Talk

Advanced search

Page 8 | 50:50 Parliament Campaign to Encourage Women in Politics now have TWO Transwomen on the Panel

(1000 Posts)

MNHQ have commented on this thread.

gardenbird48 Mon 15-Feb-21 18:28:27

I saw 50:50 women tweet to Sue Pascoe Chair of the Conservative Women’s Organisation some time ago on their #askhertostand, but then I couldn’t find the tweet and thought maybe they’d realised their mistake (can you guess?) and deleted it.

However, how wrong I was! There are now two people that have extremely limited ‘lived experience’ as a female (Sue was a married father and successful businessman and Master to Foxhounds until a few years ago). The other person has said hi on here recently.

I don’t mean to be rude but surely the whole point of encouraging women to stand for Parliament is to help overcome the barriers women face in entering politics. Any barriers that trans people face are rather different. It is also interesting that on a panel of three for their ‘Encouraging LGBT+ Women to Stand’ campaign, there us only one person with actual lived experience of being a woman (I am hoping that Mandu Reid of the WEP was born female at least...??)

OP’s posts: |
candycane222 Tue 16-Feb-21 10:37:12

So as a cis woman, I can apply to represent TW on panels, paid posts as a rep, etc, and if I'm rejected, presumably I can complain about being subjected to anti-cis bigotry and hate?

Helmetbymidnight Tue 16-Feb-21 10:40:38

Not usually a strike.

Its often those who pretend to be "listening the most to women" are the ones who do the most policing of women, isn't it.

The idea that the way to increase women's representation in politics is to actively decrease women's representation on panels is absurd.

all involved should be ashamed of themselves.

RozWatching Tue 16-Feb-21 10:45:04

Allison Bailey would be the perfect person for the 50:50 LGBT+ women's panel. Or Linda Bellos. Or Joanna Cherry. Or - actually - any number of amazing lesbian women who have overcome a LIFETIME of sexism, misogyny and homophobia to have their voices heard.

Labour, Lib dem and SNP representatives are tbc. With a bit of luck the panel lineup could still be 50:50.

SheGonBringThatAttitudeHome2 Tue 16-Feb-21 10:45:39

I'm a bit late to this Swiss cheese party.

I wonder what is being said on this thread that must not be heard?

If anyone has managed to actually read some of these posts before they were deleted would they be kind enough to send me a PM to give me the gist of what I'm not allowed to see - I'd be very grateful.

DodoPatrol Tue 16-Feb-21 10:49:16

Even by the wildest estimates and even by the rhetoric of TWAW, males are a titchy proportion of 'women', well under 1% . So let's have the Women in Politics representation at least 99% birth-female. Doesn't seem much to ask.

You could actually do a lot of good there by seeing the point and stepping back gracefully, Robin. If you claim to represent me, that's what I'd like to see.

BaronessWrongCrowd Tue 16-Feb-21 10:49:19

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

BuntingEllacott Tue 16-Feb-21 10:51:08

SheGonBringThatAttitudeHome2

I'm a bit late to this Swiss cheese party.

I wonder what is being said on this thread that must not be heard?

If anyone has managed to actually read some of these posts before they were deleted would they be kind enough to send me a PM to give me the gist of what I'm not allowed to see - I'd be very grateful.

Most appear to have been deleted for outlining why the sex of the two people on the panel is a problem, and not demurring to one of the panel members who posted on the thread by being coy about what sex said panel member is. Hope that's clear enough to explain and not merit a deletion.

littlbrowndog Tue 16-Feb-21 10:51:20

I would like to see that dodo

Imnobody4 Tue 16-Feb-21 10:52:37

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

JosephineBaker Tue 16-Feb-21 10:53:08

SheGonBringThatAttitudeHome2

* After the 50:50 event where Sal Brinton of the Lib Dem’s said they’d be happy with a parliament that was 50% men and 50% TW and no one disagrees*

Ah, but what if the question was: would they be happy with a parliament that was 50% women and 50% trans*men*?

I bet there would be some backpedaling then.

I don’t think there would be backpedaling.

It think they’d say “yes, and that proves how much TWAW and TMAM. That’s you told, you bigots.”

Because they are secure in the knowledge it would NEVER happen. Ever. They won’t let the natal women be anywhere close to 50% and they aren’t interested in transmen except where they’re useful to TWAW.

Datun Tue 16-Feb-21 10:54:13

The idea that the way to increase women's representation in politics is to actively decrease women's representation on panels is absurd.

It's not just absurd, it's offensive. And it's not just offensive, it's actively dangerous for women.

We won the vote for political representation. To have that representation taken away by pretending humans can change sex is a masterstroke.

SheGonBringThatAttitudeHome2 Tue 16-Feb-21 10:55:27

Thank you for those replies.

