Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Site stuff

Join our Innovation Panel to try new features early and help make Mumsnet better.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Jeremy Corbyn - webchat to discuss self-identification of sex

243 replies

Popchyk · 28/01/2018 11:32

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
6
SpartacusWasHere · 12/02/2018 13:32

I would very much like to see this also. Currently still a card carrying member of the party but that will change the second they fail to protect the rights of women.

Popchyk · 12/02/2018 13:56

Me again.

Be interested in what people think.

If Corbyn won't agree to a webchat, would he agree to a private meeting instead? Maybe at MNHQ? With just a few mumsnetters who can brief him on the implications of self-ID?

He doesn't have to do anything. Just listen. Maybe for 40 minutes or so.

I'd certainly be happy to contribute to a fund to cover the travel expenses of those people on here who know all the issues and who would be interested in taking part in this.

Does anybody else have any thoughts? Could this work?

Should we offer it?

OP posts:
DodoPatrol · 12/02/2018 14:00

If JC won't come and debate it, let's have Lily Madigan. Lily needs to know how to encourage women back to the Labour Party, after all, and thus should be open to women's views without letting personal issues get in the way.

Maybe.

Datun · 12/02/2018 14:01

Popchyk

That's an excellent idea. Limiting his exposure might encourage him to do what he has stated, and talk to women.

FaithHopeCharityDesperation · 12/02/2018 14:04

JC loves to 'listen' - he's very, very good at 'listening' & appearing to listen.

What he's not so good at is taking things any further.

If he had a cozy group chat, it would appear to have gone down well, but he'll likely do sod all with it moving forwards.

That would be the worst option imo (sorry Popchyk) - he really needs to be publicly questioned on it & give public answers & assurances.

TheButterflyOfTheStorms · 12/02/2018 15:10

The silence alone is speaking volumes.

I know that parties sometimes have to be politic and court certain groups to gain power to do what they think is right. Concessions for pensioners so that they can get elected and do what they think is right.

Courting the youth right-on vote is important. But someone needs to think about whether stripping half the population of rights to do it is a good idea. Labour needs to listen and act before irreparable damage is done to women's rights.

Datun · 12/02/2018 15:18

Courting the youth right-on vote is important. But someone needs to think about whether stripping half the population of rights to do it is a good idea. Labour needs to listen and act before irreparable damage is done to women's rights.

Especially as youth culture and youth rebellion aren't exactly known for their longevity.

The very purpose of it is to react against the previous generation.

And it doesn't take long. Five or ten years and the kids growing up today will want something else.

They will certainly be questioning their parents societal influences and have dreamt up a whole new set of their own.

CAAKE · 12/02/2018 15:34

If Corbyn won't agree to a webchat, would he agree to a private meeting instead? Maybe at MNHQ? With just a few mumsnetters who can brief him on the implications of self-ID?

I'll shout Corbyn, Pencils and Datun tea at Claridges.

gussyfinknottle · 12/02/2018 15:40

MNHQ - tell him the majority of MN users are women and we all know what a supporter of women JC is and, indeed, the whole Labour Party is. Grin

Lawlsie1976 · 12/02/2018 16:10

Even if Corbyn agrees to this, how important an issue is this to him? It may be important to us here, but I'm not sure if it is to him.

Chrysanthemum5 · 12/02/2018 16:24

"If Corbyn won't agree to a webchat, would he agree to a private meeting instead? Maybe at MNHQ? With just a few mumsnetters who can brief him on the implications of self-ID?"

I can see why people are suggesting this but if Corbyn can't face a webchat for 1 hour then really how is he going to be able to run the country?

EmpressOfJurisfiction · 12/02/2018 16:27

Even if Corbyn agrees to this, how important an issue is this to him? It may be important to us here, but I'm not sure if it is to him.

Even if he couldn't care less about self-ID, I bet he cares about women's votes. And this is well & truly out of the box now.

GardenGeek · 12/02/2018 16:36

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

EmpressOfJurisfiction · 12/02/2018 16:41

James Kirkup

"I have learned a lot sincewriting about gender lawshere last week.

I’ve learned that if you ever want to flood your Twitter timeline with people arguing about something, writing an article about gender laws is a good way to do it.

I’ve learned that some people do indeed get very angry about this stuff, though not always the people you’d expect. The prickliest communication I had wasn’t from a Trans-Rights Activist or a Radical Feminist. It was from a parliamentarian. And overall, I’ve had nothing like the venom I’ve seen directed at other hacks who’ve written about this in similar ways; for some reason or another, people are less horrible to me about this than they are to Janice Turner and Helen Lewis.

I’ve learned that there are some brilliant, learned and compassionate people out there, who come at this from all angles. One (purely anecdotal) observation is that the diversity of opinions within the trans-gender population is not remotely reflected in the bit of this conversation most visible at Westminster. The trans community’s opinions are not as homogenous as some reporting and discussion suggest. So here’s a tip for hacks covering this: don’t just book Paris Lees or talk about Lilly Madigan. Ask Kristina Harrison what she thinks. Or Tara Hewitt. Or lots of other people. The same goes for the ‘radical’ feminist side of this: there’s more to it than Germaine Greer. (Though for some media outlets that really should know better, having any voice from that side of the conversation at all would be an improvement.)

Which brings me to the most politically pressing thing I’ve learned. Mumsnet is angry.And here’s something I already knew. When Mumsnet is angry, someone in politics is in trouble.

Now, I don’t know how many Spectator readers are also Mumsnetters, but those who aren’t might just assume that site is all middle-class mummies twittering about yoga and little Sophie’s Mandarin lessons. If so, they’d be wrong.

