So how did the party of women do?

Thank you for this excellent post. Brings it home how utterly warped and just plain wrong and criminal how children have been harmed. How can adults seriously be campaigning for the right to do this to children?

I don't see how putting your physically healthy child on the pathway to mastectomy, potentially never going through puberty, or having early onset menopause and likely hysterectomy, and being life-long on supplementary hormones, castration, and sterilisation is anything but child abuse.

I realise it's unpleasant to hear, but it is unpleasant, and anyone thinking of putting their child on puberty blockers, or socially transitioning (I don't mean just wearing different clothes, I mean pretending that they are the opposite sex) needs to understand the side effects.

The transing of children is damaging for the vast majority. I don’t see how unnecessarily medicalising a child for the rest of their life can be anything else.

The connection between that and the definition of woman- you cannot redefine woman to include a man - even one who takes drugs/has surgery/wears makeup; you cannot take a girl and make her a boy by crushing her breasts and giving her testosterone.
Neither changing word usage nor changing the child alters reality that no one can change sex.

’woman’ doesn’t include men or boys. Men and boys cannot be ‘women’. Girls and women cannot be men.

I’m not sure how you can see the transing of children as a different issue. I suspect the enthusiasm for it is about making us comfortable with the idea of poor innocent little trans kids who grow up into massively disadvantaged trans adults that need all the love. That’s a story that plays sympathetically on tv, unlike Hannah Mouncey and Lauren whatsit hammering women- including disadvantaged women- in sport.

Brilliant point re FGM.

Picking up on criticism of the line on the front of the POW leaflets that:

“Transitioning” children is abuse

Given the horrific, barbaric operations being funded by the NHS at Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, I do not think it is unreasonable to compare those operations with FGM.

It is often mothers and other female relatives who arrange for FGM for girls, even babies. Girls are encouraged by their mothers and other female relatives to accept or even want FGM in order to "fit in", to not be ostracised and not be discounted as potential wives.

We can understand the cultural context that leads women, even mothers, to support FGM while still deploring their actions. Deploring their actions (child abuse) does not mean we have to condemn them as "child abusers", particularly in the sense of them being sadists.

Where transitioning children is concerned, the POW leaflet deplores actions, it does not condemn the people carrying out those actions. It is a red herring if anyone wants to retort, "Well KJK said THIS!" or "KJK said THAT!" because I am responding to comments about what the POW Election Leaflet said.

To continue with the comparison with actions that are illegal in the UK:

FGM is illegal in the UK and I think most people would agree that "affirming" or in any way encouraging a child to undergo FGM could be considered "child abuse".

FGM perpetrators have no hiding place
17 October 2019 | News, Violent crime
https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/fgm-perpetrators-have-no-hiding-place

Female Genital Mutilation
Updated: 16 August 2023 | Legal Guidance, Violent crime , Sexual offences
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/female-genital-mutilation

"Breast ironing" is also illegal and is classified as child cruelty and assault in the UK. It is incongruous that "breast binding", which can result in tissue necrosis and broken ribs as well as restrictions on normal activities, is not illegal.

Breast-ironing recognised as child cruelty and assault by CPS
19 July 2019 | News, Domestic abuse
https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/breast-ironing-recognised-child-cruelty-and-assault-cps

It has been shown that "social affirmation" of "gender identity" leads to medicalisation, including "breast binders", double mastectomies and genital surgery that is well beyond the horrors of FGM.

Safeguarding children (and vulnerable adults) has to be first and foremost in our minds. Adults who have actively, if reluctantly, put children in harms way as the "lesser of two evils" can be pitied and we can have empathy for them but that does not change the nature of their actions.

There seems to be some "cultural relativism" at play in that (usually) black African mothers are not afforded excuses for breast ironing or arranging FGM but we are being invited here to tiptoe around the feelings of (usually) white mothers (and professionals) implicated in social affirmation leading to the medicalisation of "gender identities".

