100 years, so 100 million deaths a year, divide by 365, then 24, then 60, then 20, nine point something) and a 10% increase from a lack of antibiotics seems reasonable to me.

    Of course, someone should check my numbers. I get lost among zeros…..

  11. Indeed, Tim. It was me failing it first off, seeing the 3 on my calculator (rather than 1/3 – one every 3 seconds), and coming to an unreasonable conclusion.. More coffee needed.

  12. Apols for multiple posts, but the Speccy has more here:

    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/05/meet-the-man-standing-to-be-a-labour-party-womens-officer/

    My womanness is expressed by my saying ‘I self identify as a woman’ now and again on Wednesdays. I make no changes in my behaviour or my appearance. I keep my name, David and my male pronouns. I wear the same sort of clothes I wear the rest of the week. I keep my beard. I enjoy the full womanness of my beard.

  13. It makes a mockery of the “white privilege” nonsense because people try to pass às the more privileged class, not the lesser. So instead of high coloreds passing as white we now have men passing as women and whites passing as blacks. So that’s where the real privilege is.

  14. @PF: “So why have they suspended him? Because he admitted he was simply making a point? “

    Probably falling foul of this attempt at patching the loophole, instead of fixing what caused the loophole in the first place:

    “Anyone attempting to breach Labour Party rules and subvert the intention of All Women Shortlists, women’s officers or minimum quotas for women will be dealt with via our established safeguards, selection procedures and disciplinary measures”

  15. PJH – ““Anyone attempting to breach Labour Party rules and subvert the intention of All Women Shortlists, women’s officers or minimum quotas for women will be dealt with via our established safeguards, selection procedures and disciplinary measures””

    Hard to prove isn’t it? How do they show intent? Are they going to punish anyone obviously laughing at them? Anyone they think is laughing at them?

    I identify as a member of Anopheles gambiae and I demand an end to Bill Gates’ incitement of hatred and campaign of genocide against me and my kind.

  16. Or for those of you who speak sub-American it facilitates running the numbers going forward.

  17. If you don’t stop people drinking, one person will die every three seconds.

    If we stop people from drinking, one person will die every three seconds.

    We may as well drink.

    h/t Taras Bulba

  18. We must not miss the serious point in all this horseshit.

    “Self-Identifying” is brazenly shoving Marxist subjectivist evil into people’s faces.

    It is a direct attack on fact and reality. The claim is being made that there is no truth other than what leftist shite declare is true. And that any other claims are wicked white male bigotry. Thus 2+2=5 if the scum of cultural Marxism tell you it does.

    If they can get such madness through the door, vast evil will flow from it. Which is why the cunts are making the attempt.

    Remember we have already had claims from femmi-shite that courts, proof, witnesses are white male patriarchy and that if some femoid feelz you attacked her then you did and the fact that you might have been on TV in front of millions 25000 miles away at the time is irrelevant.

    Again had we a PM worth anything instead of the BluTurd we do, doors should be kicked in , heads split open and testicles hammered into the pavement. But most fuckwits–including the shite floating at the top–don’t even see the danger of what is going on.

  19. I self identify as a cup of coffee and wish to object about the genocide of my people every morning.

  20. @ SMFS
    It can be really difficult to be sure whether or not someone is taking the mickey – my guess is that David Lewis *was* taking the mickey but I am nearly as confident the reason why someone stopped talking to me on Saturday is that he *thought* I was taking the mickey when I gave an honest answer to an unexpected question.

  21. Irrespective of the obvious lunacy of this situation, how is a person engaged to understand and empathise with the life problems faced by persons who have a snatch between their legs able to do that when they were born with a cock (even if it has since been removed).

  22. John,

    my guess is that David Lewis *was* taking the mickey

    I am not sure there is any real question as to what his intent was?

    He is standing for a woman’s job to make a point about what can happen to women when rules that affect them and their rights are made and enforced on the basis of blind dogma, not balanced debate. “We need to be able to debate this, we need to be able to talk about this without being told we are transphobic and to shut up,” David says, before adding:

    “I completely understand the problems that trans people face and I can see the case for reforming a system that some people find difficult and undignified. But I think we have to have a proper debate where both sides are heard and there are people who raising valid questions who are not being heard. In the end, we need to have a compromise. And a good compromise is one where both sides are equally unhappy.”

    Does he think there is any chance he might actually win his election and end up being elected as women’s officer? “I am hoping that my local party will be sensible.”

    What does seem bonkers to me is that, if he had been just slightly more serious “on a Wednesday”, then that would have been quite OK with the local party!

  23. Meanwhile, at the ‘Guardian’ (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/23/woman-wednesdays-transphobic-labour-trans):

    “…these stunts by anti-trans campaigners won’t derail the much-needed improvement of the Gender Recognition Act, because they are fundamentally misstating the self-declaration process proposed by the reform.

    Self-declaration is not a frivolous process. Making a false statutory declaration is a serious crime of perjury. Evidence of malicious intent, whether it be to invade women’s safe spaces or to try to make a mockery of the very real struggles that trans people face to live their lives as who they are, could rightfully lead to severe penalties including up to two years in prison.”

    Two years in the Big House for pointing out the insanity of the proposed system?

    Kafka, to the white courtesy telephone!

