Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

union congress motion TWAW - help!

21 replies

morningtoncrescent62 · 01/11/2018 18:41

My union congress meets at the end of the month, and I've just seen the motions. One of them is titled 'Trans women are women' and among other things it 'notes the recent attacks on trans women by trans exclusionary radical feminists in the media and at Pride' and calls on congress to 'make an unequivocal statement in support of gender self-determination and condemning recent attacks on trans women'. I don't know of any other GC feminists in the union - those who have spoken out (and indeed acted) on women's issues in the past are either plugging the TRA line hard, or are silent.

So there's two issues for me. First, I'm going to get a LOT of backlash for opposing the motion. I can only hope that some GC women will come out in support, but I'm not sure that I can do much to network in advance. Second, I need to prepare something brief and to the point that I can say in the two minutes that you get as a speaker from the floor. Brevity isn't my strength to say the least! So... can anyone help me out with three clear points that I could make in the time available? The motion is so risible I don't know where to begin.

OP posts:
FFSFFSFFS · 01/11/2018 18:48

Ugh it's just foul isn't it. Its the misogynists wet dream - they can crap all over women while lauding themselves as on a higher moral plane.

I have no idea how to counter it.

But to me one of the (so so so many) obvious flaws in the logic is that it reduces "woman" to being a feeling in someone's head.

Can you seek a clarification of the motion? i.e. this motion says that being a woman is based on internal feeling and not a person's biological makeup. Does this union support the motion that being a woman is not based on biology but is based on an internal feeling?

Because who the actual fuck could vote for that.

adulthumanandtired · 01/11/2018 19:03

Ask about what impact assessment has been done on single sex spaces, women’s sports, roles reserved for women, etc.

FFSFFSFFS · 01/11/2018 19:07

heh heh. I just google "union congress motions" because i don't know much about it and wanted to see how it worked.

Fifth reference was back to this thread...

Looks like you can breach some new ground here!

FekkoThePenguin · 01/11/2018 19:09

Let me guess - a man has proposed this motion? No transmen mentioned?

BettyDuMonde · 01/11/2018 19:34

Rather than oppose it, can you propose an amendment that neutralises it?

This is what my labour CLP did - the amendment took it from TWAW back to the legal position (Transwomen are legally women if they have a GRC) and then stated that equality was incredibly important and impact assessments should be a necessity before any proposed changes.

Gncq · 01/11/2018 21:37

What attacks on transwomen?
What recent attacks on transwomen by feminists in particular?

FekkoThePenguin · 01/11/2018 21:40

Maybe they meant transwomen attacking women? Plenty of that happening (and recording, posting and gloating on social media).

OldCrone · 01/11/2018 21:46

notes the recent attacks on trans women by trans exclusionary radical feminists

They seem to have got this the wrong way round. I don't know of any incidents where feminists have attacked transwomen, but there has been at least one attack by a transwoman on a feminist that went to court and the transwoman was found guilty of assault.

BreconBeBuggered · 01/11/2018 21:52

How about a motion condemning male violence against women (and, incidentally, transwomen)? At least that's based in reality.

MsBeaujangles · 01/11/2018 22:02

Gender should be self determined - I am sure you can get behind that. People should be able to chose whichever gender they want - or none.
What can't be self determined is sex - it is determined by biology.
Perhaps you can get behind the motion in so far as supporting people's right to determine their own gender and ask for reassurances that they will also make sure they make an unequivocal statement in support of natal females and condemn recent attacks on them when endeavouring to protect their sex based rights?

theOtherPamAyres · 01/11/2018 23:06

Not only are transwomen not women but there is strong evidence that the trans umbrella includes:

voyeurs, rapists, (Karen White) autogynephiles, cross dressers, men with paraphilias, men who indecently expose themselves (Jess Bradley) abusers, paedophiles (David Challoner) and murderers (Ian Huntley) and frauds. I have only included some of the names of those convicted or who have admitted their paraphilias, like Jess Bradley.

The unwillingness of the Pro-trans lobby to acknowledge that there are some very dangerous men who hide their true natures in wigs and dresses, means that we have a responsibility (to women and children) to say 'No'

Any organisation that colludes in the inclusion of men in the definition of 'women', is working against, and actively harming, women. ( Look what happened in women's prisons; look what's happening in women's sports, shortlists, services) They had better be prepared to have fingers pointed at them when the next scandal breaks.

Purpleartichoke · 01/11/2018 23:18

This is a labor union? I would
focus on the pay gap and it’s link to reproduction. Female members need special protections on the basis of their biology. Instead, a more appropriate motion would be in support of non-discrimination in hiring and pay for gender non-conforming people including transwomen.

theOtherPamAyres · 01/11/2018 23:36

There's something practical that you can do:

Contact WPUK - the group founded by trade unionists and Labour women, with a copy of the motion and ask for advice about a 'speech' against the motion.

While my approach would be somewhat confrontational (putting it mildly), I would also be lobbying workplace reps, regional reps and entering correspondence with the proposers.

It has got to the stage where I feel no need to apologise for my views and no need to play the understanding, sympathetic woman. Those with Gender Dysphoria and/or a GRC are protected by the law already.
I don't believe that TWAW and neither does the public. I'm no longer coy about saying that.

Good luck!

morningtoncrescent62 · 02/11/2018 08:07

There are some really good ideas here, thanks everyone - and I'll also get in touch with WPUK about a counter motion.

They seem to have got this the wrong way round. I don't know of any incidents where feminists have attacked transwomen, but there has been at least one attack by a transwoman on a feminist that went to court and the transwoman was found guilty of assault.

That was my reaction, but then I wondered whether there's something I'm missing that everyone knows about except me! It would be helpful to know if there's any substance to the statement about attacks on transwomen so that I can counter it from an informed position.

