Who else would really appreciate a polite discussion of gender issues and the concerns of women at the jess Philips webchat on Monday?

[StealthPolarBear]

I posted on the webchat thread:
Since the questions have already been asked I am not allowed to repeat similar but I want on record that self ID, its potential abuse, protection of vulnerable young people from those who promote transition which can sometimes include puberty blockers, the protection of natal women's rights and the importance of teaching biological facts in schools are big concerns to me.

MNHQ have said they don't want any more comments or questions about gender issues on the Web chat thread which I can understand. However what I do want to make clear is the number of people who may share some or all of my concerns. Otherwise any questions about gender issues are of an equal weight to all others and in fact others, which can be repeated in a different form, may seem to gain more weight.

Would you believe any candidate who said they took the concerns of women seriously? It is the Labour Party line that TWAW. No one wishing to lead them is going to go against that.
Apart from the dismissive 'no one has ever mentioned it' JP was polite in her convictions. I doubt she truly believes TWAW but she's not prepared to put her career on the line for women.

I thought she was a fool before and from what has been reported I’m even more dismissive of her. What a disappointment.

No one wishing to lead them is going to go against that.

Then I guess they'll lose the very reason they have a party to lead at all - constituents and votes.
It would seem a pretty pointless job at that point.

Unless they really make up the loss with the 'woke vote'. So far that tactic is not working.

It's this ridiculous assumption that being concerned about safeguarding and undermining women's rights = being a homophobe and wanting a return to the 1950's tradwife shit.
There is a debate in Australia at the moment about tennis champion, Margaret Court who, in her later years, has stated some very traditionalist views on homosexuality. She has also raised concerns about transwomen competing in women's sport. The two notions are being conflated such that anyone who thinks the latter obviously also thinks the former . On BBC website today.

This is what I posted towards the end (on top of two previous posts about autistic girls - the latter one explicitly stating that at my daughter's school, the ASD girls all think blockers are a cool way to stop their periods/breasts).

I realised the link was wrong (it goes nowhere) so tried to link again and was 'disappeared'.

Here's the thing.

A message to all potential party leaders

This will not end well. It will not. Young people will start to sue their families/local NHS and GIDS

Women will be hurt and start complaining hugely about their loss of rights. All of them, not just Mumsnetters

And when this all blows up in our faces, and when the legitimate LGBT community are caught up in a massive backlash, we will remember.

We will remember what you did and didn't do.

We will remember the names of all the people, politicians, celebrities, scientists, journalists, leaders, community leaders, clinicians, CAMHS staff who colluded in this. We will not forget that you were too scared to speak up

We will remember and we will push for you to be held accountable

This is us telling you now, so that in the future, you will never have to say 'but we didn't know'

This is us telling you. So you know

It is really frustrating that these discussions come with the name calling of transphobe. I’m not at all transphobic and am very pro the trans community being free from persecution having their own safe space and being helped and given appropriate access and care.

Wanting to safeguard women’s spaces isn’t transphobic. It’s women phobic to say a sexual assault or rape victim should move over. There has to be a better way to find a balence.

That’s how discussions are stopped. People then don’t actually think ‘hang on, why is it that? Who says?’ Or start to doubt themselves.

Just realised that I forgot to add my post (the polite but firm rhetoric was a separate thing this morning). I posted the correct link which was disappeared (although in fairness they prob thought I was spamming)

I have faith in MNHQ though - they've held really firm despite everything as they could have shut all of this down 2 years ago. But they didn't. I'm thinking clear firm diplomacy is going to take MN further when dealing with politicians - if they are Kool-aided they would potentially hold more clout in terms of getting things shut down permanently.

Interesting that it hasn't occurred to any politiciians that of course all the TRAs present as humble sweet and feminine. They are presenting their best face. (Not withstanding that some prob are being genuine)

"Jess thanks for addressing Hazeyjanes questions - it's so
Important to so many of us and affects the day to day lives of our kids and us in a way that I can't adequately express.

While you're here, after you've gone, could you just read this thread? Please? It might explain why so many of us are asking about the same thing.

Peace and good luck with the Brum schools. My nephews school is closed every Friday afternoon and it's a dreadful thing. 😡

it down for me? www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3145470-Break-it-down-for-mee*"

Ignore my post, wrong thread

I have started a thread in Site Stuff to ask about the post deletions. Let's see what they say...

I would think they will say that a swiss cheese thread is hard to read for others following the conversation after it's posted, particularly one that will end up in the press. However frustrating this is, MN are trying to run a business and I'd hate to see them pressured to the point that FWR becomes more trouble than it's worth, and mostly full of people complaining that HQ can't do right for doing wrong.

I would think they will say that a swiss cheese thread is hard to read for others following the conversation after it's posted, particularly one that will end up in the press.

I don't really understand why they had to delete all the questions. In the previous webchat with Jess Phillips 3 years ago, the first 3 pages (posted before the webchat started) were dominated with questions about gender. These were left in, but I understand MNHQ group similar questions together for the person to answer, rather than them just ploughing through the thread and encountering similar questions that they have already answered.

If they had left the questions in (as long as they were sensible, politely worded questions), anyone reading the thread could see the depth of feeling on these issues. Everyone would also be able to see that they weren't repeated questions, but questions about different aspects of an enormously complex issue.

As it stood in the end, a question about Labour's response to women holding a meeting had to be removed so that one could be asked about the spousal exit clause in the GRA. I don't see how it could be argued that these were repeated questions.

I saw an online paper report of the thread (DM?) and they hammered home that fact that there were lots of holes. The also highlighted some of the more controversial comments by jess.

Interestingly, BBC are reporting that jess Philips is withdrawing from the leadership contest. Wonder if she knew that yesterday and decided to keep her head down.

If she did know yesterday, the web-chat was an incredible waste of time.

Or this decision was half made yesterday and all the furore kicked up as a result of the webchat has put the tin hat on it?

Whoever called it as the SwinsonSwansong was right.

She's withdrawn!

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51195059

She must have known before yesterday...that's a heck of an impulsive decision if not.

I agree @Gertrudesgarden.

Have I brought down Jess Phillips?

Maybe realising that you're not very good at answering in-depth questions is the thing that nailed it.

And maybe, if she's not in the spotlight of a leadership contest, she can actually listen and not feel as though she has to play both sides against the middle.

Does anyone have any idea what Keir Starmer’s position is on this issue?

Shall we move our attention to Kier Starmer?

Really didn't see a withdrawal coming. However if you can't answer the simple questions...

Kier Starmer you say? Right Puulll💪