Mumsnet is fab and full of serious, interesting people talking about serious, interesting stuff. For an increasing number of them, that means gender recognition, self-defined gender and the implications (practical, social, political and philosophical) for women — by which I mean, people who were born female.

And again, purely anecdotally, it seems to me that a lot of those people are seriously unhappy. They think that the sort of self-declared gender laws that may end up in force in the UK, as they have in other countries, will do nothing less than render the word ‘woman’ meaningless, with all that that implies for equality and freedom and, well, civilisation as we know it.

To paraphrase some common sentiments: you can’tbecomea woman, because womanhood is based on biology, socialisation and experience that only those born to it can know; if the law dictates that a man can attain womanhood simply by signing a few forms, womanhood becomes empty and women lose any standing in society. Indeed, the very notion of objective truth goes out the window. To quote the formidably eloquent Kristina Harrison, accepting that people can define their own gender without external check or scrutiny is ‘to assert that subjective and unverifiable will subordinate objective biological sex as the pre-eminent cultural-legal category.’

This is an aspect of the gender debate I avoided last week because a) it’s endlessly complicated; b) I’m wary of getting into questions about experiences and feelings that I haven’t had and can’t share; and c) I’d end up revealing that I never really understood the post-modernism texts I pretended to read for my degree.

So I’m going to stick to the mundane politics of Mumsnet’s epistemological essentialism. Some important voters are angry, and a lot of them are angry at Labour.

Partly that’s because some of them are Labour people and they feel let down by their own party. For all the caricature of Corbynistas being twenty-something men angry at their middle-class parents, much of the Corbyn surge in Labour membership has come from older women, some of whom have rejoined the party after years away. Labour women made Corbyn; could they yet unmake him?

Partly it’s because Labour is the party pushing hardest towards self-ID in gender. Jeremy Corbyn talks like a man who wants rules that allow someone to define their own gender. That would mean that the party’s all-women shortlists (AWS) would be open to someone who was born male, retained male physiology and had undertaken no action to change that physiology, and was legally recognised as male. Such a person would be eligible for an AWS purely because that person declared themself to a be a woman.

This, for now, is the hottest political flashpoint in the gender debate. And if you read Mumsnet, it could be the spark that ignites a full-blown political firestorm, where women abandon Labour in droves. Mumsnetters are girding for war and have armed themselves with a hashtag: #labourlosingwomen, a banner that also covers concerns about the Corbyn leadership’s somewhat macho attitude to the treatment of Labour women who don’t worship St Jeremy and the way allegations of sexual wrongdoing by some Corbyn allies have been handled.

Does this matter? Isn’t this just some online grumbling in an angry echo-chamber? Maybe, but some Mumsnetters scent blood. YouGov’s regular tracker on 28-29 January put Labour on 42 percent overall and 46 percent among women. The latest tracker, conducted last week, has Labour on 39 percent overall, 4 points behind the Tories, and down to 40 percent among women.

Has Mr Corbyn really lost 6 points of female support (close to 1 million votes) in a few days? Almost certainly not; these are just two polls and nowhere near enough to call this a trend. But could Labour’s stance on trans and gender issues alienate women in significant numbers? I think it cannot be ruled out.

Sometimes in politics, perception matters more than reality. Narratives matter, and the narrative of ‘women vs Corbyn’ could quite easily take hold, and become self-fulfilling. The gender wars are currently a niche interest, but if this debate goes mainstream (and Britain’s slide into identity politics and culture war suggests it will), there is surely at least the potential for a lot of women to start thinking very hard about the implications of Labour’s approach.

In short, all the necessary components are in place for a real political grudge-match, the sort of no-holds-barred ultimate fighting cage-match that aficionados of political combat will tell their grandchildren about.

Ladies and gentlemen, take your seats, grab your popcorn and let’s get ready to rumble. Because it’s showtime: Corbynistas vs Mumsnetters. May the best women win."

EmpressOfJurisfiction · 12/02/2018 16:42

(with thanks to IntelligentYetIndecisive on the Labour loses 3 points thread)

Catmint · 12/02/2018 17:15

Hi, just want to add support to the idea.

Received the attached from Labour today, ( which is odd, as I'm not a member and haven't been since the early 1990's). But I thought it very interesting that they clearly see market themselves as a party fighting for women.

Jeremy Corbyn - webchat to discuss self-identification of sex
hipsterfun · 12/02/2018 19:11

May the best women win.

Ah, I see what he did there Grin

itsbetterthanabox · 12/02/2018 19:12

Yes!

PositivelyPERF · 12/02/2018 19:21

They missed a bit from the end of that badge ‘we won’t stop until women are fully represented.......by men” 😒

FloraFox · 12/02/2018 19:21

I cannot see Jeremy Corbyn agreeing to speak to MN on this but I am very glad MNHQ have asked him to discuss this topi specifically. Previously politicians have studiously avoided this topic on MNHQ and I was suspended during the Harriet Harman webchat, as I think others were. I applaud MNHQ for tackling this with JC.

noraclavicle · 12/02/2018 19:37

Over a week since asked and no response yet? That sounds like Corbyn Hmm

Popchyk · 12/02/2018 20:06

Over two weeks, nora.

OP posts:
ButteredScone · 12/02/2018 21:54

Every time this gets discussed with reference to science, I feel so relieved. That Spectator article makes me feel better.

Jeremy Corbyn isn’t coming on to debate on MN. He would have to write down all this feely right-on waffle pseudo-science crap he can just about hold together while he smiles. No smiles here.

drspouse · 13/02/2018 11:51

I know we don't really want a "junior" spokesperson but would we take the shadow Minister for Women and Equalities? (Dawn Butler)?

drspouse · 13/02/2018 11:52

(She says "don't make a big fuss about it" and "I wouldn't ask someone to prove they are a woman").
Cough.