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.

StealthPolarBear
Also the shutting down of discussion - censorship (even on here), disruption of meetings to discuss women's rights, no-platforming, people being disciplined at work for voicing concerns.

I think we should collate this list into one post and add it to the webchat thread as a request for a separate discussion/chat given the amount of issues (not just one!) and backed by a huge amount of women. It wouldn't be a load of repeated questions and separate posts, it would be a selection of our concerns demonstrating exactly why we shouldn't be silenced and after all Jess Philips herself has said in the last questions are fine. I genuinely cannot see why MN would delete this request?

If they do perhaps we could email it directly to Jess Philips?

Actually it'll be impossible to order them without a more structured exercise. I think it's fair to say mostof us care about most of these issues to varying degrees depending on personal circumstances and opinion

Or we can assume that questions are fine except the ones I don't want to answer. Not a good look for someone soliciting votes to represent the people.

Coming to this late, but I want it discussed.

I'm so disappointed in Jess, how she's fallen

I'm also more than disappointed in MNHQ - this isn't the first time they've wholesale deleted posts that relate to self-id, and I'm getting very tired of it.

This is getting too long to handle on my phone. I'll have to work on laptop later

Liberal democracy is defined as a willingness to debate.

The last 3 years have been defined by a large section of the public stating that liberal democracy is failing and they no longer believe in it, because they have 'the wrong opinion'.

Stopping people talking goes to the very heart of politics for the last five years. It's very much defined where we are and where we are going. It's very much at the heart of Labour Party problems.

It's about there being a 'them and us' where only those with the right opinion and view are relevant to a party.

If the Labour Party want to express any louder how and why they don't get politics then I think they'd have a hard time doing it more effectively than this tbh.

Jo Swinson's failure to address the issue in the national press and on social media was spectacular. Talking to women about it is the only way to defuse this as it will keep on and on until its defused or women are abused.

The webchat guideline say
WEBCHAT GUIDELINES 1. One question per member plus one follow-up. 2. Keep your question brief. 3. Don't moan if your question doesn't get answered. 4. Do be civil/polite. 5. If one topic or question threatens to overwhelm the webchat, MNHQ will usually ask for people to stop repeating the same question or point. More here.

Number 5 is what they mean. I take it to mean loads of people saying "but what about redtoothbrush's question?"
I agree they would be annoying. People asking different questions on the same topic just show the strength of feeling.
Have there been too many questions on the thread on the topic of politics yet?

Yes, I would. I did not ask a question but made a comment regarding the censorship of women asking questions. It was removed within minutes.

I've replied to my email exchange with mnhq
Thank you for coming back to me. There are many questions which all fall under the very broad topic of women's rights. I see there are multiple questions about brexit or politics on there - are they being removed? Or is it just women's rights?

Oh the irony

As an aside I recently went to a public meeting with someone with a little clout although not a politician & they promised me that they’d ask what’s happened to the GRA consultation. I believe this person will ask but am not confident that they will actually learn anything but I will let you know when I’ve heard back from them.

I'm going to report your post on this thread and have it deleted, just so you don't get used to all this free speech :)

Thank you cunty

How about posting this as a question: “Do you support freedom of speech, and what do you think of MN deleting and censoring hundreds of women who wanted to ask you about self ID and the risks to women’s safety?”

I also want in depth clear answers from politicians on this. From Philips I particularly want to ask her views on the need for male-free spaces in women's refuges. Jo Swinson made very clear she didn't understand that, and thought people just needed to a space their specific abuser couldn't find them.

No one who is too openly GC is going to win the leadership contest. So if you want a leader who is, this is entirely the wrong strategy. Back down and put the pressure on once the person is in the job, not now.

Tempted to go on and ask where she gets her hair cut and what shade of lipstick she wears so they can tick the 'answered questions important to women' box

Interesting point. The problem is we don't know who is willing to listen

Wow. Nice knowing you babdoc

No one who is too openly GC will win the leadership

Probably true. But in the end no one who capitulates to this agenda will win a general election. The general public, to the extent that they know about it, do not buy it. And as it gets more exposure more and more people are horrified by it. Woke politics does not win votes. Jess et al presumably benefit from knowing what ordinary people are saying outside of their Labour Party hack bubble.

Please add me to the numbers of people here who thinks these issues are vital and should be addressed without censorship. Ta.

I’m also in agreement.

In the past MNHQ have stated that they ‘bundle’ questions in advance by topic, as far as possible. This in part to make it easier to address topics for the person doing the ‘chat’ but also, and this is crucial, so that it is obvious when there is a key issue that lots of people want to discuss.

they'll simply be harangued about this single issue

This is an issue that affects the fundamental rights of half the population. It is across every conceivable layer of public policy, and its affect is from cradle to grave.

Why are women being forced to restrict their questions on this issue in particular?

Much as i am annoyed and have added my own question, @amateursleuth is right. Nobody and certainly not a woman can be openly gender critical and be elected. We probably are better off pushing once someone is leader.

Plus as regards the gra consultation, isn't there a possibility that the tories are just quietly ignoring it as a way of dealing with it?

Yes of course. I'd like an answer from anyone in the know. If the tories are sitting on it, Labour could be bringing that into the open and challenging them