Jess Phillips throws GC women under the bus

To me that says she thinks it's safer to alienate Mumsnet than it is Pink News

Yes. Nail on head.

And while I don't expect the other candidates to be any better, it's doubly grim when it comes from a self-styled plain speaking champion of women

I think she's very calculating and contrived. She avoided difficult questions and I thought her answer to the question on freedom of speech and no platforming where she started wittering about the BNP was utterly dire.

The whole fucking ideology is based on 1950s-style ideas about gender and sexuality.

How can people get as far as seeing the problem with stereotypes, and yet not make the next step to see that the transgender ideology just reinforces these stereotypes?

If there's no way for a man to live as a woman without reinforcing 1950s stereotypes, then what is transitioning all about?

I thought the most illuminating bit was where she said self ID hadn't come up when she was canvassing. To me that says she thinks it's safer to alienate Mumsnet than it is Pink News.
And while I don't expect the other candidates to be any better, it's doubly grim when it comes from a self-styled plain speaking champion of women.

Duh. The whole fucking ideology is based on 1950s-style ideas about gender and sexuality

It really is incredible that another alleged lifelong feminists has failed to notice this

She doesn't believe in freedom of speech, the cognitive dissonance is off the charts on the trans issue and she didn't address Lang and needmore question on the shifting political landscape. Dire.

i see loads of people on twitter banging on about what she has done for women and girls and yet apparently she believes biological men can also be women......

Woeful indeed. Across the board, not just on women's rights.

What has she got other than bluster? Cos I'm not seeing it.

Agreed Michelle.
Jess Phillips was terrible. As suspected, she doesn't even understand what the "awful" spousal exit clause means, and she sat on that sodding committee. Woeful.

"I couldn't understand how asking someone to live in a role as one sex or another would actually happen. It seemed bound entirely in 1950s perceptions of men and women. I think it needs reforming."
Duh. The whole fucking ideology is based on 1950s-style ideas about gender and sexuality.

Yes there are some brilliant questions about important issues

Just now read through the whole list of (allowed to stand) questions for this webchat: I've been muttering sourly about only zoflora and lipstick being allowed. I take that unreservedly back. They're almost all well phrased, heavy weight questions of women at their absolute best, its bloody inspiring to see. Try and spin that group of females as pink, frilly and giggly if you dare.

Interesting point. I'm not a Labour member but would agree they probably have to read between the lines. Shit, but the way things are.

the thing is we know any candidate will be ripped to shreds if they so much as dare question TWAW etc, whatever they think privately. Seems to me JP has gone much farther down that line than she needs though. If I was a LP member I'd be thinking carefully about who is most likely to be GC (despite what they say in public) and supporting them, but I would NOT be insisting they come out publicly now. Because that would ruin any chances of them being elected.
We need a decent leader of the opposition for so many reasons. We also need someone with the courage to pull the LP out of this mess and listen to what ordinary people AKA their supposed support base think on this issue.
So let's not make it impossible for that person to get into that role.

Jess certainly identifies as being brave and fearless, by the Guardian's article yesterday.

Unfortunately the subtext of this is obvious. In reality, no one can announce in words who they have decided they are and how people are therefore instructed to perceive them. In reality people read a person's actions and gather the evidence to make their own decisions and then use their own categories. You can't just tell people you are a hero, and expect to be treated like one: there has to be demonstrated objective shared reality in actions, leading to people drawing their own conclusions. This leads to the sadness of people trying to use words to magically manifest a reality they would like upon others, instead of focusing on actions and doing the work. And then getting sad and angry with those others for not believing in what they were told. (Don't shout at and harangue me about my actions, I TOLD you I identify as being x)

'By their deeds shall you know them' is a very important quote to keep in mind when listening to any politician. Or as we often say here, as females are experienced in empty words, 'when someone shows you who they are, believe them'.

To be fair I think I will be putting Lisa Nandy as my first preference anyway, but what happens on Mumsnet will inform where I place Jess Phillips on my order of preference.

If she ignores them then I shall vote accordingly.

#LabourLosingWomen was for a reason. The party needs my vote.

Jess Phillips has been asked many, many questions on this, in a previous webchat
link
and has preferred to answer questions about her favourite biscuits.
I think we need to hear an MP speak about this, especially JP, who prides herself on being outspoken and fearless, but it's evident that, even if MN put all the questions up, she would ignore them.

True inclusiveness would be a return to when man or men stood for all people and women and children were subsumed by men under the laws of coverture.

I think it's been made clear that by politicians telling HQ they're too scared to do webchats in case they get 'harangued' and 'shouted at', it's very clear that said politicians are not remotely interested in meaningful engagement with electorate via these webchats. In fact that's exactly what they'd like to avoid. It should be in summary MP talks to Mummies and look at the jolly japes/how relatable MP is.

Hence HQ having to limit it to zoflora and biscuits and what lipstick to coax any of these poor incredibly well paid, publicly accountable and in position of trust people to be brave enough.

Maybe they could all do webchats so we could ask them...

Does we know where the other candidates stand on this issue?

^^ exactly what @oldcrone said.

Part of the issue is we know politicians don’t believe this bullshit around self ID. But somehow we have got into a position where to say so is career suicide and so they come across as simultaneously deeply dishonest and arrogant.

The emperor really has no clothes

Look, we can all see it. Labour is unwilling to face up to the negative effects of Wokeism - including but not limited to genderism - and what part this has played in its collapsing support and disastrous election performance. MNHQ, separately, has decided that politicians won't come to its webchats if the membership here insists on pressing this issue and so is enabling the deliberate purblindness in order to continue offering webchats even though they will no longer be representative of its membership's views.

It's so idiotic and self-defeating that it beggars belief. But that's where we are.

The Labour Party must realise that at some point concerns must be addressed, not just TWAW responses.

Jess Phillips should watch/listen to the interviews Jo Swinson did before the GE, and think about how she would tackle those questions. If her conclusion is that she would do no better than Swinson, she should reflect on why that might be. If you're defending policies which make no sense you're never going to be perceived as honest and competent.

It would definitely be better if all the questions were allowed to stand but then collated/representative ones picked out for answering.

Reading that interview with Dawson Phillips is well aware of the "heat" in this issue, The Labour Party must realise that at some point concerns must be addressed, not just TWAW responses.

Given that questions are submitted so far in advance for webchats, and whoever is answering them gets a chance to look at them and prepare answers, I think it would be useful if MN provided a space where all the questions were organised under different headings.

So, people could ask what they liked before a pre-arranged deadline, giving plenty of time for mods to go through them, remove any that were directly offensive, and also word for word repeats (though maybe the number of people who asked the same thing could be recorded beside the question) The rest could be arranged in topics - in this case for example, maybe general Labour Party questions, GRA-related stuff, leadership election, personal beliefs and values, fun stuff about biscuits. (And perhaps a portion of time set aside for spontaneous questions and responses.)

This way, politicians (or whoever) could choose a representative few questions from the list. Everyone could see the ones they'd swerved (and draw their own conclusions.) They could maybe widen their answers to address more points.

Crucially, the politicians could also gauge the level of interest in a particular topic, and popular feeling on it. If there were 200 questions about the GRA and only 7 on hobnobs vs chocolate digestives, that in itself sends a powerful message.

No experience of organising web chats, so am prepared to be told this wouldn't be possible. But it strikes me as being a more democratic and productive approach.