Has Jess Phillips finally found her spine?

Mostly, I'm just delighted that this IS now something that comes back to haunt you. Taken long enough.

I agree that Nandy seems to have been considered expendable. But then, defending a child rapist's "right" to choose his own prison is going to come back to haunt them so you could see the logic.

Right back at you... This is a good post 😁

I do agree with the challenge from other PPs that Nandy and Phillips haven't rolled back and that they are rolling on instead.

I can't imagine Nandy will do this successfully and I do think she'll be cast aside. JKR's tweet is brilliant. She's not being let off for that.

But I suspect Jess Phillips will successfully PR her way out of her previous position. Putting it bluntly, she is of far more value than Nandy anyway. I'm definitely prepared to believe that they both held/hold views like TWAW in good faith... But Nandy doesn't have the same gravitas or ability to debate as Phillips. I would like to see both challenged on their views and whether they still feel the same. How they handle those challenges will be very telling... If Jess Phillips comes out of that with enough people on her side and is determined to effect change (and privately keeps entertaining the idea that she was wrong... and keeps privately learning more about the whole subject), that's good enough for me. If she runs off and can't take the heat of the challenges, she too has no value in this. I happen to be a Jess Phillips fan but I'm open-minded as to how it will play out.

Sorry

Dashing out - JK made what I feel was a clever chess-like move. Highlighted some key stuff Nandy has previously said, while she made a speech about women and girls, on twitter.

thanks I’ve found the link for any one who might be interested and not seen this.

i do find it unhelpful when posters post cryptic messages with no explanation , assuming that we have all read and know the the same things

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4917767-jk-rowling-nandy-one-of-the-biggest-reasons-women-on-left-dont-trust-labour

Would all the excuses being offered for Jess P, be made if Caroline Nokes or Maria Miller had done the equivalent at their conference?

'Not only is she an MP but she makes herself out to be fearless and outspoken and a staunch feminist. It’s so hypocritical

Exactly - she has created this persona of outspoken fearless woman who 'speaks truth to power', but from what I've seen she folds like a deck of cards at the first bit of pushback. I agree with those who say she's a careerist and an opportunist. Nothing wrong with ambition and a dose of self interest, but I'm not seeing much in the way of integrity

I believe that Lisa Nandy's excuse for harping on about TWs in women's prisons etc is that some young trendy advisors of hers told her to. How pathetic 🙄

It's on the thread about Lisa Nandy. It's an active thread on this board - should be easy to find.

What was the tweet

I think it's a metaphor, referring to a Tweet (a.k.a. a post on X).

Could you explain this please ? What has JK Rowling said about chess?

It really isn't a good look galloping into an election and seems to be the main thing she's know for.

JKR's Stella queen chess move this week sealed that very tightly indeed 👸

TL/DR she's very good at spin.

I have been wondering if one of the reasons Nandy has been shuffled to the back of the pack for both waxing lyrical about the trans child in her constituency and her prison comment; both of which are issues that are really coming to the fore in indisputable evidence through Cass and Bryson et Al.

It really isn't a good look galloping into an election and seems to be the main thing she's know for.

And I don't think her comments were particularly well researched at the time (I do suspect fed basics by left wing woke aids) because it was the same lines over and over, she didn't know how to debate the topic. Came back with less heat more light bs.

Jess concerns me more now actually, based on the evidence of tra comments shes made in the past in this thread and the fact that she really does know a lot about vawg. She can debate with facts and new phrases and new virtue signals.

She did impress me in that debate with her argument. Who knows if her position is genuinely changing or not. However Having seen how Kirsty Blackman twisted feminism to suit the agenda, (she launched her tra full on enslaught via a horrific blog post where she bright all the cognitive dissonance together) I now don't think she's to be trusted at all.

It does remain to be seen how many female MPs aren't speaking up who want to but need more time and leverage. As has been hinted,

But they are not 'publicly stating reconsidering past views' are they?
I see someone changing what they say, but with no acknowledgement that their views have substantially changed.
I'm not asking for an apology, just a recognition that jp doesn't think that we are so stupid that we don't see what she's done.
I admire posters who feel that we should cut her more slack, but I'm afraid that I see a woman in a powerful position who abused her power.

This is a good post I think. Part of my therapy approach has been, hard as it seems, to try your best to see the opposing point of view as not deliberately bad faith etc.

And then hoping that person does the same to you.

That doesn't mean you capitulate or dilute your heartfelt opinion. I'll never ever feel anything less than disdain and anger at society for this TRA debacle.

But it does mean that you have to try and see why the other person has what looks like a bad faith argument...because chances are that's what they feel about you.

