Ultimate betrayal by the WEP

I said this to Sophie on Twitter when she said I hadn't got it quite right about the debate being one sided, as it was just the Q&A with legal experts that's one sided (!); basically they want the feminists there to be bulldozed. They want any concerns raised to be met with a legal argument that will likely be difficult for any non-legal experts to challenge, especially when both experts will be agreeing with everything they each say. As informed as we all are, I know I have had to google like mad sometimes when debating with a lawyer on twitter in order to challenge their points (which I have usually done successfully but only after I could clarify certain points/get more info). So it is not just one-sided, but a clear attempt to bulldoze those with valid concerns.

But the WEP is a lost cause, I mean think about it, these women actually think that the way to challenge gender stereotypes is to uphold gender identity, which says that gender is innate and that most people are cisgender - i.e. most people innately are the gender imposed on them. And to not be cisgender you have to identify as having the wrong innate gender. All they are doing is upholding gender stereotypes, and thus female oppression and male violence. We should challenge them where we can. It's so dangerous that a so-called woman's party is doing this.

If I recall correctly from one of the Jess Bradley threads, one of the lawyers speaking at the conference is co-founder of TELI i.e. works or has worked with Bradley. (Sorry I haven't time to reference it but I think it came up towards the end of the first thread.)

So I'm sorry for sounding negative but it sounds to me like the entryism might have already happened.

How hard would it have been to arrange a gender critical speaker?

Apologies haven't read the whole thread

However Sophie Walker has just tweeted this:

"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"

I am hugely pissed off with them but I have had a sneaking suspicion for a while that she does not buy into this trans ID crap and perhaps an entryist approach is not a bad idea. I can't go to the conference but I'd chip in to helping someone else join/go. If enough people went the motion could be defeated and arguments made to change minds and the policy of the WEP. I don't know if we could raise our own motion.

We have every right to be angry but we need to be clever as well.

Sophie Walker is on twitter trying to justify having 2 pro self ID lawyers platformed on a talk on the GRA with no opposing views platformed.

She's not very convincing I have to say.

Quite.

When a trans whistleblower takes to Twitter to tell the world that trans organisations have been covering up the abusive conduct of fetishist cross-dressers, you just know that ...possibly ...maybe.... this might not be the time to vote this motion through.

But a little bit of me does think that this motion getting defeated would be a really useful symbolic "win

This^ until the motion gets voted through, I am going to remain hopeful. Surely, surely most people won't vote for it? And voting only.at the conference could be a good thing in preventing the vote being nobbled.

Yeah, on Twitter the Lambeth branch supported the transwoman who beat up Maria MacLachlan.

No support for Maria, however.

It wasn't one rogue tweet. That is what they actually think.

When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.

Don't expend any energy on them.

I'm a member of WEP and I'm going to the conference.

I'm deeply disappointed on their position on trans issues and the protection of women's spaces. I had such high hopes for them.

NotMeOhNo Is that something you know from evidence outside of this thread?

If so:
"Unsafe discussion" = "inconvenient truths some people would rather not be spoken" (by women).

The use of 'safe' in this context is disturbing, given that most debate and current opposition to proposed changes in the law, and to the apparent trans-zeitgeist is focused on protecting the physical privacy, dignity and safety of females.

Unsafe discussion?

Safe for the penis owners' feelings. Unsafe for women.

The title Women's Equality Party is a lie.

‘Unsafe discussion’

There’s a chilling phrase

The TRAs will move a procedural motion before this motion is discussed to formalise/limit speakers and/or to prevent "unsafe" discussion. Honestly. I'd just walk away at this point. It will be too frustrating. This Sophie character sounds like a cowardly fool.

@JackyHolyoake is there anything equivalent for London? I looked at the London network and seems really inactive?

I'd love to vote for a GC party. No-one else appears to be safeguarding the rights of women and children. I know this is a motion and not policy, and I get that this is a chance to debate, but even so. I would have thought this was the one party where this needn't be entertained.

Nope only members attending conference get to vote to pass motions or not.

(Not happy about that either)

Do WEP members that can't/don't attend conference get to vote on the motions, does anyone know?

I'm not a member right now, and am pretty sure WEP are a lost cause on the kool aid front. But a little bit of me does think that this motion getting defeated would be a really useful symbolic "win". So that little bit of me is wondering about joining, to vote against it.

Passports can already have their sex changed without a GRC. As long as the person can get a doctor to write a letter saying it's a permanent change.

So now I see why so few people bother to get a GRC....self ID is already happening in practice, even if it doesn't have a legal standing

I was PICO'ing several clinical papers recently (you pick out the Participants, Intervention, Comparator and Outcomes) and I was specifically wondering about this as you have to identify whether the participants are:
Male;
Female;
Male and Female.

Lots of the screening approaches to clinical trials depend on tightly-controlled age, reproductive status, sex etc.

It will be interesting if Self-ID is implemented everywhere except for research exemptions. Because some trial recruiters more or less do some checks by taking a look at your Photo ID (passports etc.) but if those can be changed...

It will be satisfying to retweet that to people who think biological sex is a made up social construct.

Sophie Walker has tweeted about a consultation in Brighton

"About to kick off Brighton consultation on equal healthcare: the importance of recognising women’s biological difference in medical research & the ways in which gender constructs act as extra barrier to diagnosis and treatment. Thanks to all who are here for this key discussion."

So Sophie understands Women’s biological differences in medical research & the WEP motion wants to ignore that entirely for the purpose of supporting self ID.

Wonder if she'll have her speech from today's consultation handy for her upcoming conference where this motion will be presented for voting on?

TensionWheelsCoolHeels

Excellent analysis. And I'd go further than calling it callous, I think it's misogynistic.

I’ve only read the first page so I’m sorry if I’m just repeating what other people are saying but what is the point of a Woman’s Equality Party if we can just identify ourselves out of inequality?

I remember Karen Ingala Smith tweeting that she was joining WEP and that when people expressed their surprise, her answer was something along the lines of, 'Wait and see'. She seemed very confident about them. I can't see anything on her current feed about this.