Webchat with Sophie Walker, leader of the Women's Equality Party and London Mayor candidate, Tuesday 19 April at noon

[BojanaMumsnet]

Hello

We’re pleased to welcome Sophie Walker, leader of the Women’s Equality Party, ahead of the London Mayoral elections, on Tuesday 19 April at 12 noon.

The Women’s Equality Party was set up in 2015 “to unite people of all genders, diverse ages, backgrounds, ethnicities, beliefs and experiences in the shared determination to see women enjoy the same rights and opportunities as men so that all can flourish.”

Sophie was elected leader of the Women's Equality Party in July 2015, and in January 2016 was voted to represent the party in the London Mayoral election. She says she is campaigning for “work that works, affordable housing, equal caregiving, equal enterprise, transport that works, affordable housing and an end to violence against women and girls.”

She worked as an international news agency journalist for nearly twenty years and is an ambassador for the National Autistic Society, campaigning for better support and understanding of autism, particularly in women and girls.

Please do join us on Tuesday at 12 noon if you can, or post a question for Sophie here in advance. And, as ever, please do remember our webchat guidelines and do be polite.

The London mayoral election will be held on 5 May and you’ll need to register to vote by 18 April, today. (Keep your eyes peeled for more mayoral candidate webchats in the next few weeks.)

Thanks
MNHQ

Thanks for your reply - can you elaborate on what 'reducing stereotyping' means in this context?

I agree that partners on postnatal wards is a lovely idea - in theory. But in reality, not so much. I'd be interested to know how many midwives were consulted on this policy, as it does in effect double their workload (partners and visitors can be unbelievably entitled, and even those that aren't have needs that must be met - e.g. directions to toilet, to coffee, space to sit, questions to answer).

But many thanks for the answer on sexual harassment in schools - good to know you're giving it priority.

Me, too, Empress. But we aren't being asked to share, we're having our stuff, little as it is, taken away, and are being told to get to the back of the queue, as usual.

Stand for eg, trans shelters, third-space bathrooms and changing rooms and safe facilities in prison, and so on? I'll support that. Take women's shelters and spaces and everything else and give them to people with male bodies and thus make them unusable for many women? No, sod off. What's the point in "investment in women" if anyone is a woman?

@CoteDAzur

Hi Sophie - I also feel that it is important for Women's Equality Party to be clear on who women are.

Please take a look at MumsNet's Feminism & Women's Rights board and read through the threads there to see the issues where we would like to see WEP take a stand in.

Thank you for drawing my attention to these discussions. I have elaborated on some of those issues above, but also want to say that I don’t think ‘non-male’ is at all a useful term.

I agree completely, Osmiornica.

WE have introduced an ambitious STEM manifesto as a part of our London policies. In short: better education and reducing stereotyping, setting up a London Venture Capital Fund for Women, strengthening investment in women and encouraging equal apprenticeships, push for tech enterprises to adapt to certified ‘tech inclusion’ accreditation schemes such as the Tech Talent Charter, appointing a female Tech Icon for London, and more

Will these women's resources be equally open to trans women who have an already established career before declaring they are a woman?

Osmiornica - Apparently 'women' are a class of people that happen through some mysterious sociological process, akin to the weather or perhaps the movement of tectonic plates, comprising so many different factors that it's impossible to enumerate or define. It is also impossible to define 'women because due to the innumerable factors affecting their 'becoming,' the resulting 'women' are too diverse for easy definition.

The shape of the genitals of people who may or may not come to be defined as 'women' is not a deciding factor, nor is their reproductive capability, size or physical strength. 'Women' just happen, in a complicated way, and people are horrid to them for some reason, and this shouldn't happen. I think that's about the shape of the WEP's policy

In short: better education and reducing stereotyping, setting up a London Venture Capital Fund for Women, strengthening investment in women and encouraging equal apprenticeships

Don't you see how pointless this is with your stance on trans-women. You can't set up a space for women to learn and develop and then allow in men, you defeat the object before you start. Same with men on post natal wards. Women's safe spaces are not safe spaces when we allow men in. History has shown us that time and time again.

And I think there is much more that unifies us than divides us.

Yeah, like kittens and shoes and stuff. I'll go to the wall for the rights of trans-women. And trans-men actually, who never get a bloody look in, even though they're born women, because gender socialisation did such a starling job on them they're quite quiet as a group. But I'm not chucking women's rights aside to help anyone. The only thing that makes me a woman is my biology, I share that with women, I'm not discriminated against because of my brain or sense of self.

