Jeremy Corbyn - webchat to discuss self-identification of sex

[Popchyk]

On the Andrew Marr Show today, Jeremy Corbyn indicated that the Labour Party is in favour of a policy of people being able to self-identify as the opposite sex.

Could we get Jeremy Corbyn on Mumsnet to do a webchat in order to discuss the implications around this?

If he is unavailable, could we have another senior Labour figure?

Thank you

Another yes please.

I would ask:

"If we are allowed to self-identify as women, what else can we self-identify as? Is this restricted to sex or can we self ID our race and age as well? My mother is 70 but looks 60 and always got on well with 60 yr olds. Can she have her birth certificate amended to show the age she feels?"

"If not, why not?"

Empire I think there are Labour Party plans for self-ID on race and being disabled (for collection of internal party data) already.

Great question- am assuming he will say no to age, so what's the difference?

I wouldn't, Empire. I think that'll get it shot down immediately with 'But unlike those examples, gender dysphoria is a very real medical condition and has been diagnosed for decades' , even though the political parties are also all busy saying that it isn't a condition, doesn't need diagnosis and isn't medical.

Lancelottie I agree the question might be at risk of accusations of bigotry. The trouble is everything is at risk of that, and is shutting the debate down.

I would ask something about what sort of safety assessment is being done on the impact of allowing men into women's spaces, particularly changing rooms and toilets. (I'm starting to think the prisons issue, although important at first glance may be a bit of a red herring, but need to look more closely at MOJ guidelines)

Problems are arising in toilets and changing rooms now.

So: will there any unbiased research into the rate at which TIMs offend, bearing in mind the research that shows they offend at the same rate as men? Surely this worrying data needs to be looked into before self-ID goes ahead.

And: what protections will there be in place for women who feel uncomfortable and threatened by an incident, but are afraid of the backlash of being accused of being transphobic?

I've had a couple of thoughts.

One of them is that just asking a question maybe won't be sufficient.

I suspect that JC isn't being given any credible information about what is actually happening.

And I'm sure that either him or his team will review the thread afterwards.

So I intend to give him some information, including links, that he can digest further.

Then ask a question at the end.

If I remember rightly MNHQ will not allow individual posters to ask more than one question. You state your question before the chat starts. And can only add to it if he replies to it.

They are strict about enforcing rules and will suspend people for breaking them (my only claim to fame).

The other thing that has occurred to me is transactivists getting wind of this. They will register and try to derail.

If JC wants to get the input of women, as he has stated, it's in his interests, as well as ours, that the discourse remains civil and informative.

I'd really, really hate to see the thread descend into chaos with multiple posts chanting transwomen are women.

So, I'm officially, right here, asking (begging) MNHQ to suspend new registrations for the duration. Starting at the point 'behind the scenes' at which JC agrees to participate.

"We have suspended new registrations due to the upcoming webchat with Jeremy Corbyn. Registrations will resume when the thread has finished".

Or something similar.

Yeah I th

Think providing info and a list of concerns wi to start with needs to be done so we are all on the same page. This isn't just about toilets or feeling a bit funny around men in dresses.

So, I'm officially, right here, asking (begging) MNHQ to suspend new registrations for the duration. Starting at the point 'behind the scenes' at which JC agrees to participate.

They may already be plenty of TAs already registered, of course. Or, having read this, registering as we speak.

I hope MN will have a plan for all eventualities.

Yes, I agree. Although 'site stuff' isn't an immediate magnet.

It would be great if HQ would hover over the ban button of newly registered members. But I don't know how they could that from a practical point of view.

Would it be possible, instead of presenting him with a thread full of random posts, for MN Towers together with the most knowledgeable posters to assemble a list of key questions in one post, in a locked thread, for him to work his way down at the start?

Then, if there’s time, open the thread to follow-up questions.

Would it be possible, instead of presenting him with a thread full of random posts, for MN Towers together with the most knowledgeable posters to assemble a list of key questions in one post, in a locked thread, for him to work his way down at the start?

YY to this - a list to work through which is properly structured & ordered.

Otherwise he'll just pick the easy ones & dodge the tricky ones whilst lazily dismissing posters as transphobes.

One of the problems I gave with all trans-related discussion is that two issues are continually conflated by politicians etc:
The self identification thing whereby you can have a cock & balls & a full beard & say 'I'm now Lulu' and the actual trans people who have put themselves through loads.
Either way, neither is 'a woman' though - they are 'trans-women'.

Ditch the trans-women are women mantra & accept that women & trans-women are not the same.

It's a great idea. And if he was only interested in informing himself, it would work.

But I suspect, he simply won't want to answer any of those questions.

Which is why, frankly, I don't think he will come at all.

The most significant part of this will be him being asked and refusing.

In light of his assertion that he will speak to women.

Datun, I’d be prepared to bet he’s totally shitting it at the thought of dealing with you

I'd love to see this happen, but he isn't stupid enough to do it. Men like JC know that there are too many logical consistencies in the trans agenda, but they just don't care enough about women to argue it.

hipsterfun

Haha!

The online me must come across so different to the real me.

I'm irreverent, I like toilet humour, I drink, I occasionally smoke roll ups, I wear make up and swear like a navvy.

Keep up the good work

If he wants to take a position on this he needs to be able to justify it to the women it has implications for.

Indeed. I cannot see him doing it. nor any other MP.

I would also request this is a single issue chat. So that he cannot dodge the questions like last time. Last time he was on he chose the fluffy stuff and others he had obviously prepared answers in advance for, and ignored most of the questions. Turned up late, then left early too IIRC.

Just bumping to say I agree with the locked thread/prepared questions.

Have we asked him yet? What did he say?

Have we asked him yet? What did he say?

Yes. I want the actual words.

I know that's not MNHQs fault.

Do I just assume at this stage that Jezza and the brocialists are happy without the votes of me, my family and everybody else I know? A lot would've previously voted labour but sadly that party appears to no longer exist.

Any update, MNHQ?

It has been a week. Could you ask them again?

If the response from the Labour Party is no, could you please ask them who exactly they are consulting with if they are not consulting the biggest female forum in the UK? Could they please identify those groups whose views they actually are considering?

The Labour Party intends to clarify policy in March therefore time is critical on this.

Ta much.