MPs who believe ‘women have a penis’ will be named and shamed ahead of general election

Great. I think there is room for different tactics from different groups.

The website has not be published yet, so who fucking knows what the final question will be. If you want to be involved and to shape the question and what content is on that website, get involved and contact Sharron Davies, I am sure she would put in contact with the group and would welcome any assistance.

In the meantime, has the question been chosen because Starmer has shown us just how unreliable 'what is a woman' is when it is answered by a 'spin doctor'? I have little confidence that a question that allows such indirect answers will give the result of allowing voters to know what a candidate thinks. As per Starmer's latest contribution.

And one more thing! The EHRC specifically noted that, for example, transmen may still require protection against discrimination when pregnant. If you predicate it all on 'gender' then any transman could be sacked for being pregnat and would have no legal recourse whatsoever.

Sex matters.

classifying a trans-woman as female doesn't make any cis-women less women

Classifying a man as a woman means that the category of 'women' no longer exists.

If you are happy for all sports to be mixed sex, all prisons, hospital wards, toilets, changing rooms, shortlists, groups, to be mixed sex, and oppose all sex segregation, then fine.

Many women are not happy for those things to happen and want to maintain our sex-based rights.

I'm just going to get some lunch so short of time, but for starters and to give you something to chew over:

If anyone can identify as a woman then women's right, women's healthcare, women's single sex spaces, women's sport etc etc stop to being for actual women and are just peoples rights, peoples healthcare, mixed sex spaces, mixed sex sport etc

If you can't identify what a woman and any Tom, dick or Harry can choose to opt in, these issues you mention can't be addressed to help the people they are supposed to be helping - ie women.

Because if you dismantle the meaning of 'female' or 'woman', then all of those other rights become meaningless.

Women face disadvantage due to our biological sex.

For that reason, we have additional protections enshrined in the Equality Act.

If you can't define 'woman' then the protections cover men, too. Which renders them meaningless.

I dgaf about how people want to identify - women need our rights, and to have rights to fight for all of the things you mentioned, we need to be defined in law.

That is the question though

Go by the copy in the article

to ask each one the question: “What is a woman?”

Has anyone nominated an acceptable alternative agency that can offer a similar level of experience who would be even willing to do this?

To provide a robust platform that has the level of security for the website to cope with service denial attacks and to manage this without worrying about being doxxed and personally threatened? Which professional agency would be acceptable that offers this level of service?

And I am talking about professional services not purely activist driven services.

He might be quite good on the PTA.

I'm interested In the question, the person being asked and the answer. I don't care who asking it, Barney the Dinosaur, the green Power Ranger, Mr Kipling, Joe Biden, Skeletor, I don't care. Fuck, Tufton Street could wrench itself from its foundations and go round asking. Donald Trump! Who is asking is of no interest to me.

Although Skeletor would be awesome.

I take it back, Barney the Dinosaur...terrifying <shudder>

Sorry if this seems a bit troll-y but... why? Why is this a big issue for feminism? More so than say - maternity rights or sexual violence or prevalence of pornography? Or access to palleative care or painkillers or medical models for heart attack recognition or autism diagnosis which are based on the male experience and mean women get reduced access to medical care. These are issues which impact millions of women.

Trans people are only a handful, a teeny tiny percentage of our population. And classifying a trans-woman as female doesn't make any cis-women less women?

I just genuinely don't understand why this is something we get so exercised about but maybe I'm missing something?

Everything is "allowed"
I, as a random FWR poster, don't like this as a strategy. I don't think its particularly clever and it doesn't tell us anything we don't already know.

I far prefer Posie's poster tactic and asking MPs about their definition of women to making it all about penises.

I asked this question of the Lib Dem wannabe councillor when he came knocking on my door, he muttered and would not say.

This is an excellent idea, I will keep my phone handy when they come calling!

Sounds like a person who has diverse interests and a very wide professional experience and draws from a wide range of sectors.

@KristenH@DadJoke
I think we've already established that generally those who think the new website is a good thing don't care if Mark Gallagher is 'pure' enough.

@JanesLittleGirl what you've missed (because he deleted it) is that he represented Prince Andrew and engaged in some dark arts:

https://theweek.com/951692/prince-andrew-advisers-used-internet-troll-attack-sex-abuse-accuser

"There is no good answer for particularly female MPs. Say "women cant have penises" and get rape and death threats from TRAs. Say "legally, women can have penises" and get ridiculed by the press and accused of fence sitting like starmer and castigated by feminist groups."

Political parties need to address this issue very quickly, don't they? So that they don't leave any candidate exposed to any threats, or any abuse from any person or group. So that they provide support for candidates to answer the question. Clearly and without any ambiguity.

On the other hand, is pushing back with discussion and questions not allowed?

I disagree because I believe it is a yes/no answer.

No, I am not doing the same as believing TWAW, from any side.

