Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Ultimate betrayal by the WEP

235 replies

Procrastinator1 · 27/07/2018 12:01

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

OP posts:
JackyHolyoake · 01/08/2018 22:30

Cwenthryth

Then Walker needs to learn what leadership means? Leadership is not dictatorship. Neither is it being dictated to by 'members' majority view.

Leadership is about having a vision towards a particular location and steering everyone to that place.

Macareaux · 01/08/2018 22:36

I hear what you are saying ... but ... but ... I think Sophie has been peak transed and if the policy of their party is for members to decide policy then maybe she is signalling for help?

I know I am cutting her far more slack than she deserves, and I know that in the grand scheme of things the WEP is smaller than a minnow, but if we could take WEP back from the transactivists it would send a big message. Don't know how many of us would need to sign up and go to make a stand but on balance I do think it is worth the effort. I think WPUK have offered to be involved.

Cwenthryth · 01/08/2018 22:40

Well then put that to her if you wish - like I said, I think that would be the explanation, I’m not here to back that up or justify it.

JackyHolyoake · 01/08/2018 22:42

Macareaux

"I hear what you are saying ... but ... but ... I think Sophie has been peak transed and if the policy of their party is for members to decide policy then maybe she is signalling for help? "

If that is the case then maybe WEP should be dissolved as it is and reformulated to make it clear that any newly formulated WEP is about those humans who are born female?

EmpressOfSpartacus · 01/08/2018 22:43

If that is the case then maybe WEP should be dissolved as it is and reformulated to make it clear that any newly formulated WEP is about those humans who are born female?

I'd join if that happened. I bet a lot of us would.

Cwenthryth · 01/08/2018 22:44

(That was to Jacky)

I can’t speak for Sophie in terms of signalling for help, but, as a gender critical active WEPer who re-joined in the hope that WEP could become what we wish it would be - please, yes, join, get involved, get to conference or at least talk to other members, tell branch leaders your views, be heard - but if the criticism is coming from outside the party, it’s fairly ineffective at this point.

JackyHolyoake · 01/08/2018 22:51

EmpressOfSpartacus

"I'd join if that happened. I bet a lot of us would."

I'm inclined to agree, sister. However, I would also want to see some identification of aims and a sense of direction towards achieving those.

SonicVersusGynaephobia · 01/08/2018 23:02

Jacky I haven't seen you on twitter for ages, have you left or been banned? I have missed you and your wonderful goodnights!

UpstartCrow · 01/08/2018 23:03

WEP exclude women who can't afford the fees and women who cant attend conference to vote.

It's pointless Sophie Walker railing against women who have no money, no childcare and other responsibilities.

Cwenthryth · 01/08/2018 23:16

Are WEP membership dues significantly different from other political parties?

I know I donated additional to my ticket in order to provide free/subsidised conference places to those whom the cost may be a barrier - I believe members can apply for subsidised tickets if they need.

UpstartCrow · 01/08/2018 23:19

Women on UC have no money for any dues, or travelling costs, and cannot participate.

At least other political parties stand candidates for election.

JackyHolyoake · 01/08/2018 23:24

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Cwenthryth · 01/08/2018 23:27

What would your proposal be to assist participation then? I believe one of the proposed motions is about utilising technology better. Only being able to vote at conference has come up in discussion with other members (not favourably)

WEP stands candidates for election. I’ve been out canvassing for 2 election campaigns this year (local council and MP by-election).

JackyHolyoake · 01/08/2018 23:28

SonicVersusGynaephobia

Hallo sister! I could not be who I am without all you wonderful, persistent females defending our right to be the humans we are.

I will always wish the sweetest of dreams when your time for female sleep comes .. it is when we females are at our most vulnerable in our patriarchal hostile world.

Much love to you, sister ..

ChocAuVin · 01/08/2018 23:30

Yep, betrayal. Bye, WEP.

leyat · 01/08/2018 23:55

I tweeted about the fact that the WEP were hosting a debate with two speakers with the same position re self ID, and Sophie came on to correct me that it was a Q&A and tried to defend holding an event to answer questions re the GRA with two lawyers who are both pro the govts proposals and so will only give one side. I think if she secretly wanted gender critical women to flood WEP, that she would have left well alone and not tried to diffuse the online reaction. But in the end we have to respond to people's actions imo, and WEP definitely did not have to approach this whole GRA debate the way that they have.

Writersblock2 · 02/08/2018 00:07

They can fuck right off as far as I’m concerned. They don’t represent me.

Now I will go back and read the rest of this thread.

NotMeOhNo · 02/08/2018 00:14

Sorry for delay, only just catching up with thread.
No I have no insider knowledge (am in Australia) just bitter experience from student politics about how middle class types use procedural motions to flummox others.

ALittleBitofVitriol · 02/08/2018 00:19

Members voting on policy is one thing.

Asking people to join when a key ideological position is not clear is stupid. You have to have some sort of foundation for members to want to join and help build on. That's leadership. So if a women's equality party can't decide it's position on what a woman is, then why on earth would a thinking person throw their energy onto that mess of shifting sand?!

Was it the WEP that had 'men and non-men' in something? Anyone got a link? My brain is a dark mist this morning...

NameChangedAgain18 · 02/08/2018 01:01

'Non-men' was the Green Party.

littlbrowndog · 02/08/2018 01:05

Yeah Sophie to afraid to do her job so sh3 wants us to do it

Good job Sophie.

Stop being a coward Sophie

NameChangedAgain18 · 02/08/2018 01:05

Sophie Walker seemed to have a clear enough position when it came to men being allowed to stay overnight on maternity wards. I don't believe that was a policy determined by members, was it? Or maybe I'm wrong, and men started infiltrating the party earlier than I thought.

ALittleBitofVitriol · 02/08/2018 03:40

NameChangedAgain18

'Non-men' was the Green Party.

Ah, right. Thanks!

Macareaux · 02/08/2018 07:41

I just instinctively feel that this is an opportunity.

Sophie presumably makes decisions on who gets to be invited (like the two lawyers) with other people. And maybe she is outvoted.

If we can get 200 people trekking to Brighton for a WPUK meeting, is it unrealistic to have 200 going to the conference? Would that be enough?

Perhaps WPUK and the other groups could stage meetings in the same place as WEP at that time?

Ereshkigal · 02/08/2018 08:42

They won't debate. I believe that these pro TRAs would refuse to participate if it were a debate with the gender critical view fairly represented.