Party of Women – number of votes for 16 women brave enough to take a public stand

I absolutely take my hat off to all those candidates brave enough to stand in this overwhelmingly misogynistic environment. Thank you for putting yourselves out there.

Same

I absolutely take my hat off to all those candidates brave enough to stand in this overwhelmingly misogynistic environment. Thank you for putting yourselves out there.

I think it's interesting that some posters have asserted that the low percentage of votes in places with a high level of LGB voters means that there is not widespread LGB support for the PoW.

I'm not sure that's a statistically valid conclusion to draw. There are many possible explanations and without further analysis we won't know the reason.

Eg there could have been a really great LGB candidate also standing.

Many of the LGB voters in those constituencies could have prioritised other issues to vote on.

A vote for a particular candidate isn't necessarily a vote against their opponent. As we've seen on these election threads, people decide who to vote for based on a variety of reasons.

sees recent posts on thread by redacted

checks crystal ball

Yep, called it! 🙄

I'm so tired of not being able to have a conversation on here without having to justify why we want to discuss whatever it is down to the nth degree.

(I'm not talking about providing evidence for an argument, I'm talking about the constant barrage of 'well i don't mind it - subtext so neither should you' with a side order of 'that never happens').

I don't recall being overwrought

You weren't.

@IwantToRetire

@MessinaBloom your complaint about my voicing the frustration of threads being derailed by the usual suspects, not only got a number of likes (which you cant see) but if you have been reading this thread, you will see others have added similar comments either by quoting what I said or making their own remarks.

And will also know that others have said it about their threads. So I didn't say anything startling or new. So not sure why you were so overwrought when quite honestly my post was just repeating what has been said by many others.

I know I not in control of a thread, but I can comment about how tediously boring it is to have any old subject attached to a thread by a poster who could quite easily start at thread about that topic.

I don't recall being overwrought, but thanks for the explanation. I'll continue to reserve the right the comment on threads. This thread, as I said, was broadly about POW and did not specify anything further than that, so I'm not sure why you single some posters out for going on tangents and not others. Actually, no, I do.

I would like to say when I posted about Cassie I had confused her with the poster now going by ChristinaApple.

Cassie does relentlessly derail but I don’t believe the motivation is the same so I apologies for confusing the two.

@CassieMaddox 'if a man WERE to join a breastfeeding group, for example, and it distressed other members, do you think it would be fair and reasonable for those women to ask for the man to be removed?

yes. I don't think males should be at breastfeeding groups.
I think a trans man would be fine though, they might need support. So it depends what you mean by "man".'

---and herein lies one of the biggest problems. The meaning of man was always pretty clear. And the understanding that men did not belong at breastfeeding groups was absolutely apparent.

But now, if man can mean someone who has given birth and needs support breastfeeding, and it ALSO means someone who has no place in that group, it's impossible for that group to maintain it's boundaries, isn't it?

And impossible for any discussion around it to even stay coherent.

It has.

I'd be bloody fuming if someone didn't warn me about a possible lactation interested man at my breastfeeding support group.

Scaremongering has ceased to have meaning...

LLL which is active in 89 countries actively encourage is men to attend their breastfeeding groups.

Men who, clearly can't lactate, and have no need of a breastfeeding group. And the actual trustees who object have been suspended.

You don't think that's a dystopian attitude?

Where did I take the stance it never happens? That is not my view. You are projecting.

if a man WERE to join a breastfeeding group, for example, and it distressed other members, do you think it would be fair and reasonable for those women to ask for the man to be removed? yes. I don't think males should be at breastfeeding groups.
I think a trans man would be fine though, they might need support. So it depends what you mean by "man".

I have a problem with extrapolating from a scenario where some males might try to infiltrate a breastfeeding group, to a dystopian future where menopause groups and breastfeeding groups are "overwhelmed by men". That statement is hyperbolic and in my opinion scaremongering.

Complacency and ignorance about what was happening is what got us to where we are now.

Yep, it's not much, what's the problem?

And if it does, it's not much.

The refrain of TRAs:
"That's never happened."
"That isn't happening."
"That will never happen."

It's oh-so predictable.

And there are people on this thread claiming that this doesn't happen 😑
Ah well - some people believe women have penises and the world is flat 😹

Personally, I find the concept that breastfeeding groups, formerly respectable and well known, encouraging men to sit in on the women, just because the men want to, really bloody scary.

Likewise rape crisis centres. It's fucking petrifying that women cannot have a woman only space to discuss their rape. Or have to just cross their fingers and hope.

Because this compromise has been suggested, specifically when Sarah Summers was looking for support from a rape crisis centre in Brighton, and she was told no. There was no process or inclination to exclude men from the rape support group, as long as they identified themselves as women (GRC certificates and documentation was never requested, so this is in fact self id).

Sarah was told to find another service. If there had been one, ba service where she could access a woman only support group where men were excluded, even of they did identity as women, it might not have been a problem, but there wasn't one.

See again the recent Edinburgh rape crisis employment tribunal for another example.

So what would your suggestion be, for these women, who want women only services in these specific scenarios which have definitely already happened?

It's my post this quote comes from.

Fair enough, cassie. You think my worries about what could happen in the future were we all to just give in and let this happen unchecked are scaremongering and an overreaction?

In reply, though, you are taking the stance that this NEVER happens and there is no evidence that it does.

So let's take a midpoint - if a man WERE to join a breastfeeding group, for example, and it distressed other members, do you think it would be fair and reasonable for those women to ask for the man to be removed?

Do you think it would be fair for those women to ask if that man could be excluded from SOME of the meetings, so that they can be more comfortable, but he doesn't have to be excluded from ALL of them as there would be women who don't have a problem with him sitting amongst them, putting his nipple into a baby's mouth?

That could apply to all sorts of scenarios and I would support it - men can join women's groups as long as the other women consent and there are parallel services where women who do not consent to share their spaces with men can feel comfortable.

Would you support that, as a solution to this specific issue?

It's the Swiss cheese concept. Safeguarding illustrated by slices of Swiss cheese with holes in then. And when you get all the holes to lineup, you've got a loophole the size of a planet.

Telling men they can join lactation groups on the basis of the fact that they would really like to is going to attract, guess who?

Self ID all around the world already IS the norm! All a male has to do is say he 'identifies' as a woman. Even males in Planet Fitness in the UK and other places prove this!

Sterilising gay children unchecked already IS the norm all around the world. It's not hyperbolic, its the hardcore proven truth!

Oh I see, it's about the number of men? Not the concept.

Got it.

For me, it's about the concept.

And the fact that even one man in a group of women seeking help with how to get their baby to latch on, would feel overwhelming to those women.

And the fact that the entire group, in 89 countries, have a policy that allows men to join, on the basis of ... saying they want to.

Self ID is not going to become the norm. Sterilising gay children "unchecked" was never happening and after the cass review, it's certainly not going to "resume".

Overemotive, hyperbolic language designed to scare people is not helpful.