Maya Forstater

And yet we still need fair rules for who plays in womens sports, (and also who gets to access spaces where women are vulnerable or expect bodily privacy). Addressing austerity does not seem to be an alternative to solving these issues fairly & safely, equitably for women.

And in my experience whenever women's rights (to anything) are raised someone will come along and say "that's not top priority, can't you see X is more important", as if only one issue can ever be addressed at one time. I don't think we should buy it!

If one champions women’s rights, there are far bigger issues affecting *many* women. If one cares about women’s safety, in particular, my focus would be on cuts to local government, restricting victims’ access to shelters. Or low police prosecution rates for rape.

Or low wages and precarious that curb women’s economic autonomy. Those are all big issues hugely affecting many women in Britain today, increasing their vulnerability to violence & other forms of abuse.

Sure as I said, there are many issues. I dont think it helps though to give up the word (& analysis) that reflects there is oppression affecting female people. Why redefine this group as having adopted an identity 'woman' or sharing a mystical internal feeling of womanhood?

And as I said there are a set of live questions. e.g. "Who should be allowed to play in women's sports" ....to which the answer cannot be -"That does not matter enough to have a clear debate and concern for fairness. There are bigger issues in the world"