It is arguable that there is a peculiar sort of racism involved, whereby (usually) black African children benefit from concern to safeguard them from harmful cultural practices, to the extent of criminalising their parents (usually their mothers), whereas (usually) white children are sacrificed because a harmful cultural practice is propagandised and enforced by elite Western institutions, "influencers", celebrities and professionals who act as agents of social change and control, eg. social workers, teachers, psychiatrists, psychologists, police and judiciary.

KeirSpoutsTwaddle - I will attach a copy of my leaflets. All POW leaflets were the same apart from the info about the candidate and the "blurb" at the bottom of the front page.

This text was the same on all POW leaflets:

Front

In Britain 2024, it has become an act of defiance to say these words:
No woman has a penis
No man has a vagina
There’s no such thing as “non binary”
“Transitioning” children is abuse

Back

Our concerns:

Men who claim to be women are in female-only spaces.

Children are being indoctrinated into this nonsensical ideology at school in PSHE, as well as the entire curriculum.

Female language is being erased and diluted. The NHS refers to birthing persons, chest feeders, cervix havers, menstruators or vagina havers.

Women’s sport is being given away to mediocre men who pretend to be us.

Women are not able to speak freely about our concerns in our places of work, within the NHS, to our children's schools, and in all areas of our public and private life without fear of intimidation or punishment.

Single-sex spaces and services are vanishing in care, hospitals, and schools, and even on Girl Guides residential trips!

Our solutions:

Repeal the Gender Recognition Act 2004. This act created the legal fiction that allows men to be recognised as women.

Remove the protected characteristic of “gender reassignment” in the Equality Act. This is often used to discriminate against women.

Restore all government institutions and services to reality based, impartial and professional establishments.

People who blast KJK...

What have you done for women's rights? KJK has devoted herself so extensively to this. If you don't like how she's doing it, you bloody do it. She has been extremely brave (New Zealand), bold speaking (to police and media), and endlessly devoted. And this is not a career - she's not a politician.

You dislike her personality - someone with your desired personality would not have the guts and fire to do what she's done.

KJKs actions are not the problem. Your inaction and armchair criticism is more of a problem (but a neglible one, as you're inconsequential armchair complainers).

Indeed. The misogynist MRA know this and their useful idiots on here and everywhere don't know or don't care.

I KJK has been solidly pro women throughout. She holds the line on language which has been the biggest weapon against women's single sex spaces.

See I don't see "the definition of woman" and "the transing of children" as the same issue at all. Unless the issue is being anti-gender ideology. In which case why call yourself "party of women"?

I think she's lost her way and is now coming across as anti-trans rather than pro-woman. The landlord/employer thing also definitely will have worked against her.

“gone for some more woman friendly lines about misogyny and ending decriminalisation of rape.”

Those are great feminist policies. I thought PoW was a single issue party to address losing the definition of woman, the transing of children and securing of women’s spaces?

Haven’t seen the literature or anything because I didn’t have a candidate.

But that’s what I assumed as that’s pretty much her single issue- the definition of woman, which carries along with it the ability to protect women’s spaces in prison, hospital, toilets, sports and everywhere else. And protecting children.

I don't agree with her every utterance, and it's obvious her style isn't everyone's cup of tea.

She has stood up and given fully of her time and energy, when she already had a comfortable life and could afford to do nothing.

I respect that. She's a Legend. So are the other PoW candidates.

As long as what someone is saying is true and honesty it is in good faith. You could absolutely post in a reform group all the true awful things done and said by Nigel Farage. Unless you're suggesting posters are being deceptive or dishonest in what they post about KJK, no one is posting in bad faith. Good faith doesn't mean people posting what people like.

Thank you.
I live near Bristol, I think it was a really bad choice because Debbonaire is quite popular and the contest between the Greens and Labour was so fierce there was no space really for voters to consider anything else.
I would have preferred to see her stand against a male politician in a slightly less fraught constituency and I think she'd have done better standing in a local constituency.

I also think her leaflets were more anti-trans than pro-woman and that would put a lot of women off.

