H Brunskell-Evans - resigned from WEP

[PlectrumElectrum]

Twitter comment from Heather -

Today @WEP_UK have reached the conclusion to their investigation. They say they recommend I do not continue in my role as Party Spokeswoman for violence against women and girls to take effect immediately. I will not appeal and I resign my membership #vawg

Nothing on WEP website or twitter - utterly spineless idiots.

I'm not a member, cancelled my membership after their disastrous web chats on here. So I've no stake in this. But can't help feel for Heather. Completely undeserved & illustrates just how absurd this whole trans ideology is when someone like Heather isn't the 'right sort' of advocate/expert on the subject of violence against women & girls, and the vacuous accusation of 'transphobia' takes precedence over her clear compassion on a subject that actually matters.

I saw Heather at a meeting in Glasgow & was really impressed by her considered care and expertise, not least because she was ill & still made the journey to come up and share her thoughts with us. She's worth 100 of those trans hypnotised eejits too busy fawning over the trans cult.

smh

How can you “evolve discussions” about the conflict between sex and gender by silencing members who have views, and academic expertise, on the matter? Pathetic.

So they're not keen on women who work tirelessly around VAW huh. Awesome.

Exactly Terfy how can you have discussion or debate about an issue and develop better practice if you are not allowed to express opinions, present research and knowledge that is questioning the "holy creed".

WEP have updated their statement with the specific rules that HBE supposedly broke:

www.womensequality.org.uk/february_21_statement

"The Executive Committee ruled that there were breaches of 7.10 of the constitution (which can be found online HERE) and 2.1 and 2.2 of the volunteer agreement, which are as follows:

2.1: We expect our volunteers to treat all WE employees, other WE volunteers, all WE members and supporters, and any members of the public you have dealings with, with respect and consideration and without discriminating against, defaming, bullying, harassing or intimidating any person, in particular because of any protected characteristic (sex, age, race, disability, gender-reassignment, sexual orientation, religious or philosophical belief, marital/civil partnership status or pregnancy/maternity). If you don’t do this, it could result in the Party no longer asking you to volunteer, and might make you personally liable for damages. Again, you may have the right to appeal to WE under article 10 of the WE Constitution.

2.2: The Party has been set up to create a broad and strong consensus, uniting voters from across the political spectrum and irrespective of gender, in a drive towards gender equality. It is essential for our effectiveness and credibility that we recognise and embrace different political approaches within our members and supporters, avoid personal attacks on other WE members or against other mainstream parties and maintain political neutrality while discussing our seven core goals. Our approach should be collegiate, inclusive and constructive."

I suspect the relevant part of 7.10 is

"The Executive Committee can censure any Appointed Officers,
candidates for elections or elected representatives in the name of the
Party, including the Leader, if, in the view of the Executive
Committee, that individual’s actions could reasonably be considered:
(i) a breach of the terms of this Constitution; or
(ii) bullying, defamation, harassment or intimidation; or
(iii) bringing the Party into disrepute; or
(iv) to make them unsuitable to represent WE; or
(v) to demonstrate, through their conduct, fundamental
disagreement with the core values and objectives of the Party."

I still think any new Woman Party would be interpreted by the media as FEMINIST BITCHFIGHT LOL which would be a pain to get around, but I'm willing to be proved wrong. (I'd quite like to be wrong, tbh!)

Attilla I know what you mean.

But actually I think done in the right way it wouldn't be. A party representing biological women with an obviously female, obviously non bigoted woman at the head of it would be great.

Slogan: Being a woman is biology not bigotry. We need to talk about sex.

The media would be all over it. It would give a voice to actual women. It would make visible the currently invisible in this debate.

It would force the post-modern bollocks to confront the biological reality every time a debate was had.

Just leaving this here.

Itsall thanks for that. Still can't see how HBE breached the constitution. I can't see how questioning whether children should be given puberty blockers is intimidating, harassing or being disrespectful to anyone even TRA's. It's not logical. Is it a case of if you say you feel you have been hurt/harassed then you have been?

2.2 above = so the WEP strives for gender equality! What is that? A good balance between blue tool belts and glittery ones?

Being that so many feminists reject gender outright the WEP really need to wise up and change that to equality between the sexes.

They are objectively in favor of drugging and surgically altering children to transition them and any concern for the children's welfare is a violation of their constitution.

I guess Heather was free to be concerned about the well being of the children so long as she did not express her concern as it violates the beliefs of some members of the public and the organization.

The tide of supportive messages on twitter is quite encouraging.

Sadly, the WEP are so politically clueless that they will learn neither from that nor from this thread.

I guess Heather was free to be concerned about the well being of the children so long as she did not express her concern as it violates the beliefs of some members of the public and the organization.*

What could possibly go wrong in a democracy operating like this?

Why bring gender into it at all?

Because people giggle if they hear the word sex

Because gender identity is codified into anti discrimination law in the UK.

WEP is such a huge disappoint

I guess Heather was free to be concerned about the well being of the children so long as she did not express her concern as it violates the beliefs of some members of the public and the organization.

How do you violate a belief and should that really be a concern. So we can't question or even ridicule Scientology? We can talk about child sex abuse, as long as we don't violate the beliefs of some priests? #NAPALT. How about paedophiles? Can we talk about issues that might question their beliefs?

Truly ridiculous.

There is a piece in the Times about this

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/barred-academic-heather-brunskell-evans-warns-of-cowardice-over-trans-issues-wlvj3l7bz

How do you violate a belief and should that really be a concern.

And some beliefs are deeply concerning, and it's built into law that we don't unconditionally accept and respect them. The TRA lobby for example have absolutely no concerns regarding violating people's beliefs about biology, safe spaces and language, and not even the government are sufficiently concerned about the belief in punching and threatening murder to non compliant women to refuse funding on publically speak out against it.

This is not a general standard applied to all, it's about some specific groups' beliefs being too politically taboo to apply normal standards of critical thought and common sense to.

THIS:
This is not a general standard applied to all, it's about some specific groups' beliefs being too politically taboo to apply normal standards of critical thought and common sense to.

Open access link for the Times article. www.thetimes.co.uk/article/barred-academic-heather-brunskell-evans-warns-of-cowardice-over-trans-issues-wlvj3l7bz?shareToken=5a0db51ef52ebf3b0399a453b3f62ca6

All of this WEP nonsense has prompted me to sign up to the London Woman’s place UK event...something I’d have never considered before, but reading about how an intelligent, articulate, qualified academic is being silenced makes me very angry indeed.

So wait, this leaves Sandi Tosvig, who I used to love but she's a comedian, and who else? I'm not seeing how they can rationalize losing established and well respected women's rights activists as a plus in terms of what the purport to be trying to achieve.

Very good article, thanks for sharing. Lucy Bannerman has written on the power of the trans lobby before and come up against Owen Jones. Positive comments too. More articles like this could help swing the tide of public opinion and get rid of the notion that any criticism is transphobia. Also that it's not just a 'feminist cat-fight' as a comment suggests.