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.

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 this is what's happening. But that consultation came out of the work Jess Phillips has done with the Women & Equalities Select Committee and she is still championing reform. Why isn't she following it up and demanding publication? This is her baby!

It's tempting to think it's better to just leave it in the long grass but Scotland are now consulting on a draft bill - they're at the next stage. So it's not in the long grass and we need as much sunlight as possible.

Hi Jess,

In your Transgender Equality Report, one of your recommendations was:

22.We recommend that the Equality Act be amended so that the occupational requirements provision and / or the single-sex / separate services provision shall not apply in relation to discrimination against a person whose acquired gender has been recognised under the Gender Recognition Act 2004. (Paragraph 132)

(while at the same time recommending self-ID to get a GRC)

Three and a half years later, in your report on Enforcing the Equality Act, your recommendations included:

29.We recommend that the Government Equalities Office issue a clear statement of the law on single-sex services to all Departments, including the requirement under the public sector equality duty for commissioners of services to actively consider commissioning specialist and single-sex services to meet particular needs. (Paragraph 168)

30.We do not believe that non-statutory guidance will be sufficient to bring the clarity needed in what is clearly a contentious area. We recommend that, in the absence of case law the EHRC develop, and the Secretary of State lay before Parliament, a dedicated Code of Practice, with case studies drawn from organisations providing services to survivors of domestic and sexual abuse. This Code must set out clearly, with worked examples and guidance, (a) how the Act allows separate services for men and women, or provision of services to only men or only women in certain circumstances, and (b) how and under what circumstances it allows those providing such services to choose how and if to provide them to a person who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. (Paragraph 190)

What other things do you think you might have got wrong?

Thank you for asking the question WelshMoth, I saw it briefly before it disappeared.

TinselAngel's question shouldn't have been deleted. It was an original question which had not been asked before therefore totally in within the guidelines. That's a really poor decision @MNHQ

Hi Jess,

In your Transgender Equality Report you said:

58.While the safety and welfare of all offenders is paramount, caring for and managing trans offenders appropriately is crucial. There is a clear risk of harm (including violence, sexual assault, self-harming and suicide) where trans prisoners are not located in a prison or other setting appropriate to their acquired / affirmed gender. Neither is it fair or appropriate for them to end up in solitary confinement solely as a result of their trans status. (Paragraph 320)

59.We welcome the revision of the Prison Service Instruction on Care and Management of Transsexual Prisoners to make it more flexible and to extend it to prisoners on remand and offenders in statutory contact with the National Probation Service. (Paragraph 321)

Three and a half years later, the 2016 PSI on Care and Management of Transsexual Prisoners has had to be withdrawn and replaced because female prisoners came to harm as a result.

Do you now wish you had paid greater attention to the evidence you received from experts within the prison service who alerted you to these dangers?

What other things do you think you might have got wrong?

The question about the GRA has gone?? Can we rephrase "are th ere any consultations you've been involved in that are still to complete?" or similar?

Please add my voice to the group.

Its like waking up in 1300. I cannot believe the censorship happening, right here in front of us.

Oh my god. This is full on censorship.

A carefully phrased question about safety in women's prisons has also gone.

Please can someone clever help me phtase the consultation one so it doesn't mention women or transgender people at all? And th en post it as I think I'm at my limit

YogaDrone's question was about surrogacy FFS

I have emailed once again.

He is being very patient with me

I'd like a conversation about this. Perfectly happy for it to be polite and respectful.
Not at all happy about the perpetual censorship of women expressing concerns.

I'd also like to add my name to the list. How dare MNHQ remove questions on a site primarily used by women, on a topic that seriously affects our rights?

Just coming back to say that Babdoc and I have been deleted. I did get an email from MNHQ though one paragraph of which reads:

"Secondly we're finding it increasingly hard to tempt politicians onto Mumsnet because of fears they'll simply be harangued about this single issue and shouted at for not providing the desired response - which ultimately means no one will get to ask any of these important questions to our policy makers."

So, basically, only ask questions about biscuits and fluffy stuff or politicians won't come and talk to us anymore

OldCrone you will probably be deleted now for posting deleted posts!

George Orwell will be spinning in his grave.

We know

'The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became the truth.' - 1984

Having seen the ease with which other politicians slithered out of replying to valid and courteous questions on this issue in the previous web chats frankly I expected very little from this one with Jess Phillips.

But to not even be allowed to ask the questions for the said politicians to ignore...Really?

A politician of whatever persuasion who cannot be asked questions on awkward topics has no business being in politics. And I will not collude to provide any of them with a marketing opportunity masquerading as a debate.

I wonder if men have ever been accused of "haranguing?"

I’m unhappy about the way all political parties are handling women’s rights and child safeguarding. But Labour is the party I usually vote for, so I care most that they should pull themselves together, and stand up against misogyny and child transing.

Yes, I'd like it discussed too. I think Jess Phillips is great and I believe she's worked for a women's refuge in the past, or at least a women's charity - she must understand why this is such an important issue.
My concern is that by making her state her position (which is hopefully pro-women) it opens her up to a pile-on by the trans activists and potentially damages her chances of leadership.
However after having my fingers burnt by Jo Swinson it would be good for all the labour candidates to be clear where they stand on this issue

I meant to say, we need to know whether Jess P will address women’s concerns. If she’s just going to parrot TWAW, it’s not worth bothering.

Yes the word "haranguing" in all it's "shut up mere woman" majesty is particularly grating TinselAngel.

Weirdly I thought that politicians were officials elected by their constituents to represent their views. How very old fashioned of me.