Jess Phillips throws GC women under the bus

Well said Pencils.

From the webchat thread:
This issue has dominated previous webchats, which we don’t think is fair to our guests nor to the entire Mumsnet user community, some of whom have said they felt put off joining in - not something any MN user has said to us about multiple questions on other topics.

Felt put off? I'm sure a lot of posters feel put off every time they see that twee question about biscuits. Will you ban it please?

I suppose the fundamental mismatch is that we see these events as a rare and crucial opportunity to access our very deaf and very hard to reach politicians and make major concerns known. MN and politicians see these events as nice bit of light PR.

Help or get out of the bloody way.

Exactly Michelle.

Oh. Dear.

My question was about school safeguarding. No other question on that.

Been deleted.

Inconvenient questions about safeguarding being shut down again.
Where have we seen this before??

MNHQ you are in danger of being complicit in hiding the safeguarding concerns around children.

@MichaelMumsnet I appreciate webchats are moderated differently and that you have a rule about how many questions can be asked on sex/gender but I think it's incredibly unfair that you have deleted Tinsel's question about the GRA spousal exit clause.

Only a few days ago Phillips was tweeting that it should be got rid of because it was 'awful'. For many of us this would have been the first topic we thought of asking her about. I know at least a few of us were deliberately holding off to give Tinsel or one of the other transwidows the chance to ask that question from a position of personal experience.

Jess Phillips has been absolutely in the thick of this whole issue since 2015 when she sat through all the evidence in the trans equality inquiry. Her name's on the report that recommended self-ID and recommended weakening women's sex based rights in the EA. The reason we had the GRA consultation was directly because of the work that Phillips played a major role in. She then sat through all the evidence in the Equality Act inquiry and will have been involved in the report which made recommendations for new statutory code around female spaces - recommendations which were rejected by both the government and EHRC.

I reckon we have rather a lot of questions to ask Phillips on this topic - certainly more than most web chat guests. Yet we seem to be allowed fewer even than usual.

Maybe we should collate all our questions into one list in one post there so people could see the extent of the Problem That Cannot Be Discussed.

"Also if one topic is dominating a thread, mods might request that people don't continue to post what's effectively the same question or point. (And we’ll suspend the accounts of anyone who continues after we've posted to ask people to stop, so please take note"

I see. So we can't ask for answers about the many different issues women and children face (eg safeguarding in schools, medical procedures on under 16s, issues about censoring free speech, women losing all women shortlists, allowing men access to rape crisis centres etc) as we are dominating. Right.

These are all very separate, distinct and important issues - separate questions we genuinely want answers to.

Ask what you want! But actually don't, if it's about women's rights.

(Oh, and if you keep asking, we will delete you and ban you).

I'm glad to see that Tinsel's question about spousal "veto" and JP's support for its removal was allowed.
Aaand it's gone. Seriously, MNHQ? No questions allowed about JP's explicit support for a proposed amendment which would affect women? This is ridiculous.

TL:DR: Fuck off Jess. I've got enough to do trying to prevent the trashing of female people's human rights and children's safeguarding. Help or get out of the bloody way.

And even if we formed a policy as PP suggested above, of having a thread where FWR as the hidden sin bin for females who won't shut up produce, through negotiation, discussion, careful crafting and references, the one solitary question permitted on this subject...

it would still on result in a preprepared party political broadcast waffle going nowhere near the issues. I have no time for any politician with neither time nor guts nor personal grip on the information to actually discuss with real people and answer difficult questions, and wants this protected and shielded talking down to act. If they can't be buggered to engage with me why the hell should I bother to listen to a word they want to down load at me for my betterment?

I've stopped bothering with webchats.

We're not allowed to talk about this, or ask seriously damn pressing questions for women about it. since it gets in the way of asking about favourite biscuits

The questions are shared before hand, cherry picked and pre answered by the politician's advisors to be nothing more than a lot of political nothing dodging all points anyway, rendering impossible any meaningful contact between the unwashed and the political elite, or any actual conversation. I could answer those questions right now with the exact same party political broadcast hogwash that will appear regardless of what the question actually is.

Anyone doing anything but smile, clap and ask about biscuits will be deleted, again negating any meaningful actual contact or sharing of views.

Why bother? It's not talking to anyone, or having the faintest influence on them, or getting anywhere near their ivory tower. It's just dumping a party political broadcast on a thread. I can just go and read the bloody Guardian.

I forecast much mention of 'proud feminist' (in the sense of self identified, male focused, absolutely definitely not focused on females) and much other gibberish. Life's too short for this crap.

I'm glad to see that Tinsel's question about spousal "veto" and JP's support for its removal was allowed.
EmpressLesbian's question about WPUK and the events in Brighton is another important one and relevant to a leadership candidate who takes an interest in women's rights.

I had some faith in JP.
Never had any in RLB.

That's the difference in focus for me. Disappointment.

Where do we post questions btw?

RLB is Catholic. Much as I don’t agree with her position on abortion - and I find it dangerous in relation to what is going on in the US. However, I presume she knows what a woman is, no?

I've asked a safeguarding question.

I think we should all post our questions regardless of if they get deleted. Mass deletions say something very loudly. They show how women are being shutdown.

I think JP is much more vocal about being a feminist and standing up for women than RLB, that's why she gets more scrutiny on this issue.

She just gets way more flak than any of the other Leadership candidates.

I'm quite sure R L-B is no friend to GC women but where's the scrutiny/threads on MN?

And given that R L-B is way more likely to actually become the Leader of Labour, I just find it bizarre that there is a thread about JP, not R L-B.

poor old JP What

Given R L-B is quite possibly going to be the next Leader of the Opposition, I honestly think her abortion position is more worthy of scrutiny than poor old JP being hauled over the coals again. ☹️

She seems more solid on the sex work stuff - that's not the officially acceptable anti-'sw**f' line, is it? But all over the place wanting to say the right things about the GRA.

questions are fine, concerns are prejudiced

This makes me so angry. It's basically "believe what we tell you - if you're not sure what to believe, ask and we'll tell you what to think, but don't you dare introduce any of your own thinking".

What I always want to ask TRA supporters is this. Have they spent time thinking in detail about the background to their opinions? Have they themselves examined all the premises and arguments and history behind the opinions they're repeating, checking for unintended consequences?

If they haven't, then why should we just accept their word that what they're saying is right? How can they even know for sure themselves, if all they're doing is trusting some other third party to have done it for them?

If they have thought it all through in detail, questioning and examining everything before committing to their opinion, then that's great. But why can't I do that too? Why does it have to stop with them? And why not answer people's questions and concerns, if you have already found convincing arguments against them?

She's way better than R L-B, however, who has just pitched women's rights versus disability rights and definitely come out on the side of limiting women's rights.

She'd have been my second choice. No more.