  24. The tyrannical shite has to be halted.: 6 years for saying nasty stuff about the Beard boys. Ditto 2 years for trans-fantasists.

    No.

    They haven’t announced the consultation about this Gender 2004 revision. The instant they do it will be time to get at the bastards as with the Sentencing council pukes.( I hope everybody is telling those vermin what they can do with their shite “guidelines”).

  25. And another thing, the whole concept of centrally imposed short lists is anti-democratic anyway.

  26. RlJ, it worked for Hillary. The Dems established Super Delegates to make sure she won the primary.

    No one is less democratic than the democrats.

  27. and as a Liverpool fan too.. (one doesn’t actually need to have been to Anfield, or bought the scarf..)

  28. JuliaM – “Two years in the Big House for pointing out the insanity of the proposed system?”

    Fascism is always descending on America but landing on Europe. Although it is not fair to call this sh!t Fascist.

    What problem was so bad that this was required as a solution?

  29. “What problem was so bad that this was required as a solution?”

    A 40% suicide rate.

    Although in this case, I agree the proposal is not a good solution.

  30. Evidence of malicious intent, whether it be to invade women’s safe spaces

    Given that the legislation permits men to “self-identify” and do precisely this, the author of the article is somewhat confused.

  31. NiV – “A 40% suicide rate.”

    Indulging people’s insanity is not a solution. Unhappy fat sexually dysfunctional people are unhappy, fat, and sexually dysfunctional because they are unhappy, fat, and sexually dysfunctional. They will not stop being unhappy, fat and sexually dysfunctional because we tell them they are their Daddy’s little Princesses.

  32. “A 40% suicide rate.”

    Whats the suicide rate for those with mental illness again?

    (Hint: more than 90% of suicides and suicide attempts having been found to be associated with a psychiatric disorder – Hawton, K., Houston, K., Haw, C., Townsend, E. & Harriss, L. (2003))

  33. JuliaM

    I note that comments are not permitted on that article – the great Mark Steyn ran a brilliant piec on what happened to the Boy Scouts in the US

    https://www.steynonline.com/8631/scouts-honor

    As he points out – if standing up to ‘Big gay’ takes courage, standing up to ‘Big Trans’ in the current climate would be akin to the White Rose…

  34. “Given that the legislation permits men to “self-identify” and do precisely this, the author of the article is somewhat confused.”

    Given that they’ve been doing that legally since the Equality Act 2010 was passed, and since anyone “of malicious intent” has been able to do that since the century before last because the doors are not generally locked, besides all the other places where men and women are left alone together, I think everyone is somewhat confused.

    “Indulging people’s insanity is not a solution.”

    I wasn’t proposing we indulge your insanity. You’re entitled to your opinions, but the medical/psychiatric profession begs to differ.

    “Whats the suicide rate for those with mental illness again?”

    The suicide rate among TGs is driven primarily by social acceptance. TGs whose families and friends are tolerant and accepting of it, and who are not brought up to see it as a matter for shame and self-hatred, are massively less likely to suicide than those surrounded by the intolerant. There are lots of statistics on that, which I’ve posted here before, but since nobody reads them, or believes them, there’s not much point in doing it again, is there?

    They’re not mentally ill, any more than homosexuals are (and who were likewise once thought to be so). They’re just the victims of bullying and persecution – and as I think everyone knows, they’ve got a high suicide rate, too.

    “As he points out – if standing up to ‘Big gay’ takes courage, standing up to ‘Big Trans’ in the current climate would be akin to the White Rose…”

    Wrong side, I think. The White Rose were *opposed* to the guys handing out pink triangles…

  35. “Always the last word, NiV. Always the last word. Perhaps that’s why you’ll win.”

    🙂 Duty calls…

    Are you playing “Get the last word in”, then? I don’t think that counts as a valid argument – just because a comment is the last made doesn’t imply it’s correct!

    As far as I’m concerned, you keep going for as long as it interests you, and you’ve got something more to say. It’s not a competition; it’s primarily a way to pass the time, a form of entertainment. It’s not like it really matters that someone somewhere on the internet disagrees with you, is it?

    You guys sometimes argue for free speech and freedom of belief when it comes to expressing unpopular opinions in public debate. No political correctness, no “safe spaces” where dissenting opinions that might offend or upset people are excluded, no speech codes, no limits (bar actual harm) on what’s “acceptable” for people to say. If they disagree with your “hate speech” they can and should argue with it, but they shouldn’t ban it or shout it down. I agree with all that.

    But this is what that policy looks like. It means people get to disagree with you, and point out when you’re wrong. Argue with them (if you can), but trying to stop it happening is hypocrisy.

    And perhaps also, understanding the merits and purpose of free debate in society, consider also whether to follow Oliver Cromwell’s advice to the general assembly of the Church of Scotland: “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.”

  36. @ Van Patten

    Thanks for linking my article… but uhh… no? At no point dod i think he should be arrested for this. But we should all recognise people who are taking advantage of the systems and protections put in place for minorities and then proceed to laugh at them for being idiots.

    For example, if you steal your gran’s blue badge to go get yourself some sweet disabled parking? You deserve to be laughed at by society, hard. We should all recognise that you’re an asshole taking support and protections from people who need it far more than you do. That’s all I recommended with my article.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.