Ultimate betrayal by the WEP

Important article published on Oxford Human Rights Hub,

'Women’s Rights and the Proposed Changes to the Gender Recognition Act'

authors,
Rosa Fredman is Professor of Law Conflict and Global Development at the University of Reading

Rosemary Auchmuty is a Professor at the University of Reading

ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/womens-rights-and-the-proposed-changes-to-the-gender-recognition-act/

thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3338716-GRA-womens-rights-great-article-by-Rosa-Freedman-Rosemary-Auchmuty

I and at least one other tweeter have tweeted Sophie Walker and the wep_uk twitter account to remind them that at least two lawyers have offered to attend the conference to balance the panel for the Q&A session they're publicising in relation to the motion on GRA reform. So far without any reaction.

Now obviously I'm not saying they should be jumping to my every wish, but, Walker has said that WEP support for the GRA motion is not a "done deal" and she wants a full debate. So, it will be very much a litmus test for me; if the offers to balance the Q&A panel are not taken up, it will be very hard indeed for me to trust that WEP really did want an open discussion on the motion.

I continue to think that there is so much SCOPE here.

Either blunt entryism or a more nuanced takeover. Forming a political party is often talked about on these boards as so many women are politically homeless. Here is a ready formed one with a limited number of people attending conference and voting, many of whom are probably secretly gender critical. Ripe for the taking. And even if the TRAs decided to fight back it would make fantastic media copy and peak trans another chunk of society.

I did look up their website to see if I can join and propose a motion myself, but alas they had to be submitted by early July.

I did also look at the reasons that they might reject a motion at that stage and one of them is that the motion does not confirm to party objectives. Which makes Sophie's tweets look even more disingenuous TBH in respect of the self ID motion.

The difference, Lass - or in principle, at least, is that conference delegates in the larger parties are usually chosen by their constituency parties to represent the constituency party, not themselves as individuals. Labour also has affiliate delegates, also chosen usually by union branches.

The WEP is simply saying to its members: if you can afford to come, you can have a delegate vote.

Very different.

can men join the WEP - Google Search
www.google.com/amp/s/www.buzzfeed.com/amphtml/emilyashton/we-asked-six-men-why-they-joined-the-womens-equality-party#ampf=undefined

Six men saying why they joined the WEP.

I've never attended a party conference of any party but surely at a conference motions will be debated and possibly amended on the hoof?

If that is the case how could there possibly be a vote on them other than by the delegates attending?

I don't know about conference motions, but my neighbour had a postal vote in the last Labour leadership elections

I used to be a member of the Labour Party. I was emailed voting papers for leadership and NEC membership positions. I have never been given the option to vote on conference motions online.

I am now a member of the Conservative Party and likewise I have never had the option of voting for conference motions online.

Much as I think the WEP is utterly ridiculous (and have done so since its inception) this aspect is not a fair criticism as it is standard for other mainstream political parties.

Yes voting for the WEP leadership was all online. Members were emailed links. Voting on conference motions is in person though. At the moment.

If there’s no evidence of the “checking members are women” thing and it’s just hearsay, can we please stop perpetuating it? The party is not single-sex membership, as an active member I’ve met men campaigning for us in elections and participating in debate events, respectfully and pro-women-ly. I really don’t see a tactic to prevent men voting at conference.

(Had to really carefully avoid using the phrase “male member” typing that )

The discussion was about why do members have to attend conference to vote. Which was contested by women who can't attend conference, at the time WEP was being set up.
Some of us were around at that time and actively involved in the women's groups that WEP canvassed.

Yes voting for the WEP leadership was all online. Members were emailed links. Voting on conference motions is in person though. At the moment.

If there’s no evidence of the “checking members are women” thing and it’s just hearsay, can we please stop perpetuating it? The party is not single-sex membership, as an active member I’ve met men campaigning for us in elections and participating in debate events, respectfully and pro-women-ly. I really don’t see a tactic to prevent men voting at conference.

(Had to really carefully avoid using the phrase “male member” typing that )

Again, does anyone have evidence of this “we can see they are women voting” statement please?

Not everything from the past is archived online. At the time WEP was set up, there were concerns that men would join pretending to be women, to sabotage the party. Those concerns were not unfounded.

I don’t know, Acorn, and I don’t agree with it personally, but conspiracy theories don’t help. Do you have evidence of the assertion that “so we can check they are women” was stated?

Do other parties allow members to vote on conference motions if they’re not in attendance? I genuinely don’t know.

For the WEP to see that their policies disproportionately exclude working class women they would have to see us as women. WEP, Guardian., Labour, would rather have prolific peadophiles classes as marginalised women than recognise us as existing.

Cwenthryth, my reason for not trusting WEP now is that Sophie didn't invite us to come & help shape policy when we wanted to support WEP but were worried about Tara Hudson. Once we finally managed to get her attention she told us that transwomen were women & buggered off.

Again, does anyone have evidence of this “we can see they are women voting” statement please? Especially before more people go off analysing it? It’s quite at odds with my experience of the party and understanding as a member. WE is not a women-only membership and all members can attend and vote.

I wish I could remember who it was but at the time of Ruth Serwotka setting up the Social Feminist Network a well known TRA, someone like Natacha Kennedy, Roz Kaveney or Tara Hewitt tweeted to their followers that they would just join any new women's party and change things from within like WEP and cite discrimination law if it was women only.

One of the key policies that I like about WEP is their support for the Nordic Model. However, if the motion for WEP to support gender self-id passes, I anticipate a U-change re the Nordic Model. With an influx of TRAs, there is no doubt in my mind, that this time next year the WEP will be spouting a ‘sex work is work’ policy.

Totally agree. I'm surprised they have managed to keep the position this long.

WEP are like a dog in a manger. Absolutely no intention of helping women gain equality but they mop up the time, money and resources of women who do. And by occupying this space they make it harder for a real WEP to exist.''

Yep and the posh women who wanyt the WEP to bolster their self image will tell the poor women who are losing their rights, at risk, being harmed, to shut up about it because it injures their identity to hear that womenb are suffering and all of a sudden you have another bunch of sticks to assist in hitting women while rights are rolled back.

Yep, only conference attendees voting, that's a big concern of the other members I've talked about this with. How do other parties manage this (do other parties allow members to vote in this way at their conferences anyway?). I believe there is a motion at conference about utilising technology better. I've not had time to go through them all in detail yet. We voted online for the party leadership contest (happy to disclose that I voted for the other woman, btw!). Votes would need to be after the debates though - but a combination of live streaming and delayed voting could achieve that I'm sure.

Low-income membership is available at £1.96/month (or £24/year) btw. There is also a fund for subsidised places/financial assistance for attending conference which can be applied for on an individual basis - for low-income members, or if members would need to employ relief carers etc. There is a clear effort to be more inclusive. It's not perfect, but some posters here seem to be intimating an attitude of wilful exclusion, which just isn't the truth.

I don't know where this "so we can see they are actually women" idea has come from - do you have any evidence of that? WEP membership is not limited to women anyway, and never was AFAIK. I know men who are members (as in adult human males, who don't identify as women). Most active members I've met have not been huge gender stereotype conformers.

It does feel like there's a lot of smearing going on on social media (well, I only (try to) keep up with here and occasionally Twitter) from people outside the party looking in. That's why I try to post on here, to give the pov/experience of an actual member.

Timing of branch meetings is always going to be a challenge to find a time that suits everyone. I couldn't make our last one and probably can't make the next one either. I'm still trying to stay involved in the local branch.