How John McDonnell wooed Mumsnet - James Kirkup

[womensvoicesmatter]

I must admit I was pleasantly surprised that he tackled the women's rights / self ID questions, I thought he'd avoid them!

blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/09/how-john-mcdonnell-wooed-mumsnet/

What joy!

Compare and contract the patronising tone of Zoe Williams in the (I don't know why I ever read it) Guardian. "A splenetic and righteous crowd". Nice.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/18/john-mcdonnell-mumsnet-power-shadow-chancellor

contrast, not 'contract

Says here he did avoid them - it's Guido so there's an angle but he's right to identify MN as being at the heart of the debate.

order-order.com/2018/09/18/mumsnet-mcdonnells-jammy-dodger-trans-women/#disqus_thread

The question is, how smart a politician is he? Because if he's smart what he'll have taken away from this is that handling this issue in a way that women aren't happy with will lose him/Labour the election, and we're not going to allow it to be sidestepped.

I didn't feel like he avoided the questions about self ID and women's rights, but he essentially said what Corbyn said all those months ago - we will have a genuine discussion and I'm sure we can come to a consensus. This didn't happen, although the structures within the Labour Party are there to enable it to happen throughout the party, not just at leadership level. Instead, we find that 'transwomen are real women', they are taking places on women only shortlists and as women's officers, and the equalities minister has only the most cursory meeting (under pressure) with women's representatives.

So essentially, McDonnell said the right things, but I will only believe it when I see it. Also, what did he mean about having a serious look at this over the next few months? The consultation period for self id ends on October 19th and if it's not Labour Party policy to vote against it, they have failed women.

It's also going to be so much harder to have that kind, reasonable discussion now that things have got so polarised. I won't be fooled twice and I'm sure a lot of women who are still in the party will now be suspicious. That good will is lost. But worse, how do you draw back from promises to 'the most oppressed group of people since time began' and not lose face? What do they tell all the woke supporters who have fallen for this crap? Apart from 'We were never at war with Oceania'.

They've seriously fucked up.

He didn't avoid them but he didn't exactly say much either. "Meaningful debate" doesn't actually mean much coming from the Labour front bench at the moment.

I'm not so sure we can come to a consensus between women who want no males in our spaces ever and those who want self-Id leading to full access to any spaces the person would like to be in.

Labour come across as disingenuous at best, over the Brexit and Self Id issues.
McDonnall more or less said on the chat he'd rather screw over the country on Brexit, and gave platitudes over self id to keep the women sweet. There goes my vote.
The Party comes across as a We'll do it tomorrow fucking omnishambles.

Completely agree Kittens.

I'm not so sure we can come to a consensus between women who want no males in our spaces ever and those who want self-Id leading to full access to any spaces the person would like to be in.

I don't think that's possible either. I think he really means he hopes we can come up with a compromise.

AAK is right. There can be no consensus between those two positions.

But I think any government which bringing in Self ID should brace themselves for a shitload of terrible publicity. Every voyeur, every paedophile who uses Self ID to access victims - it'll be blamed on the government.

I wonder if they'll attempt to pass it around like the proverbial hot potato, hoping someone else will take responsibility for passing it into law and thus the blame.

I'm not expecting much from Labour, either. They are not in government right now, it won't happen on their watch. The Spectator commentators think we're just gullible if we believe McDonnell.

That said, wasn't it some brave women from Rother Valley CLP who raised concerns about self-ID? This is more than other parties have done:
blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/09/labours-refusal-to-accept-the-definition-of-a-woman/

Apart from David Davies ... argh!

But have Labour forgotten that they have already said that they support self-ID? And that there is no debate?

Labour have so far been very clear about their position, and they have systematically dismissed women's concerns in coming to that position. Labour have never defined what a woman actually is but are absolutely clear that men can self-define as this thing that Labour can't define.

And now they want votes consensus? After already reaching their decision?

Agree Crackpots that piece by Zoe Williams is patronising shite, fuck knows what the btl comments will be like...

Splenetic?! WTF. Patronising twat - talking from the immense privilege of someone who has her own column. The rest of us are RIGHTLY furious. Zoe smug face Williams can go and do one.

I'm not so sure we can come to a consensus between women who want no males in our spaces ever and those who want self-Id leading to full access to any spaces the person would like to be in.

A year or so ago John McD might have got an overwhelmingly positive reaction to what he said today, so pathetically grateful would we have been for our existence to even have been acknowledged.

John: you're more than a year too late (and even you a bit, James, because we've been at this for a long time now). Women have found their voice. They don't need the Labour Party now (indeed, I left you long since). You're behind the curve. We don't want concessions now: we want our rights back. And waffle about seeking consensus and respectful debate won't cut the mustard.

Too little too late.

#handsoffmyrights

Labour have already thrown women under the bus so a mild nod from a politician stating he may discuss this issue means nothing. Actions speak louder than words and Labour have acted against women and continue to do so.

We don't want concessions now: we want our rights back

This.

No consensus possible. They were never politicians' rights to re allocate in the first place.

The tone was, we will carefully weight the needs of about 0.01% of the male population against the needs of the 50% of the population that's female (with the males being mentioned first of course).

How fucking dare you? That's meant to sound fair and reasonable?

I took a group of teenagers to an event with a panel including Zoe Williams once.

They were unanimous in their view that she was a patronising posh fool. I didn't actually think she was that bad but they are very good judges of character teenagers...

I remain unwooed.

Bitterly disappointed in the party I've supported all my life, yes.

I’m not sure why the positive reaction. Labour have already given away roles intended for women to men without asking us. And then tell us we can compromise. It’s like a burglar kindly compromising and agreeing to walk out with only half your stuff.