Ultimate betrayal by the WEP

“insufficient information […] to show that the exclusion of trans people is appropriate and reasonably necessary (i.e. proportionate) to meet that aim”.

^this argument is so disingenuous.^

What it actually says is traumatised women, and what people tasked with helping & supporting those women through their trauma know about the environment required to help them open up about the trauma they've suffered, isn't a good enough reason to exclude a trans person from that environment - the understood reasoning for a safe and secure environment for those women is "insufficient information" being dismissed as discrimination against a trans person and challenged as not a justifiable reason to exclude. That someone can argue that as not being a proportionate means to a legitimate aim i.e. the environment required to help & support traumatised women through their trauma to achieve some degree of recovery, is disproportionate because it discriminates against a trans person despite it being necessary to help a larger group of women, is utterly callous.

The focus of the needs of one person to the detriment of so many others is typical of the callous disregard of women & their suffering as a result of male violence & abuse. Scottish Trans Alliance have been blatant in this by pushing for the removal of sex based exemptions under the EA2010, while also pushing for trans only support for trans people.

This entire movement is riddled with people determined to minimise or erase entirely the cruel reality of women's suffering due to male violence & abuse because it's inconvenient to acknowledge women have justified reason to need safe women only spaces.

I wonder how many women at this WEP conference will just sit there and accept lectures telling them that women don't need those safe environments because their trauma doesn't come close to that of a trans person so they should go along with their removal because trans people need that more than women do. If these arguments are accepted and voted through, it'll be a massive betrayal of women & they should be ashamed of having "women" in their title.

I think Karen Ingla-Smith is a member - wonder if she will speak up if she's attending this conference?

Yes the WEP scared me off with their men on postnatal wards bollocks.

Just the suggestion of the possibility that I might encounter one of the men who raped me overnight when I was vulnerable with no recourse to have them removed and have a small baby to protect gave me night terrors (I was pregnant when I read about it)

Lots of rapists are ‘family men’ FFS. Women who know and care about protecting women know this.

Not sure about the name Biology Party. Trying to think of a clever name like Genversity but am failing lol. Think any party to have success it will need to make it clear that diverse gender expression is accepted! Loved! Encouraged! Men in skirts? Great! And that it is purely sex based differences and services that we want clarity on

So that's basically 'there will be two lawyers telling women that their concerns about self-ID are silly and they're a bunch of transphobes'

Is there anyone positing a different view point?

It's liberal feminism that doesn't scare the horses.

Yes Orchid. I have actually felt like this about the WEP from the beginning. So I’m not immensely surprised. I think Sophie Walker herself probably has slightly more radical views than she lets on, but doesn’t have the backbone to be honest about them.

It’s strange, because Sophie Walker recognises sex work as the exploitation by men as a class of women as a class. This is a view that usually goes hand in hand with being GC.

I realise this motion didn’t come from her, but I’m sure it will be passed.

Here's McCann's twitter feed: she's a fan of Leanne Wood's statement on the GRA and Stonewall's misinformation campaign.

mobile.twitter.com/clairemccann72?lang=en

I've just had a look at the conference programme.

www.womensequality.org.uk/conf18_programme

There will be two lawyers talking about "Changes to the Gender Recognition Act: What will legal changes mean for the interaction between gender and sex based rights?"

Sounds good, no? So I looked them up

Claire McCann, Cloisters: www.cloisters.com/barristers/claire-mccann
"HIGHLIGHTS A case heard by the Supreme Court in July 2017 concerning trans equality and privacy rights" Has offered evidence to Parliament, regarding this example:

􀁸 A group counselling session is provided for female victims of sexual assault. The organisers do not allow transsexual people to attend as they judge that the clients who attend the group session are unlikely to do so if a male-to-female transsexual person was also there. This would be lawful.

"Ms McCann advised us that “this example is drafted too categorically”. While it demonstrates a “legitimate aim”, it gives “insufficient information […] to show that the exclusion of trans people is appropriate and reasonably necessary (i.e. proportionate) to meet that aim”. She further suggested that in the instance cited it may only be lawful to exclude trans people if they do not hold a GRC: "I would doubt that a service-provider of single-sex or separate services could turn away a trans service-user who holds a GRC because this is unlikely to be proportionate."

