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.

Incidentally, I have a vote in the Labour Leadership Election.

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

How do I ever correct her misapprehension about the Spousal Exit Clause then?

Tinsel would you mind explaining thay issue briefly? I can imagine what it is but clarity would be helpful

I left the labour party over it's refusal to stand up for my rights.

I'll rejoin and vote for Jess if she addresses ANY of the concerns written by women, about women's rights, on this forum of mainly women.

I'm with you and am concerned. I'd like those questions answered.

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

This is what I alluded to earlier. It's not going to help, ultimately, to make anyone come forward as GC now, and what you'll end up with is a Labour leader who does parrot TWAW and won't even listen. JP has shown signs of understanding. Pushing on this now is not playing the long game.

The surrogacy question can be reposted, the issue was the other stuff at the top.

I would also like to see JP answer the questions MNers actually want her to address.

This censorship is fucked up

I've asked her about her housekeeping habits, as that's the kind of stuff us women are interested in.

Oh you could have asked about lipstick :( now I'll never know

Toilet brushes one is insightful. That's what we need to know about the future leader of the opposition :o

Please add me to the list too. As far as the webchat goes, this is the only issue that interests me.

And you can be sure, MNHQ, that for every single poster on this thread there will be hundreds, perhaps thousands, who feel the same.

I've reposted about surrogacy not mentioning gender at all, but based my previous deletion email I have only a faint hope it will remain.

SpartacusAutisticus's post before mine will certainly get zapped soon. Although it's a very good question! If only we were allowed to ask questions of our elected officials....?

This is what I alluded to earlier. It's not going to help, ultimately, to make anyone come forward as GC now, and what you'll end up with is a Labour leader who does parrot TWAW and won't even listen. JP has shown signs of understanding. Pushing on this now is not playing the long game.

Then fuck Labour. Why should women who have real and legitimate concerns try and vote someone in who might/may be/possibly/could/potentially be or become GC over time?

Because the chances are they won't.

Why should women be told to play a long game on a hope, when they could instead deliberately not vote for a party which has so clearly shown utter contempt for women and our rights? They have told voters what they think of GC women vs elevating men's rights. They can FOTTFSOFATFOSM for my vote. Surely not voting for them sends a stronger message than a "would you mind awfully, pretty please if its ok, can I just, sorry to ask - but is it ok for you to throw women a crumb?" vote.

For all her mendacity, at least Swinson openly told us not to vote for her because she believes so wholeheartedly in the TWAW mantra and all it entails. She owned her POV.

It was a different mnhq er who replied to me this time. It looks as though they've had a slight rethink on that surrogacy issue, which is good

Spartacus's post has gone.

The one about toilet brushes??

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.

She's not just keeping her head down to avoid a pile on. She's very upfront about her views on prostitution. She's opened herself up to a pile-on by the pro 'sex-work' lobby but still manages to stick to her guns.

She has stated her position on sex/gender and it's not pro-woman.

labourlist.org/2020/01/jess-phillips-interview-factions-feminism-and-a-fighting-chance/

I’m deeply concerned by the silencing of discussion on women’s safety within a (supposed) democracy. I spoiled my ballot over this issue in December... we’re talking about 51% of the population (more if you include vulnerable males harmed by the TRA agenda), it’s not a fringe issue

I very much understand the reasoning behind doing it, but I actually think people posting on that thread with questions about lipsticks and biscuits doesn't do us any good. Partly because people that don't realise what's going on may think you're shallow twats (I did a double take until I recognised the names!) and also it (I don't think I'm explaining this next bit well) doesn't really give us the moral high ground, as it could be seen to be genuinely trying to derail the thread.

The whole point to me is that we bloody aren't trying to derail any thread with our questions about women's rights, we have genuine concerns which need answering and so we won't solve this impasse with questions about cleaning and make up. I don't think we should STFU and go away, I think we should keep questioning and keep our eyes on the prize.

I just think there are more effective ways to get answers, this thread itself shows how many people have questions and concerns, and we need to keep questioning on what we do want to know.

I'm not very articulate this morning (and I'm very fucking grumpy about something else) so I may very well be wrong and there is something I am missing. (I can actually see that if these questions are answered seriously and the "proper" ones are ignored, it makes a point)

Also look what happens when you suppress voices. Arguably Brexit was a result of people not being able to express legitimate concerns without being closed down as a bigot (cf Gordon Brown). Look at what happened to those girls in Rochdale and elsewhere - people (especially women) spoke up but were consistently silenced because “racism”. Nothing good comes of suppressing opinions. Nothing.

Someone has just asked why they can't see Jess Philip's answers, I wanted to say RTFT but I put this and really don't think its delete worthy, AIBU?

@traceyracer the webchat doesn't start until 1pm on Monday. This thread is so that questions can be put to Jess Philips in advance so she has lots of time to prepare answers, and questions which are deemed unsuitable and which Jess Philips doesn't want to answer can be deleted.

Add me to the list of interested parties too.

I left the Labour party over this issue. I like Jess, really identified with her 'thought I was middle class because I ate olives' comment. I'll be bitterly disappointed if she's not supportive of womens rights.

As a lifelong "gobby woman", being told to STFU by MNHQ, of all people, is breathtaking.

Deleting posts entirely and refusing to allow open questioning is staggering. Who's running scared - JP or MNHQ?

I realise it's a lot for JP to read through, but I'm sure she's used to preparing in advance and will, you know, READ the questions before she logs in. If she doesn't, then she's rather stupid.

StealthPolarBear This is my summary:

makemorenoisemanc.wixsite.com/mysite/post/trans-widows-and-the-spousal-veto-a-modern-fable-of-male-entitlement