I was especially disturbed to see the TERF phrase used in a union motion. As far as I can see it's become the latest phrase used to ridicule, discredit and undermine feminists and feminism so (call me naive) I was quite shocked to see my union comrades using it in all seriousness.

And apologies for assuming that everyone would understand the arcane workings of unions! Congresses/conferences are gatherings of branch representatives where matters of policy are debated and voted on - and if they are passed they become union policy and the basis for action, so this does matter. If the union's line becomes TWAW and anyone saying otherwise is a TERF guilty of hate speech I would have a real problem as would most of our members (the vast majority of whom, I suspect, are unaware of the background).

OP posts:
deepwatersolo · 02/11/2018 08:43

‚Unless you can define the term woman, you render the word meaningless and with it any women‘s rights and protections. Voting for TWAW, absent a definition of women means voting for rendering ‚woman‘ meaningless, means voting for the erasure of women, means voting for the abolition of women‘s rights‘

Vanessamessa · 02/11/2018 09:47

If this is a labour union I would also put forward your own motions.
1.That the union shows its support for natal women who have been threatened with violent assault from TRA. Why so silent, do they not want to support their female members? Their current silence suggests complicity with the abuse many women face from TRA and as a union have an obligation to stand up against the harassment of their union members.

2.That the union joins in efforts to ensure that women and men are not hounded from their jobs for ideological reasons, and then list the recent cases of those who have either recently been dismissed or whose employers have been approached and asked to terminate their employment by TRA.
Good luck. Common sense is on your side.

Vanessamessa · 02/11/2018 09:54

Sorry i posted too quickly. The suggestion above to ‘
Contact WPUK - the group founded by trade unionists and Labour women’, is excellent. It could be that we could try to get similar motions supportive of GC feminists proposed at all the major TUs in the country.

Badmoonsarising · 02/11/2018 10:33

I think you need support and networking beforehand. I’m sure there will be others there who think as you do or at least have doubts and concerns - many will be too scared/nervous about putting themselves outbthere, especially if they think they are the only one. You need some strength in numbers.

BettyDuMonde · 02/11/2018 12:58

Also, you need to make sure the vote is via secret ballot - it’s too contentious an issue to be decided via a show of hands (and is potentially detrimental to women’s safety)

morningtoncrescent62 · 02/11/2018 13:15

Also, you need to make sure the vote is via secret ballot - it’s too contentious an issue to be decided via a show of hands (and is potentially detrimental to women’s safety)

Yes - that's an excellent point which I can take forward ahead of time with the order-of-business committee, thank you.

I'd love to put forward a counter-motion or two, but that can only be done by branches not individuals and my branch won't do it - at branch level we have some very active TRA-types who'll vote any counter-motions down and a lot of not informed people whose instinct is to side with what appears at first glance to be an oppressed minority. Sad

OP posts:
R0wantrees · 02/11/2018 17:28

July 2018 James Kirkup: 'Labour and Tories finally see the truth about the gender debate'
(extract)
"Labour is, nominally, committed to self-identification of gender, but just like the Tories, the party is in fact deeply divided over the issue and quite a lot of MPs, including prominent frontbenchers, think the issue is more complex (and potentially vote-losing) than the party’s current policies suggests. MPs say a recent meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party saw many Labour women airing doubts.

In the Labour movement, the dividing line over gender politics sometimes maps onto a split between the new generation of activists in Momentum and the longer-standing groups in, and allied to, the trade unions. Lots of Labour women (and men) sceptical of self-identification of gender have links to the trade union movement which still funds the party, underpins Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, and exercises real influence in Labour affairs.

In that context, I think a letter in today’s Morning Star is worth reading closely. It describes “systematic attempts to shut down meetings organised by women at which they can discuss potential legislative changes and the impact these may have on any sex-based rights already enshrined in law.”

Such incidents “draw the whole of our progressive movement into disrepute,” the letter says, adding:

“Some trans rights activists even continue to justify the use of violence, meaning that many women are simply too frightened to attend meetings that are both public and lawful in order that they may discuss their own rights.

Other women, including ordinary women concerned for their rights, as well as those active within the trade union movement and other political campaigns, are also now anxious and fearful that they will be subjected to such attacks when engaging in any political activity, meetings, or protests.

We are sure that, whatever your view regarding the issues around the Gender Recognition Act, you will agree that it is unacceptable for women to be made scared to engage in political life.”

Now, I’m a dedicated centrist and I happen to agree with every word of that letter. I know paid-up Tories who would too.

But the contents of that letter are not the story here. The story is in the signatories, who include Len McCluskey of the Unite union, as well as several other senior trade unionists. (Lindsey German, a founder of Stop the War and a close friend of Jeremy Corbyn is there too; Andrew Murray, another very senior Corbynista signed a similar letter earlier this year. In short, a very significant and, in Labour terms, powerful group of unionists and activists has raised some quite serious concerns about the violent intimidation of women in the gender debate.

In a previous job as a political reporter, I’d probably have summarised that letter something like this:

Transgender activists who use threats of violence to frighten feminist critics are bringing the Labour movement into disrepute, Britain’s top trade union leader has said. Len McCluskey of the Unite union has joined several other close allies of Jeremy Corbyn to warn that “trans rights activists” using threats and intimidation have left many women “too frightened” to engage in political debate.

That strikes me as quite a big deal, and something that others in politics should reflect on" (continues)
blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/07/labour-and-tories-finally-see-the-truth-about-the-gender-debate/

Letter in Morning Star referred to:
morningstaronline.co.uk/article/improving-climate-debate-around-proposed-changes-gender-recognition-act

New posts on this thread. Refresh page