I would support an accurate representation in parliament of approximately half women half men and something like 2% of MPs being trans.

Yeah, arithmetic is not my strong point but I'm sure you'll get my drift.

SheGonBringThatAttitudeHome2 Tue 16-Feb-21 11:00:25

Yes Josephine you have a good point.

I think it's really telling that the question was put that way.

Commentators talk about "trans people" all the time but it's really obvious to me that they do not ever have trans men in mind. That group are off the radar during most of the trans debates.

Winesalot Tue 16-Feb-21 11:04:24

SheGonBringThatAttitudeHome2

I think most reasonable people would support that proportional representation. Yet... it has never been suggested by the lobbyists. I wonder why.......

MichelleofzeResistance Tue 16-Feb-21 11:17:16

Deletions, and I have a strike, for trying to explain (despite carefully jumping through language hoops to try and stay in the guidelines while I do so) why something I'm not allowed to talk about is harmful to me as a member of a group I'm not allowed to name.

gardenbird48 Tue 16-Feb-21 11:21:58

MichelleofzeResistance

Deletions, and I have a strike, for trying to explain (despite carefully jumping through language hoops to try and stay in the guidelines while I do so) why something I'm not allowed to talk about is harmful to me as a member of a group I'm not allowed to name.

Eek that’s super frustrating Michelle - we need you :-))

OP’s posts: |
Barracker Tue 16-Feb-21 11:24:55

I know some are still willing to take what they see as reasonable compromises with language. But honestly, when we pretend that it's ok for some men to be called 'transwomen', that use of the word 'woman' right there in relation to a man is all it takes to render the truth invisible and impossible to reassert.

We end up trying to argue about a somethingwoman representing us, when the truth is, it's just a man.

We end up arguing the case for somethingwomen to argue for their own increased representation, a bit like the otherwomen - us. But what we're actually doing is arguing for more men. This is insane.

Men don't need extra representation of a certain type of man. There are already too many men. Far too many. If men who don't like certain sartorial choices, or who don't have certain personality types think it vital to cede places to men who do, have at it, men. I don't think that's an important characteristic, but you can fight your own battles amongst yourselves.

There's only one antidote to the situation we find ourselves in, and it's brutally plain speech. So it's no coincidence that laws are springing up and policies being written and public platforms enacting censorship to prevent anyone from using it.

Men are men. We need to be able to say "this is a man, he's simply a man" whether the man dislikes us saying it or not.
Truth, fairness and dignity demand it.

Couching words in euphemisms and lies is rendering it impossible to cut to the truth.

Men are representing women.
Men are taking women's places.
Men are dictating the language women can use.
Men are breaching women's boundaries.
Men are rewriting rules for what women may and may not do.

And yet, we are forbidden from pointing to a single man who is doing this and stating "He is a man".

It doesn't matter if a man thinks me rude or hurtful for referencing him as the man that he is. It's vital that the truth is used.

No amount of his hurt feelings at us both knowing that he's a man can measure up against the monstrous injustice enacted upon women in forcing us to pretend he's any kind of a woman. It's psychological torture and well he knows it.

Ironic that I should try to say this here on Mumsnet, where it's a bannable offence to actually tell a specific named man that he's a man, if he forbids me to.

I'm only allowed to generalise. I'm permitted to say 'all males are men', but not 'this male here is a man'.

So here's a challenge, RobinMoiraWhite.

Extend your explicit permission to the women on Mumsnet to state the truth which is so unpalatable to you. Tell MNHQ that they should not censor or ban women for knowing and saying what you are in relation to your sex. Either to you directly, or about you. If you allow women to talk to you in the framework of naming reality, we can meet on this forum as equals.
We can debate as equals.
Because right now, we are not. You are the opposite sex to me, and you are also in possession of the power to have me banned and censored if I challenge you with the truth.

I cannot have you censored and banned for calling yourself a woman. Nor would I. I would rather successfully argue my case why you are not.
But you can have me censored and banned for calling you a man.
Waive your power to do that. You shouldn't have that power.

Other men who still call themselves transwomen have extended their 'permission' to allow women to refer to them as the men they are. It shouldn't be lost on you that we're in a situation of such a power imbalance that women require a man's permission to call him a man.

So. If you see women as your equals, I'm asking you to waive your right to censor us. If you believe in the power of honest debate, you will cede your power to have women banned for stating the truth.

You will call yourself what you wish.
And we will refer to you in our own honest, civil and fair terms.

Then we can meet as equals.

What do you say?

RedToothBrush Tue 16-Feb-21 11:26:12

The gaslighting is spectacular.

'If we listen to each other' whilst the one party with a platform on a political level and actual power is also simultaneously dismissing everything we say elsewhere on social media as irrelevant 'fuzzy notions' and saying their experiences were appalling (but not even acknowledging its possible for us to have dreadful life experiences).

