Ultimate betrayal by the WEP

She's had a few gender critical comments to make recently, like:

"I spent 10 mins last Sat on Lewisham doorstep listening to a parent of girls worried that predatory men could access changing rooms without lawful challenge if they claimed self-ID. Telling him to snap out of it, as your tweet suggests, helps no-one & fosters anti-trans feeling"

and then from upthread:

"I've lost count of the number of conversations like this I have had w women who are not members & won't do this work with us and are then angry because it's being done too slowly. I'm sorry you have no confidence in the debate. I'm sorrier you don't want to try to do it with me"

What makes people think Sophie wants our help and has peaktransed? I've read the whole thread (quickly) but didn't notice that bit.

God that could actually happen couldn't it, a transwoman leader of WEP? could will.

Yes, I agree that Sophie has a target on her back in the WEP now.

She doesn't centre men enough for the trans lobby and has pissed off those who want to preserve women's rights.

So when the trans lobby come for her, (and they will because they always do, that's what feeds them) she'll have no allies to call on.

I'm sure a nice fella will step up and take her place though.

That's a good point Empress. I try to follow people on both sides of any given argument just so I can keep a sense of perspective on my view and what never fails to amaze me is how both sides of a polarised debate can be critical of the same thing or person.

Although radfems/gender critical women are none too happy with Sophie, I doubt that the TRAs are overly delighted with her either.

All the more reason for her to take a stand on what she really believes in and stop alienating everyone. Whichever side of the fence she jumps there are plenty who will support her and have her back.

For goddesses' sake, piss or get off the pot, Sophie!

WEP can fuck off to the far side of fuck and then fuck off some more. Their stance is unconscionable and an outright betrayal of women. They should be ashamed of themselves.

I think if I was Sophie, & being increasingly GC on Twitter, I'd be looking over my shoulder a lot. I would guess that the TRA contingent of WEP will be increasingly unhappy with her views.

I have taken this from what I have posted on Twitter.

I strongly agree with what Pam posted (page 1 of this thread, and screen grab included).

To the pickets and the protest. Susan B. Anthony said ' No self-respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party who ignores her sex'. Later Emmeline Pankhurst brought war to the parties that ignored her sex.

As knowing history is always important, the Suffragettes were challenging Liberal candidates (the party who had let them down over the Women question) at every election and talk they were present. Emmeline and many others went all over the country doing this. They were very successful in removing the vote for the Liberals. In response, Asquith gave some vague promise about a women's suffrage amendment. The Suffragettes picked up on the fact he had no intention but many women were duped into working to create support for the Liberals again.

It was only afterwards when the women's energy was no longer needed that it became clear they had been lied to. This provoked an angry militant turn. The first windows smashed were Downing Street's.

I am not suggesting that the WEP would ever get near Downing Street or be that influential. I wish to warn that there is a history of political parties dragging out and trying to exhast women over their causes. This is the WEP, don't be duped by them.

Sophie said at a WPUK meeting that she was listening to women and learning, 8 months later this motion is going to conference. The party is, in my opinion, only paying lip service to women's concerns, they don't care and don't relate to ordinary women. It is a game of ego for them maybe?

The suggestion from Pam of Mumsnet about seizing it as an oppertunity got me very excited because it is like looking at the early Suffragettes. The Mumsnet proposed tactics are the same tactics the Suffragettes adopted post the Manchester Free Trade Hall meeting 13 October 1905.

JackyHolyoak I see you on the board, I have missed you over on Twits

This is so frustrating. You had one job, Sophie. One fucking job.

As per every other time women have invited them to meetings to discuss the GRA.

They won't debate. I believe that these pro TRAs would refuse to participate if it were a debate with the gender critical view fairly represented.

I just instinctively feel that this is an opportunity.

Sophie presumably makes decisions on who gets to be invited (like the two lawyers) with other people. And maybe she is outvoted.

If we can get 200 people trekking to Brighton for a WPUK meeting, is it unrealistic to have 200 going to the conference? Would that be enough?

Perhaps WPUK and the other groups could stage meetings in the same place as WEP at that time?

NameChangedAgain18

'Non-men' was the Green Party.

Ah, right. Thanks!

Sophie Walker seemed to have a clear enough position when it came to men being allowed to stay overnight on maternity wards. I don't believe that was a policy determined by members, was it? Or maybe I'm wrong, and men started infiltrating the party earlier than I thought.

Yeah Sophie to afraid to do her job so sh3 wants us to do it

Good job Sophie.

Stop being a coward Sophie

'Non-men' was the Green Party.

Members voting on policy is one thing.

Asking people to join when a key ideological position is not clear is stupid. You have to have some sort of foundation for members to want to join and help build on. That's leadership. So if a women's equality party can't decide it's position on what a woman is, then why on earth would a thinking person throw their energy onto that mess of shifting sand?!

Was it the WEP that had 'men and non-men' in something? Anyone got a link? My brain is a dark mist this morning...

Sorry for delay, only just catching up with thread.
No I have no insider knowledge (am in Australia) just bitter experience from student politics about how middle class types use procedural motions to flummox others.

They can fuck right off as far as I’m concerned. They don’t represent me.

Now I will go back and read the rest of this thread.

I tweeted about the fact that the WEP were hosting a debate with two speakers with the same position re self ID, and Sophie came on to correct me that it was a Q&A and tried to defend holding an event to answer questions re the GRA with two lawyers who are both pro the govts proposals and so will only give one side. I think if she secretly wanted gender critical women to flood WEP, that she would have left well alone and not tried to diffuse the online reaction. But in the end we have to respond to people's actions imo, and WEP definitely did not have to approach this whole GRA debate the way that they have.

Yep, betrayal. Bye, WEP.

SonicVersusGynaephobia

Hallo sister! I could not be who I am without all you wonderful, persistent females defending our right to be the humans we are.

I will always wish the sweetest of dreams when your time for female sleep comes .. it is when we females are at our most vulnerable in our patriarchal hostile world.

Much love to you, sister ..

What would your proposal be to assist participation then? I believe one of the proposed motions is about utilising technology better. Only being able to vote at conference has come up in discussion with other members (not favourably)

WEP stands candidates for election. I’ve been out canvassing for 2 election campaigns this year (local council and MP by-election).

Women on UC have no money for any dues, or travelling costs, and cannot participate.

At least other political parties stand candidates for election.