If it were me I'd have got rid of the non binary/abuse lines and gone for some more woman friendly lines about misogyny and ending decriminalisation of rape. I think she'd have been more likely to attract more women that way.

Of course it's up to you where you post. And although it may not seem like it, I'm not saying you shouldn't comment here.

What I'm saying is that if we're going to have a debate about how the PoW did and what was achieved, it would be helpful if we could all be honest and fair. Approaching the discussion with glee as a means of attacking KJK just derails the conversation and prevents us from having a genuinely useful discussion.

I actually think it's really helpful to have dissenting voices on here. If everyone was just saying "yay, KJK!!!" that's hardly going to move us forward.

So it's great to have people saying "actually, I think PoW could have done XYZ better".

My issue is people not engaging in good faith because they're not willing to be fair or balanced with their opinions.

For example, I'm still struggling to understand why she stood in Bristol - it seems like a poor choice. I think all of the other PoW candidates stood in their own constituencies?

KJK's results weren't as good as some of the other PoW candidates - is that because it's KJK and she's divisive? Was it because her connection to the area was fairly weak? Or...why??

Was there anything that KJK did particularly well? Is there anything that one of the other PoW candidates did particularly well? What can be replicated successfully?

There are so many interesting conversations to have about the performance of the PoW. I just find it disappointing that people are using this thread as an opportunity to bash someone they don't like. That was my point really.

I said you're posting in bad faith because I don't think you're willing to be balanced about KJK because you just don't like her, and therefore won't make a fair assessment of their performance. If I'm wrong, I'm happy to apologise but that's certainly the impression you give.

By the way, I don't think you're a TRA. I don't agree with you on some aspects, but GC represents a spectrum of views, we're not a homogenous lump 😅 I think it's great that you're passionate about women's rights and I think that the more women's voices we hear, and the more women that are engaged, the better. I've never tried to frame you as a TRA, but I'm aware that some of your views would conflict with PoW, which really was the only point I was making - perhaps clumsily.

Of course I do. Unfortunately I have to repeatedly respond to absolute twaddle being posted as "my opinion" and people repeatedly accusing me of derailing/bad faith.

I would love to see a political party representing GC concerns better without falling into the trap of being inflammatory and coming across as transphobic rather than pro-womens rights.

PoW was a great idea but the execution has been very bad and so it's a huge missed opportunity. Actually it's worse than that because it opens the door to reasonable concerns being dismissed as far right/religious/transphobia, all the things we've spent ages trying to get the movement disassociated from.

You don't debate though do you.

OK..well its up to me where and what I post. In a democracy debate is important, I'm not going to stay quiet if I think my perspective might be useful. I absolutely loathe and detest Farage - and absolutely will post on Reform threads with my points about why Farage is bad news and the evidence for that.

I'm passionate about women's rights, and I don't think KJK is doing us any favours. Worse, I think the reception some posters get for asking questions on here is driving people away. It's the definition of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Your response to me posting that I'm "bad faith" and misrepresenting me as some kind of TRA is par for the course on here. In my opinion that approach is stopping healthy debate.

I'm not really debating whether your opinions on other related subjects are right/valid/correct because that's not what this thread was about - I was only mentioning them because they'd be in contrast to what the PoW would stand for.

The point I was trying to make is that I know I couldn't be fair and unbiased on a thread about someone I deeply dislike. I sincerely doubt that you could be fair and unbiased about PoW as you seem to have a deep dislike of KJK.

So the example I used was Reform. If there was a thread titled "how did Reform do in the election?" I know I couldn't post on there in good faith. There is absolutely nothing that would persuade me to write a fair and balanced post about Farage and co because I think they're complete shitbags. I'm delighted they only got 5 seats, and in my mind that's 5 seats too many. However, Reform voters/members may well be having a debate right now about whether that looks like success for them, and what they've done well/done badly. I know I couldn't be part of that conversation and be fair with my comments.

So that was my comment re "bad faith".

It seems to me that posters who don't like KJK - and that's not only you Cassie - are using this thread as a way of crowing over what they perceive as failure. And I think that's a bit shitty tbh.