Why should be accept this as looking anything like 'representation'? Its just not. Its talking at us and over us. Whilst also claiming to be our voice.

Representation means reflecting what the general feeling in the group you are representing are saying not delegitimising it as unimportant hysterical nonsense because you say so.

littlbrowndog Tue 16-Feb-21 11:29:06

Great post barracker

Datun Tue 16-Feb-21 11:31:01

Barracker

I know some are still willing to take what they see as reasonable compromises with language. But honestly, when we pretend that it's ok for some men to be called 'transwomen', that use of the word 'woman' right there in relation to a man is all it takes to render the truth invisible and impossible to reassert.

We end up trying to argue about a somethingwoman representing us, when the truth is, it's just a man.

We end up arguing the case for somethingwomen to argue for their own increased representation, a bit like the otherwomen - us. But what we're actually doing is arguing for more men. This is insane.

Men don't need extra representation of a certain type of man. There are already too many men. Far too many. If men who don't like certain sartorial choices, or who don't have certain personality types think it vital to cede places to men who do, have at it, men. I don't think that's an important characteristic, but you can fight your own battles amongst yourselves.

There's only one antidote to the situation we find ourselves in, and it's brutally plain speech. So it's no coincidence that laws are springing up and policies being written and public platforms enacting censorship to prevent anyone from using it.

Men are men. We need to be able to say "this is a man, he's simply a man" whether the man dislikes us saying it or not.
Truth, fairness and dignity demand it.

Couching words in euphemisms and lies is rendering it impossible to cut to the truth.

Men are representing women.
Men are taking women's places.
Men are dictating the language women can use.
Men are breaching women's boundaries.
Men are rewriting rules for what women may and may not do.

And yet, we are forbidden from pointing to a single man who is doing this and stating "He is a man".

It doesn't matter if a man thinks me rude or hurtful for referencing him as the man that he is. It's vital that the truth is used.

No amount of his hurt feelings at us both knowing that he's a man can measure up against the monstrous injustice enacted upon women in forcing us to pretend he's any kind of a woman. It's psychological torture and well he knows it.

Ironic that I should try to say this here on Mumsnet, where it's a bannable offence to actually tell a specific named man that he's a man, if he forbids me to.

I'm only allowed to generalise. I'm permitted to say 'all males are men', but not 'this male here is a man'.

So here's a challenge, RobinMoiraWhite.

Extend your explicit permission to the women on Mumsnet to state the truth which is so unpalatable to you. Tell MNHQ that they should not censor or ban women for knowing and saying what you are in relation to your sex. Either to you directly, or about you. If you allow women to talk to you in the framework of naming reality, we can meet on this forum as equals.
We can debate as equals.
Because right now, we are not. You are the opposite sex to me, and you are also in possession of the power to have me banned and censored if I challenge you with the truth.

I cannot have you censored and banned for calling yourself a woman. Nor would I. I would rather successfully argue my case why you are not.
But you can have me censored and banned for calling you a man.
Waive your power to do that. You shouldn't have that power.

Other men who still call themselves transwomen have extended their 'permission' to allow women to refer to them as the men they are. It shouldn't be lost on you that we're in a situation of such a power imbalance that women require a man's permission to call him a man.

So. If you see women as your equals, I'm asking you to waive your right to censor us. If you believe in the power of honest debate, you will cede your power to have women banned for stating the truth.

You will call yourself what you wish.
And we will refer to you in our own honest, civil and fair terms.

Then we can meet as equals.

What do you say?

Seconded.

Robin, here is your opportunity to listen. Are you going to do it?

TheBuffster Tue 16-Feb-21 11:32:16

*Why should be accept this as looking anything like 'representation'? Its just not. Its talking at us and over us. Whilst also claiming to be our voice.*
Amen.

Gibbonsgibbonsgibbons Tue 16-Feb-21 11:34:20

Barracker YES!!!

SheGonBringThatAttitudeHome2 Tue 16-Feb-21 11:34:42

Thank you Barracker for yet another excellent post.

This sentence is particularly true and chilling:

You are the opposite sex to me, and you are also in possession of the power to have me banned and censored if I challenge you with the truth.

(Only yesterday I was telling someone dear to me about pronouns/rohypnol and so I'd like to thank you for that too. xx)

Flapjak Tue 16-Feb-21 11:37:19

All women! How about just women, as that included, lesbian women, bisexual women, black women, brown women, white women, working class women. And maybe am not up with the language but so women usually say they are gay these days? I thought the G was for men in regards to LGB etc etc

CaraDuneRedux Tue 16-Feb-21 11:37:28

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

This thread is not accepting new messages.