Ultimate betrayal by the WEP

[Procrastinator1]

Dr Stock has just tweeted this text of a motion to be put to the party conference in September

d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/womensequality/pages/5826/attachments/original/1532600430/Fnl_Gender_recognition_act_motion_final.pdf?1532600430

Obviously the motion hasn't been passed yet.

Motion text: 1 The Women’s Equality Party recognises the damage done by socially constructed gender 2 stereotypes and supports changes to the Gender Recognition Act 2004. The Women’s Equality 3 Party supports changes to the current process by which transgender people are able to receive 4 legal recognition of their changed gender.

5 The Women’s Equality Party supports a process of legal recognition of changed gender which does 6 not require medical reports nor two years’ worth of documentation but a process of self- 7 determination of gender. The Women’s Equality Party supports legal recognition of non-binary 8 people.

9 The Women’s Equality Party calls on the Governments and administrations of the UK to make the 10 following changes to the current process as they revise the Gender Recognition Act 2004:

11 ● Change to the requirement to submit two supporting medical reports, one of a diagnosis of 12 gender dysphoria and one detailing treatment received. Change to the requirement to submit 13 documentation to prove the person has lived as their acquired gender for two years. Instead 14 require a self-determination process to change gender and to obtain a Gender Recognition 15 Certificate and new birth certificate. 16 ● Remove the requirement of spousal consent to obtain legal recognition of changed gender for 17 married people. 18 ● Allow people to change their gender to a third gender option as well as to male and female.

Motion rationale:

19 The Women’s Equality Party should clarify its position as changes to the Gender Recognition Act 20 (GRA) 2004 are being considered by the Governments and administrations of the UK. This change 21 would add depth to the already stated Women’s Equality Party position of supporting the right of an

NotMeOhNo Is that something you know from evidence outside of this thread?

If so:
"Unsafe discussion" = "inconvenient truths some people would rather not be spoken" (by women).

The use of 'safe' in this context is disturbing, given that most debate and current opposition to proposed changes in the law, and to the apparent trans-zeitgeist is focused on protecting the physical privacy, dignity and safety of females.

I'm a member of WEP and I'm going to the conference.

I'm deeply disappointed on their position on trans issues and the protection of women's spaces. I had such high hopes for them.

Yeah, on Twitter the Lambeth branch supported the transwoman who beat up Maria MacLachlan.

No support for Maria, however.

It wasn't one rogue tweet. That is what they actually think.

When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.

Don't expend any energy on them.

But a little bit of me does think that this motion getting defeated would be a really useful symbolic "win

This^ until the motion gets voted through, I am going to remain hopeful. Surely, surely most people won't vote for it? And voting only.at the conference could be a good thing in preventing the vote being nobbled.

When a trans whistleblower takes to Twitter to tell the world that trans organisations have been covering up the abusive conduct of fetishist cross-dressers, you just know that ...possibly ...maybe.... this might not be the time to vote this motion through.

Quite.

Sophie Walker is on twitter trying to justify having 2 pro self ID lawyers platformed on a talk on the GRA with no opposing views platformed.

She's not very convincing I have to say.

Apologies haven't read the whole thread

However Sophie Walker has just tweeted this:

"I've lost count of the number of conversations like this I have had w women who are not members & won't do this work with us and are then angry because it's being done too slowly. I'm sorry you have no confidence in the debate. I'm sorrier you don't want to try to do it with me"

I am hugely pissed off with them but I have had a sneaking suspicion for a while that she does not buy into this trans ID crap and perhaps an entryist approach is not a bad idea. I can't go to the conference but I'd chip in to helping someone else join/go. If enough people went the motion could be defeated and arguments made to change minds and the policy of the WEP. I don't know if we could raise our own motion.

We have every right to be angry but we need to be clever as well.

If I recall correctly from one of the Jess Bradley threads, one of the lawyers speaking at the conference is co-founder of TELI i.e. works or has worked with Bradley. (Sorry I haven't time to reference it but I think it came up towards the end of the first thread.)

So I'm sorry for sounding negative but it sounds to me like the entryism might have already happened.

How hard would it have been to arrange a gender critical speaker?

I said this to Sophie on Twitter when she said I hadn't got it quite right about the debate being one sided, as it was just the Q&A with legal experts that's one sided (!); basically they want the feminists there to be bulldozed. They want any concerns raised to be met with a legal argument that will likely be difficult for any non-legal experts to challenge, especially when both experts will be agreeing with everything they each say. As informed as we all are, I know I have had to google like mad sometimes when debating with a lawyer on twitter in order to challenge their points (which I have usually done successfully but only after I could clarify certain points/get more info). So it is not just one-sided, but a clear attempt to bulldoze those with valid concerns.

But the WEP is a lost cause, I mean think about it, these women actually think that the way to challenge gender stereotypes is to uphold gender identity, which says that gender is innate and that most people are cisgender - i.e. most people innately are the gender imposed on them. And to not be cisgender you have to identify as having the wrong innate gender. All they are doing is upholding gender stereotypes, and thus female oppression and male violence. We should challenge them where we can. It's so dangerous that a so-called woman's party is doing this.

And yup Michelle whateverthefuck said at the start of a talk she gave that 'trans women are women, this is not a debate'. So yup, that's what WEP members will be facing...I hope someone records it....

