Conservatives For Women launch today

Working with people who you may not agree with is the only way to actually get things done in politics. Stonewall knows this, that's why it's been so successful in recent years, under a Conservative government. The fact that the Conservatives are waking up is also because women who aren't Conservative have been highlighting the conflict of rights. The more women who agree that women's rights are at risk and who are prepared to fight for them the better.

Spot on, Tanith.

The OP herself said that the Conservative Women's Organisation "do not agree with our definition of 'woman'."

So that's something right there that Conservatives for Women can be working on. Unless this is all for show to other parties, and CfW have no interest in changing their own party.

(NB I hope CfW really are in good faith, and will do the above.)

Are there two concerns here?

One is whether you want to work with your political opponents to achieve a common goal. It's a personal choice - me I no longer have any qualms about it. In fact given the extent to which all the mainstream parties have been captured, I don't really see any alternative. Nor am I personally concerned that the main focus seems to be the intersection of trans rights and women's rights - it might well be the only issue we'd agree on.

Being cautious about who you give personal information to seems entirely sensible. I don't see though why following them on Twitter should present a greater security risk than following anyone else? If you sign up (which I haven't at this point) they ask for a name and email address - I use an anonymous email for loads of things, including Mumsnetting.

Can someone show us where they ask for more personal information and for money as I've looked through their website and I can't see that anywhere?

"Trouble is PerkingFaintly, the party that you support has shown time and again that they do not give a shiny shit about protecting women’s sex based rights. So kindly stop trying to undermine the efforts of the OP and her group who do give a stuff. "

And that is exactly why some of us are very uncomfortable with this new group and how it is pushing itself.

Every single one of the main political parties in this country has had problems with gender identity politics - and every one of them also has GI critics.

Claiming that the Conservatives are the only sensible party to support women's rights isn't just disingenuous, it's flat out lying. It's also denying the efforts of other brave women who have stood up to their own parties and are still standing up within them.

The Conservatives do need a group for Women's rights: Maria Millar, Penny Mordaunt, Crispin Blunt, Sue Pascoe etc have made that very clear.
I'll welcome such a group, but I see no need to switch to a new Conservative-defined group when there are others that have been fighting for Women's rights, particularly when this one claims an intention to work with the others.

You're very welcome to run a group which focuses on gender ideology and the impact on women's rights, HecatesCatsInXmasHats. There's been lots of really excellent work on MN on this, and much of it (not all) has been admirable.

But you're not getting my data or money if I don't know a bit more about who you are and what you're going to do with it. Conservatives for Women would end up knowing my identity while I don't know theirs! The irony!

I'm also not going to lend my name, support or voice to any group whose primary purpose is to use it say things I disagree with, viz that gender ideology is my most important issue and I can't work on other issues until some indefinite future when trans issues are "solved". Including the classic which even made an appearance on this thread, though to be fair, not from the OP, that there's no point having an NHS unless we can have single-sex wards. (Existence of mixed sex wards over the last umpteen decades a bit of a mystery to that poster, then? I mean, I've campaigned against mixed wards, but if you want to say that therefore there has been no point having an NHS since 1948, I and many generations of my family will beg to differ.)

So no, I won't be lending anything to this group for the foreseeable future. I will be keeping an eye though, to see what emerges. There is a possibility it's in good faith, even if we don't agree on the position in our priorities list.

Sounds good to me, OP. Will take a look.

But it seems you also object the the fact that this group is concerned with gender ideology and the impact it has on women's rights?

HecatesCatsInXmasHats, I am aware that women receive abuse, and that's why I am not asking the OP to reveal her name, or the names of other people involved with this group – which are things I'd normally do with any group.

In fact I've just done it with my local foodbank website to check they are who they say they are, before giving them money or driving other traffic to them.

So I'm asking for other information to find out more about this group without them revealing personal names.

What party do I support, FortunesFavour?

You seem to have done that thing of "if you're not-A, you must be B".

Which is the sort of false dichotomy that has got us here in the first place: "If you don't fit in this box of XX labels, you must be XY."

(I'll answer the question for you: I don't support any party. I'm a floating voter.)

Perking is your issue that the group wants to focus on gender ideology and the impact it is having on women's rights? Or the fact that they're anonymous? Because you know those two things have to go hand in hand for lots of women because of the abuse they receive, right?

Perking is making valid points and asking sensible questions.

Trouble is @PerkingFaintly, the party that you support has shown time and again that they do not give a shiny shit about protecting women’s sex based rights. So kindly stop trying to undermine the efforts of the OP and her group who do give a stuff.

I’m in OP, regardless of my political affiliation.

@ConservativesForWomen, can you show us where else you have marketed your group?

You've posted on MN to drive traffic to your website and Twitter feed.

Where else have you posted? (Or will post by the end of the week?)

There are no anonymity issues here, so this question should be straightforward for you to answer.

I think it's a good idea to have groups within political parties centring women, so that they can lobby for women's rights (all rights, not just on one single-issue).

It's also annoying to have to do it, because actually women's rights should be part of the default, just as men's are, and not need a special subgroup to achieve it.

In the same way, it would be annoying to need a special subgroup within "Conservatives for Women" to lobby for the group to cover anything other than trans issues.

It's swimming against the tide from the offset.