My thoughts on Phillips and Nandy and any number of high profile Left figures with TRA/adjacent views, is that they genuinely feel protective towards the trans community, and feel that as much protection needs to be extended. And that it's less of an issue for women to budge up a little if a victimised minority can feel less victimised.

This is what's going to inform how I feel Labour are trying to resolve their position here. Not Machievellian politics alone, but genuinely how their activist nature is now hitting the cold air of reality.

It's not pretty, and really uncomfortable to watch, but this is as good as we can reasonably hope for at this point. Starmer changing the weather re Labour policy messaging, and high profile figures like Phillips and Nandy publically stating reconsidering past views.

The question remains, can we trust this company wide, and individuals, contrition on TRA policy? Or are Labour cynical and dishonest enough to renege on all this once in power to push in the Self ID direction?

So ... are we the goodies now?

I would go for blinkered rather than dense.
She's a good example of lots of people who wear blinkers regarding this whole subject. She'll have been conscious of some degree of it (e.g. her political ambition) but equally, oblivious to the rest.
She's a progressive. She'll have been hearing all sorts of different views that suggest TWANW and she'll have been filtering them. Some of what she heard will have been far too gentle or subtle to get through, some will have sounded "bigoted" to her. Also, a lot of it will have sounded irrelevant. Progressives seem to hear any GC-type concerns as anti-trans, and also team it up with being the same thing as anti-gay. If you're filtering based on not hearing the message at all or deliberately turning away because you don't like the style of the speaker (e.g. Glinner or KJK with their blunt style) you'll never hear the details.
Now that her blinkers are starting to come off, I think she's an important one to watch. I can't see her apologising but even if she doesn't... does it matter if she can effect change? She's a very influential voice both in the party and with the public.
If she keeps speaking out like this and starts to make traction, and I were in her constituency, I'd vote for her. Even though I won't be voting for Labour because I don't trust them on this issue at all. If she backs down and stops, I'd drop her like a hot potato (because of my overall view Labour's position on this). So I'm just as fickle as she may or may not be... But I'm OK with that.

Something/someone has opened her eyes up to what this is all about.
Given that she was one of the architects of the situation we're in, if this is the case she must be pretty dense.

She was excellent in the debate. It was a huge surprise seeing her too.
Something/someone has opened her eyes up to what this is all about.
She's also showing that she's stuck with it, by speaking again. Her understanding will unfold and improve over time.
From my own experience, I'd suggest that peaking takes different routes depending on your jumping in point. So she might not immediately see why her previous thoughts on transwidows came from a place of ignorance. But she'll get there at some point. I can't imagine anyone getting this far on the journey and going back the other way. She'll reach full peak.
Irrespective of whether people like her or not, she's a big player in Labour. Her voice in this could effect real change. People like Angela Rayner, Anneliese Dodds and Keir Starmer may actually open their ears and listen to her. The fact that she's possibly an opportunist (I have no opinion on this) may help in this regard. She's going to want to be heard, so she'll fight harder. If she felt she would be silenced or disadvantaged by having these views, she'd have given up by now.

I'm not interested in apologies. Rosie Duffield is entitled to a personal one from her so-called colleagues but beyond that, I don't care. Even if they're genuinely feeling remorseful - which I doubt - I don't want to hear about it. I just want to know how they're intending to fix it.

Jess was - and possibly still is - TWAW. She can't pretend she was just keeping her head down. She wasn't. She spoke on trans issues and made it clear she was not with women. She spoke about Kathleen Stock - deliberately getting her name wrong - and the impact on academic freedom. She spoke about transwidows (see PP above). And she said no-one on the streets or in her constituency was asking her about trans issues - when MNers in her constituency said they had written to her about it, and when her constituents were publicly asking her for support on Twitter/X. And then she added a trans teens' name into the Counting Dead Women list. None of that was accidental. None of it was keeping her head down.

All of this is true. And as PPs have pointed out, she was part of the women and equalities select committee that recommended introducing self-ID. During the process of taking evidence, they didn't hear from a single feminist or women's organisations, but they did make time for transactivists like Jess Bradley and organisations like Action on Trans Health. My feeling about Phillips is that she's a careerist - she adopts whatever stance is most expedient for her at the time. A few years ago it was self-ID. Now it's sex-based rights.

The only good thing you can say about it all is that, if Phillips is supporting them, then sex-based rights must be in fashion.

Labour are currently lying through their teeth in order to get elected.

What I am seeing lacking in all of these Labour turnarounds is any indication of an acknowledgement that they were wrong.

Does anyone ever do that these days?

It is a very underrated talent these days. They should teach "the art of admitting you were wrong" in school.