I agree with leyat.
What is the point of WEP? Who listens to them? They are supposed to lead the way and advocate for women, it was bad enough when they decided not to stand any MP's.

Sophies comments are out of order. Not all women can afford WEP fees or are able to go to conference to vote. WEP excludes many women from its demographic, most of us already disenfranchised.

I just don't think that this fight is worth the fight. Personally.

They are already too far down the rabbit hole. And leaders of a political party need to show actual leadership, not " I'm sorrier you don't want to try to do it with me" stuff.

This has been the big issue right since the start of the WEP. And one that they have consistently failed to address. Sophie Walker came on Mumsnet over two years ago and came out with the whole there are many journeys that can define womanhood bullshit.

Over 2 years later, they still can't tell you what a woman actually is and they have set up two lawyers from the transgender lobby to speak at conference. With none to speak for women's rights.

And I suspect the only reason that those two lawyers are speaking is to get the self-ID motion passed in September and then submit the pro self-ID position of behalf of the WEP to the GRA consultation in October.

WEP are being played. And are far too dim to realise it.

This is who the WEP are. Believe them. They are never going to be any better. So spend your energies on things that actually will effect change.

The WEP are saying loud and clear that they don't believe that women and girls need female only spaces. They don't believe women and girls who say they have been intimated, threaten, abused and raped by men. They don't believe all of the women who say that they have been disadvantaged during their career because they are female.

At best they have encouraged the inclusion of male transpeople for the financial and promotional benefits.

I'm shocked that Sophie Walker expects me to waste my time on her vanity project while she says 'I don't believe' you to millions of women.

YY to all your posts(!)

Popchyk is right. We have better things to be doing..better battles to be fighting!

As far as WEP is concerned, they nailed their colours to the mast of their leaky rowboat long ago and set sail - I for one won't attempt to rescue them when they start drowning! Which they will.

Macareaux

"However Sophie Walker has just tweeted this:

"I've lost count of the number of conversations like this I have had w women who are not members & won't do this work with us and are then angry because it's being done too slowly. I'm sorry you have no confidence in the debate. I'm sorrier you don't want to try to do it with me" "

Is this a plea for women to join WEP and vote down the transgenders who have infiltrated WP?

She doesn't seem to understand the premise of courting political support. She's running a party called the WOMEN's equality party. It's up to her to state her stance on issues & then for others to decide if they'll support her party. If she won't, or worse, can't state she supports women on this issue, it's a bit much to expect women to follow blindly hoping she'll show leadership on this.

There's enough of a voice out there to show that women disillusioned by every other party who are ignoring or silencing women, who are desperate for an alternative, for her to see this as a legitimate stance to take that'll gain support. That she can't do that illustrates that she's still weighing the options & just as spineless on this as every other politician.

She should just go full TRA cos no one is buying her tortured wrangling on this. I think the appropriate phrase, as Datun has put it, either shit or get off the pot.

Is this a plea for women to join WEP and vote down the transgenders who have infiltrated WP?

For goodness sake YES PLEASE!!!

WEP have not yet formalised a TWAW stance.

ReappearingWoman

I'm inclined to agree ... leadership is indeed the issue here.

Cwenthryth

Sophie Walker has adopted the role as leader of a political party ... she needs to show leadership so that people know what they are being asked to follow and support.

Walker needs to say that no human can ever change sex and that no -one born male is ever a woman and no-one born female is ever a man.

I think the WEP answer to that would be - catchphrase - doing politics differently. Policies crowdsourced from members, not dictated top down. Leaders job is to listen and represent members views.

Jacky that was my thought when I read it, and I thought about doing it.

But then I read this post:

basically they want the feminists there to be bulldozed. They want any concerns raised to be met with a legal argument that will likely be difficult for any non-legal experts to challenge, especially when both experts will be agreeing with everything they each say. As informed as we all are, I know I have had to google like mad sometimes when debating with a lawyer on twitter in order to challenge their points (which I have usually done successfully but only after I could clarify certain points/get more info). So it is not just one-sided, but a clear attempt to bulldoze those with valid concerns

And now I'm not so sure.

I think Sophie has realised the error of WEP's ways on this issue. And I think she'd like the party to change direction. But unfortunately she's relying on the members to make the difficult decisions for her, and it's too late as they've all left the party already.

Don't know what to do.

I think the WEP answer to that would be - catchphrase - doing politics differently. Policies crowdsourced from members, not dictated top down. Leaders job is to listen and represent members views.

Which is fine for policies. I think it's a great idea for policies.

Not a good idea about biological facts though.

Sophie Walker came on Mumsnet over two years ago and came out with the whole there are many journeys that can define womanhood bullshit.

Yes. Sandi Toksvig did a guest post plugging WEP, about the same time that they were tweeting support for Tara Hudson.

At the time I think a lot of us were hopeful about WEP. We answered Sandi's post, asked about the tweet, hoped it was a misunderstanding.

But it took days of replies to that post, & finally tweeting WEP, to get any response. And when we did? Sophie came on the thread, said that gender identity is a thing & transwomen are women, & left. That was it.

All WEP's appearances on MN boards since have just made things worse.