There are some excellent points made here from PP who think that KJK could have approached things differently or don't agree with her approach. This isn't just about bigging her up - there's room for all opinions. I'm really interested to hear from intelligent women who can provide different opinions about how things could be moved forward, or how more progress could be achieved. I just think some are using this as a point-scoring exercise to slag off KJK. And because they don't like KJK they won't acknowledge anything positive about the PoW and that's a shame.

I think that people who join the conversation should at least be fair. If you absolutely detest KJK and can't bring yourself to acknowledge the aspects which are positive, then you're not posting in good faith. And that seems to be the case for some on this thread - it's just an opportunity to be a bit of an arse.

Also worth mentioning, I'm not a KJK fangirl. I agree sometimes she could sometimes approach things better and I don't agree with all her views. But I am appreciative of the fact that she's helped to drag this subject into the public arena, and I'm appreciative of the fact that she continues to be willing to fight for women's rights.

@MrsOvertonsWindow re your comments:
'However, post Cass, I now have zero respect for adults in positions of trust (medics, politicians, educators, academics, journalists etc) who fail to read and understand Cass, fail to understand the impact of social contagion, the experimental nature of all this and fail to care about the dangerous impact of these practices on mentally vulnerable children. We're now way past "be kind" and well into adults adopting a wilful ignorance of what's being done to young gay and lesbian children - gay conversion therapy in real life.'

Yes, I think that pressure should be put on those that are experts or present as such and who don't follow Cass - all of it. The fact that its the most vulnerable children who get caught in what at this stage and going forward is a web of deceit is inexcusable. Cass Review drew a firm line - pre-Cass you might have said that you were just following WPATH or other best practice. This is not a credible excuse anymore. Agree this is wilful ignorance and in some cases its actually intentional abuse of a particularly cruel type. Not 'be kind' at all.

Oh and crazy mad point on this board. I’ve no idea whether I agree with @CassieMaddox on every point. I doubt if i do. But I like her thought provoking way of approaching things. I find the dogmatic sloganeering here really depressing

I think @CassieMaddox ’s contributions are fantastic. I admire her tenacity in the face of constant gaslighting and straw manning etc etc. I often wonder who she is in real life as I’d like to buy her a drink

Thank you.

From what you've said I think you are a huge fan and can't see why anyone else wouldn't be 😂
I didn't have an argument with her. She was regularly getting deleted off the boards when she was here and she said one of the few transphobic things I've seen. I never argued with her. But don't let the truth get in the way of a good story 😂

I think the range of posters taking part, the variety of experiences and perspectives is really helpful.

It’s not helpful to have a dogmatic poster slapping people down relentlessly. I really don’t think that’s the usual style here but there are a couple of posters springing readily to mind whose posting style is dogmatic, aggressive and hostile and they just won’t stop!

I’m reluctant to challenge it because it’s tone policing, but it does derail the exploration of a subject into variations of-
KJK’s A LIABILITY AND A MASSIVE EGOMANIAC AND ANYONE WHO THINKS OTHERWISE IS A NAZI BIGOT!

It’s tiresome. Allow plurality- not everyone will agree and that’s fine.

Thats your opinion. Not much point me arguing the toss.

I think its bad faith to misrepresent people.

So for example "For example, your belief that it’s ok to socially transition kids" is complete misrepresentation. I think its OK for a 17 year old to decide for themselves to socially transition,I think its ridiculous to describe a parent who respects that choice as "an abuser"

"Your belief....that trans conversion therapy should be banned" In the UK, I think and therapy to treat transgender people not provided by an accredited professional should be banned, yes. I don't see any conflict with the GC position and I think posters claiming that means only GC affirming therapy will be legal are mistaken.

From my position the cult of personality around KJK is fascinating. I joined the thread to support another poster who was getting a kicking,because I agree with them that KJK/PoW have done more harm than good.

Of course you can disagree but calling me "bad faith" because I have a different opinion to you is not really on.