If WEP decided Sex Matters would you join?

[womanhuman]

By which I mean continued protection of women/girl-only spaces (physical spaces, services, organisations, stats, programmes) on a sex-not-gender basis.

I would.

Because nearly everything else follows from maintaining that distinction.

Yes. Would consider. Currently I’ve no idea who to vote for.

Yes, with the proviso of a public apology to Heather Brunskell Evans for her appalling treatment.

Sophie Walker has just posted this, so don't think we'll be joining them any time soon.

That seems a bit of a novel interpretation of what Heather said on Radio 4?

And I agree. A whole lot on what their policy isn't, but nothing whatsoever in terms of statement on what it is. For obvious reasons, they're trying to sit on the fence. Which on this subject is just not possible.

Must be temperate about misuse of intersectionality, must be temperate about misuse of intersectionality, must be temperate about misuse of intersectionality, must be temperate about misuse of intersectionality.

goes off muttering to self

I would, I'm politically homeless right now and Labour have gone too far on this issue for me to ever trust them again.

I want a party that treats everyone with respect and dignity which includes transwomen

I do not want one that promotes, enables and supports the very male pattern of violence used by trans activist that is trying to remove every protection and support women have worked so hard to create, whilst refusing to allow us to even speak let alone listen to us. And having spent a lifetime fighting to not be defined by female gender stereotypes I want one that will accept me as I am.

I genuinely didn't understand the statement.

Having read it, I have no idea on the party's position on trans rights in relation to women's rights. Lots of "Heather said X about the policy which is untrue".

Well, what is true then? Why can't you say?

What is the position of the WEP on those men who claim to identify as women? If it is full support of self-ID and men being able to access women's spaces with no restrictions then bloody well say so.

Christ.

I retract my earlier statement that I would consider joining WEP after reading that statement. Not totally understanding it, mind you, because it's so wishy washy, let's not upset anyone. Apart from women.

Was HBE on 'Moral Maze' as a private individual/interested academic or as a WEP leading light? I can see if it was the latter, they expect towing of the party line, but if the former then WTF? Surely Heather can express her views formed by research in this area?

In my view, if a person believes that abuse of children is taking place, it's morally incumbent on them to whistle-blow regardless of the views of whichever organisations they belong to

No, not unless they showed a long-term commitment to the fundamentals of women's rights, which should have been the case right from the beginning but they've failed so spectacularly I don't think they even understand women's issues.

If there was a sufficiently penitent apology to HBE and a manifesto that resolutely opposes self-ID I would consider voting for them. But they'd have a lot more work to do before I'd join.

That statement reads like a long drunken Facebook rant from a person who is having a go at their ex and nobody else has a fecking clue what they are talking about.

Maybe another political party should respond "u OK hun?"

I would rejoin

Oh that's a shame. I just couldn't make head nor tale of that statement. It read like "blah blah blah" to me.

I had been considering joining WEP given a couple of tweets last night from Sophie Walker about not calling women terfs.

Will hang tight for now I think.

Had a look at their [[https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/womensequality/pages/279/attachments/original/1487934933/WEP_policy_document_2017.pdf?1487934933
Policy Statement 2017]]

"WE also recognise that the binary words “woman” and “man” do not reflect the gender experience of everyone in our country, and support the right of all to define their sex or gender or to reject gendered divisions as they choose".

That statement reads like a long drunken Facebook rant from a person who is having a go at their ex and nobody else has a fecking clue what they are talking about.

LOL! Harsh but accurate!

support the right of all to define their sex or gender

And there you have it.

Of course everyone should have the right to perform gender in any way or means that suits them, and without regard to gender stereotypes. Hurrah for that.

But no one can 'define their own sex'. It's not possible. To say that you have to buy into a fantasy and enforce its survival over objective reality and everyone else's facts. For them to include transwomen as part of the social group women, fine. Great. With the clear understanding that the needs, provisions and protections for transwomen and for biological women are all equally valid but two separate groups.

And no, a women's party should not be defining 'woman' as 'anyone of any sex who likes the word'. That makes them unable to see, discuss or address any of the issues involved that damage women or girls. Hence the very uncomfortable fence sitting they're trying to do while keeping actual women from giving up on them in droves.

Yes, but they would have some apologies to make first!

That statement reads like a long drunken Facebook rant from a person who is having a go at their ex and nobody else has a fecking clue what they are talking about.

It does. Not very a credible or professional approach. Shame after some things she's said recently.

Being intersectional feminists means understanding the intersections of our inequalities and making space for the experiences of all, understanding all those experiences are valid.

On that basis no as that's libfem talk. And her approach about we make policy based on our members views - no you make sensible policy based on who you want to represent and what rights you want to wrong, otherwise you end up with a mish-mash approach which is what they have - trying to keep everyone happy but not actually representing anyone but a few minority views.

Very disappointing