There is no good answer for particularly female MPs. Say "women cant have penises" and get rape and death threats from TRAs. Say "legally, women can have penises" and get ridiculed by the press and accused of fence sitting like starmer and castigated by feminist groups.

I'm not looking for a good answer, I want a correct answer - ie what someone believes to be true. That is what the website will deliver and that is what many people want to know. If a someone believes in something they should stand up and have the courage of their convictions. They are expecting to be paid a reasonable salary for the job of politician after all.

If more people had done this over the last few years, then maybe we wouldn't be in this ridiculous situation.

Mark Gallagher:

www.pagefield.co.uk/people/mark-gallagher/

"Mark Gallagher is widely regarded as one of the leading communicators, campaigners and political lobbyists of his generation. He founded the award-winning PR Agency – Pagefield Communications – in 2010, which now employs a team of fifty communicators, having served close to 300 companies, countries, charities and extraordinary individuals.

Before launching Pagefield, Mark was Director of Corporate Affairs and Chief of Staff at Europe’s largest commercial broadcaster, ITV plc, was the first communications director to sit on the main shareholder board of any large British company at Camelot Group plc and was Public Affairs Director at ITN, Europe’s largest broadcast news producer, where he was the youngest member of the Executive Board in the company’s 50-year history.

At Pagefield, Mark has advised companies as diverse as Airbnb, British Airways, BAT, Discovery Networks, Starling Bank and the World Economic Forum, alongside clients of unique global significance – including members of the British Royal Family and the estate and family of Professor Stephen Hawking.

Mark also sat on the advisory board and working group that delivered the Thames Diamond Jubilee Pageant for Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, with Pagefield being the first external communications firm to deliver PR for a major Royal event. He was a Trustee of the Museum Association, served two terms as a Commissioner at the Royal Hospital Chelsea and has spent several years on the external advisory group of His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury. He is a trustee of the London Youth Choirs.

Mark was the only consultant to be included in the top 50 of Iain Dale’s most politically influential people in the UK. He has appeared annually in Bloomsbury’s Who’s Who since 2017 and the PRWeek Power Book for more than a decade, where he has also been listed amongst Britain’s top ten public affairs campaigners for many years. Mark has featured several times in the Evening Standard’s Progress 1000: London’s top one thousand most influential people.

Mark advises a number of private clients around the world through his second business – Riverside Advisory – which he turned into a separate limited company in 2019."

I appreciate that this is Mark Gallagher in his own words but he seems far more a member of the slightly left of centre Establishment than a Machiavellian arch-manipulator sneaking around in the shadows trying to trick women out of their birthright.

The question isn’t focussed on penis or not it’s What is a Woman

An “army” of volunteers in an apolitical new grassroots campaign is gearing up to meet all MPs and parliamentary candidates at hustings events and on their doorsteps to ask each one the question: “What is a woman?”

The answers will be recorded so we can see what MPs say

Those uncomfortable with it may have something they’d rather hide but for the rest of us it’s a great start

It isn't a factual yes/no answer, as well you know.
Legally, people with penises can be women.
Biologically they are not adult human females.

You are basically doing the same as "trans women are women - do you agree?" But from the other side of the fence.

There is no good answer for particularly female MPs. Say "women cant have penises" and get rape and death threats from TRAs. Say "legally, women can have penises" and get ridiculed by the press and accused of fence sitting like starmer and castigated by feminist groups.

I love SD, what a good idea. I won't vote for any party who don't know what a woman is.

No. I am pointing out that we are very capable making our own decisions. I have pointed this out to other posters as well.

You are again here trying to tell people who are dominantly women, that a website is going to be problematic because a person providing a professional service to some other people you disagree with is involved. Perfectly happy that you have a voice on this platform, however you have a pattern for shaming women who disagree that males can become women. Your post here is just par for the course.

That evaluation should include a look at who is behind it, and what their motives are

Again, as quite a few of us are saying we don't care who is behind it or what their motives are.

If a politician states they believe a man can become a woman/a woman can have a penis is it a yes/no factual statement with no opinion/no ambiguity.

As such the politicians belief would be reported the same way were it reported in the Guardian or the Daily Mail (for example).

The website will inform people about a certain belief a politician may have and then voters can decide if they want to trust that person with their vote by taking that knowledge and using their own judgement.

It is a factual yes/no answer and who reports that answer is immaterial to many, including me.

Are you always this disingenous? I didn't remotely suggest that gender critical people shouldn't support whoever you want. Another poster asked who Riverside were, and whether GC people were being used for other purposes and I answered. I'm not the only person who has doubts about them.

If Sex Matters had run this campaign (as I initially thought) there would be no issue.

"If this website does what it says, and is run by a free speech group, are we not supposed to view it and evaluate it as we do with every other piece of content published?"

Oh, you sweet summer child! That evaluation should include a look at who is behind it, and what their motives are, for example, why are the tobacco and oil lobby funding the IEA?