Michelle Brewer, GC Law www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk/barrister/michelle-brewer/
Is a founder of www.teli.org.uk

WEP member. I canvassed for them. Have my ticket for conference already. I’ll be voting against this. It’s ridiculous.

Was initially ready to scream at WEP (again), but to be fair this isn't actually policy yet and it's clear that a number of genderists have joined the party specifically in the hopes of "proving" the women have cocks and mostly support this kind of nonsense. Anyone who can make it to the conference should go in order to make it clear that they're incorrect on both counts.

Men, not ,en!!!

They pissed me off with one of their founding demands to lobby for ,en to be allowed on post natal wards. That was a massive signal that they take a really nice middle class approach to equality because none of them have clearly given birth in hospitals where dads have to be forcibly removed.

It's liberal feminism that doesn't scare the horses. And I want no part of it, despite being a founding member

I wholeheartedly support the first point:
The Women’s Equality Party recognises the damage done by socially constructed gender

It started so well...

I lost any respect for WEP when one of their branches expressed solidarity with an individual on trial (and subequently convicted) for violence against women.

twitter.com/WEP_Lambeth/status/984847675332931590

If any action was taken by the party about this, I'll be happy to stand corrected but I know it was brought to their attention and I haven't heard of any action being taken.

You can't say that your party opposes violence against women and girls and then add a caveat of "unless they say or do or think anything the perpetrator doesn't like".

Women's Equality Party? They should be done under the Trades Description Act. If they were genuinely supporting women they'd be fighting for our sex. Instead they're manipulating gender to support males. Just like everyone else does. Hypocrites.

The WEP are a joke. I was delighted when they first surfaced, at last someone I could vote for ! .....oh wait....maybe not. Such a disappointment.

Sophie Walker has replied to Kathleen Stock (27/07) via twitter:

Hello Kathleen. This is a motion that has been written and proposed by members for debate at Party conference in Sept. WE make policy by member majority vote. All members have the opportunity to bring motions or amendments & vote on whether this becomes policy. See you there.

This is just embarrassing but then we knew that already about the WEP.

To repeat what I always say on WEP threads.

You had one job!

I've just had a quick look at WEP's twitter account and there's some really interesting stuff about women's health, Brexit, the NHS, DV , painkillers and so on. It looks great superficially.

How on earth can they sabotage all that?

The chances of getting elected are pretty slim, but that shouldn't put us off. Not the hatred that it would attract. The name: not sure about it, does seem a bit non-specific. Like many, I am politically homeless now and would very much like not to be.

No sport*

I would consider joining a Bioglogy Party - I've never agreed with enough of any party to join previously. The problem is that there are a lot of different feelings on this. I feel if people have changed genitalia or had chemical castration the should be able to come in changing rooms. But not refuges necessarily and prisons on a case by case. No spot that is divided by sex.

Other people feel there should be no concessions. So it's not easy.

One thing a party would be brilliant for is busting some myths - surgery rates, AGP, puberty blockers etc. But you would have a very very hard time of it and would be accused of hate crime and all sorts. On the other hand you might get on question time and really raise awareñess.

Instead 14 require a self-determination process to change gender and to obtain a Gender Recognition 15 Certificate and new birth certificate. 16 ● Remove the requirement of spousal consent to obtain legal recognition of changed gender for 17 married people. 18 ● Allow people to change their gender to a third gender option as well as to male and female.

The failure of political leadership to recognize that they are promoting the facilitation of fraud in an age of identity theft is just one of the many things about the GRA review that is astonishing to me.

I think it's appropriate to make a separate thread now so as not to derail.

Guess it's just going to be me standing. In Bath in case you're interested. Our mp was pretty pathetic when I quizzed her about all this 3 months ago. I'd just peak transed. I would be a lot more assertive next time.

Thanks, theOther