This smacks of a donkey shelter redirecting half it's funds and time to help owls. Owls are fucking nice, I like owls. But I expect the donkey shelter to help the donkeys.

@PalmerViolet

Hi Sophie, you're going to get a rough ride here I feel, so an easy one to start you off.

Will you be considering changing the party's name to the Non-Male's Equality Party, or do you think that woman has a definition?

I would never suggest defining women by using men as a starting point.

I realise the above is probably 'vicious'.

at manatee.

But do you appreciate why saying that anyone can be a woman if they feel like it makes all of your gender balance policies meaningless? Every post could still be taken by a biological male.

@MovingOnUpMovingOnOut

Thanks Buffy I agree with everything you have said and you've said it very well.

I do think this policy is being presented as a solution to the problem of poor postnatal care and it's a piss poor solution because it doesn't tackle the catastrophic problem of inadequate care for women in labour and postmatally.

I don't want Dave, Tom, Jeremy or whoever just behind the gappy curtain while I explain to a nurse that I need clear sheets because I've bled or worse on the bed.

I don't want it to be expected that my husband will be keeping an eye on me post birth to make sure I'm well when he's not slept for 36 hours when the most medical training he's ever had is checking the medical box at work to make sure the contents is in date.

This is a classic example of asking people about something seen only from their personal point of view and failing to take account of the wider and more significant issues.

Thank you for your thoughts. The idea is not for fathers and same sex partners to be obliged to be there, but that they should be able to be involved.

gender balance policies meaningless

Surely not. It would only be meaningless if they were sex balance policies. 50% self identified women and 50% self identified males is a perfect gender balance, even if they are all biologically male...

Such organisations should be able to tailor their support to the different needs of women and to create spaces that the women who are trying to survive feel are safe for them. I also understand the concerns in regards to prisons. I think we can build a prison system where women, including trans women, are safe and feel safe. I think those are issues we can solve, without the absolutism that seems to identify some parts of this debate.

To tailor their organizations in anyway form "transwomen are exactly the same as women" would no doubt be seen as discrimination by transwomen.

As for men on labour wards, I had to walk with my legs crossed across a ward full of men so they didn't see me bleed all over myself. Everyone else get s a shred of dignity on same sex wards. Why not women pregnant people?

but that they should be able to be involved.

But they are involved. They have about 10+ hours of visiting time to be involved. They aren't patients.

"Because in all honesty, I have been struck by how vicious some of the comments around those issues are (also reflected in some of the questions here.) I don't know why that has happened, and I am not interested in being put in a box, being categorized, as someone who either hates women or hates trans women. Because none of that is true."

This little paragraph is intensely annoying, especially as it is part of a piece that has clearly been prepared with thought.

The first sentence is basically a telling off. The word "vicious" is incredibly strong. What "vice" has been displayed here, specifically, please Sophie? If you call yourself a party that has "woman" in the title, and the definition of "woman" is currently being debated, there is nothing "vicious" in asking clearly what you mean by that. You are asking for support. You are putting yourself out there saying "Devote your resources to me, as your political representative." We have an absolute right therefore to ask you to state clearly what you stand for. We didn't start this, we aren't intrusively prying into your views on this issue out of malice or nosiness. We are asking you because you came here looking for our support. You owe us this. And it is really bad taste to use such a snotty, telling off tone, about this, or any, set of questions. Of all people to talk down to women in this "ladies, mind your manners" tone - the WEP? Please. You enormously disrespect us with this attitude.

The second sentence

"I am not interested in being put in a box, being categorized, as someone who either hates women or hates trans women."

Oh right, so nuance is allowed and necessary, when it's you. I'm not interested in being put in a box either. I don't think I deserve to be put in a box with "vicious" people when I clearly and calmly ask a politician looking for public support what her stance is on a certain issue. But that's what you just did to a bunch of people here.

I don't hate trans women, or anyone. But I still want to know what you mean by "women".

It feels like no one can be "put in a box" except born women, and they get shoved into the "vicious" box simply for asking questions.

I am not going to be as rude as I would like to about your doublespeak misuse of the word "old-fashioned" with your extremely new-fashioned (mis)reading of "becoming a woman". Everyone here can see it, though.

I'm heartened by the posts about protecting the rights of women and girls while also about being supportive towards the trans community.

We are not the same. We do not have the same issues even if we do have much in common. Both groups deserve to have specific rights and services appropriate to the needs of each group.

Why do men's rights to be involved trump my right to privacy?