There is a need for people within the Conservative party to support women's rights. But now I've spent a bit more time thinking about it and looked at the Twitter feed, I don't think this is the group to do these things. This is explicitly a trans-issue group; and using the generic phrase "women's rights" just allows them to slipstream behind more general women's rights (the same way TRAs slipstream behind general rights issues, harnessing people's urge to do the right thing without enquiring too closely).

I've slept on this and I'm now really very uncomfortable with this because of the anonymity of the founders and the data collection aspect. For all you know, it could have been me who set up that website and Twitter feed and be harvesting email addresses and Twitter handles and device identification, and none of you would be any the wiser.

It really doesn't help that the person setting it up has set out to deceive us twice in as many pages.

There was no need whatsoever for her sockpuppeting on the first page, and she has no other posts in the name "GingerJonesy" so the "excuse" was cobblers too. Why?

It's not a good start. I was cautious but interested to begin with, but now I'm digging out a longer barge pole.

It saddens me to say this, because I think there's a possibility such a group could be in good faith, and could potentially do good work. But at the moment I'm not seeing anything that differentiates this particular one from any other internet scam.

Just because something's an issue, doesn't mean any old anonymous internet website sticking that label on itself can have my money, data and voice as a supporter.

@ConservativesForWomen I am a member of the party and also agree with your agenda. Will be following your twitter now.

Would love to get involved

Perking I thought that everything you said would be a bloody good reason for you to be in touch with this group.

I couldn't vote Tory but am willing to set aside party politics to have someone stand up for women's rights. Your first post says 'trans issues' - I don't have anything to say about those but I do want to be able to fight for the right for the rights of women and girls to be upheld. Currently all of them are under threat due to the aggressive and frighteningly successful lobbying of groups pushing women's rights out of existence, making them something else entirely. So I do find that one threat I cannot ignore.

Your links about UC also need to be heard and aired. The systematic dismantling of such support cannot continue unchallenged.

There will be many more such issues. Maybe being willing to discuss them with any and all political groups who are committed to listening to the voices of women regardless of political affiliation is what we need to do! Being staunchly Labour got me nowhere. Maybe being what the Americans call, and value, a swing voter, a loud one, one who will engage and demand to be heard, is the way to go these days.

I think I'll sign up just to agitate!

And in saying that I feel as though the last 40 years of my political life, all that marching, shouting, writing, working, has been utterly fucking useless!

Thank you PerkingFaintly I had no idea, especially about the UC wait time affecting Legal Aid.
Very interesting and worrying reading.

Homeless leftie, appreciate what you're doing, but I'd die before I voted Tory. This one good thing does not cancel out all the repulsive shit the conservatives stand for.

I agree it doesn't cancel out all the bad stuff, but that's not what it's about. We can't afford to reject support for women's rights from decent people who differ from us on other issues. Misogyny is back in fashion, and I welcome anyone who'll stand up for women's rights -- even if I'll campaign against them on other issues.

I owe no loyalty to the misogynists who have captured the left. For the first time in my life, I would vote for a Tory candidate if s/he had a solid record of defending women's rights.

That's presuming that all our left/ green / liberal candidates were MRA lickspittles or fence-sitters, as they now invariably are.

I have just had my post deleted because I pointed out that unless women and girls had access to female only spaces in nhs wards and refugee there was little point in campaigning for social issues aimed ag providing said refuge and healthcare

Your comment sounds perfectly reasonable to me. This is the crux of a major problem.

It’s good to engage in a dialogue with people on the other end of the spectrum. Would be great to have some trans—supportive voices on Mumsnet for example, but I don’t think that’s going to happen anymore as they seem to always get bullied off.

Good luck with everything OP. Listen to as many views as possible. A lot of people on both sides are suffering.

Homeless leftie, appreciate what you're doing, but I'd die before I voted Tory. This one good thing does not cancel out all the repulsive shit the conservatives stand for.

Abitofalark "This is critical because if politicians get away with this, women will not be considered, consulted or listened to on ANY policies or developments, whether it be broad economics, education, children, employment, business, media, health, crime, policing, justice, transport, housing, wages, energy, environment, pensions, tax or the priorities for apportioning the national budget."
^^Totally agree.
You've seen the first call for it from Amnesty international Ireland. "We call on media, and politicians to no longer provide legitimate representation for those that share bigoted beliefs."

www.socialistdemocracy.org/RecentArticles/RecentIrishSocialistTDsAndNGOsJoinForcesToDisenfranchiseWomenAndMaterialists.html

Sorry so mad I missed word out. Akin to describing women as cervix havers. Apparently using the p word showed derision for they who cannot be named and their personal characteristics. How when that was aimed at being inclusive of those which I thought I would have to be not to get banned I know not. It was also perfectly factual. What’s sauce for the goose clearly isn’t for the gander . So I’m going to get banned now. Wouldn’t thought I’d see this in a free western democracy. Excuse me I’ve got the witch king of Angmar to deal with .... so I won’t be posting anymore. But I will be writing to my MP showing this as a glaring example of how women are being silenced.

Good lord the world has gone crazy. I have just had my post deleted because I pointed out that unless women and girls had access to female only spaces in nhs wards and refugee there was little point in campaigning for social issues aimed ag providing said refuge and healthcare. I did not use any word that could offend delicate sensibilities word just mentioned human with external genitalia which would be used to attack said women and girls to the description of us only as cervix havers. Or can’t the p be mentioned ?

Am in following you on Twitter