WPUK meeting in London 20 May with Meghan Murphy, Julie Bindel, Selina Todd

[PlonitbatPlonit]

Tickets on sale now for London meeting just announced. Looks like a great meeting.

www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/a-womans-place-is-back-in-town-tickets-59993907392

All ticket holders, as well as those on the waiting list and those on the WPUK mailing list were invited to send in questions.

There were several sent in on the theme of alliances, especially in context of Alabama abortion law. It's a legitimate topic of discussion in the movement.

Sorry for the typo Jacky

So you didn't go. A shame. It was an amazing event. So many fabulous people in the audience too, sheros.

I wouldn't have changed a thing about last night, maybe only to have more time debating and discussing with people afterwards. I have so much respect for so many people that were there.

I have so much respect for so many people that were there.

As do I, Katvon.

My deep regret is that WPUK deliberately facilitated division which was entirely avoidable.

For the record, it was me who organised and funded the WPUK meeting in Birmingham in March 2018.

At that time I had no idea that WPUK would assert itself as being superior to other women activists. Had that been obvious at the time I would never have organised and funded such a meeting.

I don't think any questions should be off limits. I also think WPUK are entitled to shape the agenda and set out their position at their own event.

I think all the speakers were entitled to voice their personal opinions, provided (and I wasn't there) they made it clear that these were opinions and not instructions.

I only object if they try to undermine the work of other women.

Julia Long was like a petulant teenager

I personally think she deserved to have a right of reply to the dig which was partially aimed at her.

I personally think she deserved to have a right of reply to the dig which was partially aimed at her.

Exactly so. WPUK could have dismissed that question and chosen another that avoided division. So, it leaves the impression that WPUK wants division and asserts itself as superior. Superiority V Inferiority is a very patriarchal concept.

The Alabama abortion situation is awful, however that has nothing to do with political institutions in the UK. The Conservatives are not anti-abortion. It has more to do with religious views. Most practising Roman Catholics are anti-abortion however they vote, ditto Muslims. I'm sure there will be pro-choice republicans in America. I've never really understood why evangelical Christians in the US ally themselves with the Republican party. What does believing Jesus rose again etc have to do with your views on the merits of capitalism and wealth redistribution and the pros and cons of state owned companies?

Following the hash tag as I was, I'm looking forward to watching Todd when they get the video up

It was brilliant and definitely going to get her book that you recommended.

I was sat near Julia, and went into the event behind her and she didn't seem happy through it all to be honest. It wasn't just that question.

Maybe WPUK do want to distance themselves from people with different approaches to this. I got no impression at all that WPUK think they are superior.

People are allowed to disagree on the best way to go about things. We are all striving for a similar goal.

People are allowed to disagree on the best way to go about things. We are all striving for a similar goal.

Agreed. Issues of superiority and inferiority need to be avoided if we are to express our rejection of patriarchy. Issues of division need to avoided if we are to express our rejection of patriarchy.

However, the history of WPUK behaviour and that of its associates in January 2019 and beyond does suggest that it views its approach as superior to others.

Andrea Dworkin expressed it better than any, I think:

I've never really understood why evangelical Christians in the US ally themselves with the Republican party.

This is a really complicated thing, because there have been changes over time, but a lot of people don't realise that until abortion was a hot-button issue in politics, the Democrats were the party of many Christians, especially Catholics, but also some others. In a real way the Republicans used that issue, which was so fundamental to many, to get those votes even though they were not aligned in other ways. Over time many of those people began to associate themselves more with the Republicans and so their other political views shifted.

Evangelical Christianity in the US though is very much an American invention, its a radical individualist interpretation of Christianity that quietly (or not) dropped many of the elements that emphasise collectivity in mainline Christianity. The American approach to secularism is also different to the British or European approach and tends to favour religion as an individualist endeavour rather than something with a social element.

MissEyre did I annoy you? She did give me some stickers, which made me very happy (I'm easily pleased)!

what's not fine is lying about others and their motivations

Very well said, Spartacus.

There’s not just 1 axis is there? There’s left and right, but also authoritarian and libertarian, and other axis besides

Yes, I think this is important. It's not just a matter of degrees, there are really sets of different ideas that are sometimes shared, or sometimes not. The closest people to your own position might be on the other side of the right/left spectrum, because the line can be constituted in a lot of different ways. Often, it's those people you can gain the most insight from, as well, because you share a lot, but have a slightly different way of thinking or talking about it.

I’m just back up north after a night I’ll remember for a long long time. The turnout, the speeches, the electric atmosphere, the mumsnetters, then a boozy meal with Julie Bindel, more booze in the pub, then one of the funniest cab rides ever as she and her lovely partner had given me a room for the night. This hospitality meant I could afford to go to the event.

Next stop the first UK Declaration of Sex Based Rights event in Leeds on Saturday. We are storming!

I liked Megan's handling of the Q too - but I don't agree that she deflected it?

Yes deflected isn't necessarily the right word. More that she defused the tension a bit with her answer.

and other axes besides

Indeed. Other axes involving women include economic / social class: middle / working class; sexuality class: heterosexual / lesbian.

These axes deliver very different perspectives, all of which should be acknowledged and included.

These axes should never be sources for division.

Next stop the first UK Declaration of Sex Based Rights event in Leeds on Saturday.

Come and say "Hallo" AverageAvenger ... I'll see you there!

I am in this for safeguarding and I’d work with anyone to stop the damage to children that’s occurred as part of this movement.

Safeguarding is as much of a priority as women's rights to me also. I think everybody's individual rights stop where the safeguarding of children and vulnerable adults begins, including "trans rights" and including my rights as a woman.

I would work with anybody on reinstating safeguarding where it's been diluted and improving the protocols we already have. Anybody.

More that she defused the tension a bit with her answer.

Exactly so. Of course having conversations with women from different political positions is relevant. That process does ^not& mean that one is 'working with' that political position.

[My working class neighbours on the council estate where I live are mostly right-leaning Tory voters or non-voters. If, as a left-leaning woman, I avoided talking with them about any issues on the basis of their political positions I would never have chats with them about anything. As it happens, I have made many of them aware of the risks associated with transgender ideology and practice to the point where they no longer ask me about my "Woman: Adult Human Female" apparel and give me a wave when they see me wearing it. ]

Personally I was surprised by Dr Long last night. I saw her speak at the HoC and was extremely impressed by what she had to say, very reasoned and thought-out and not at all "hysterical" (sorry, I know that's a no-no word )

She was obviously livid at the question asked about right wingers. And I get that. But she was also angry that someone praised Debbie's piece on the TES, and stood up and looked daggers at Debbie and shouted something like "no way". The woman next to me said "too right Dr Long - I think he's a creepy guy too". I was a bit surprised and commented that I thought it was a very good piece that Debbie had written. Is Dr Long one of those who doesn't think WPUK should be giving space to the trans women who are being harmed by the TRAs? At a meeting last year a few people publicly said that Debbie and Kristina should not have been allowed to speak from the floor, because they're men, taking the space away from women.

Agreed that WPUK is a staunchly socialist organisation, but hardly surprising given its roots. I think they do a good job of having diverse panels that make the audience think. There's certainly space for them AND FPFW and WNTT and LesbiansOnChairs and any other women's groups who want to meet to talk about the GRA and related issues. I have felt welcomed by all the groups I've encountered and like in all social groups, I don't agree 100% with most of the women I've met. They're all just different!

What books do you recommend by Selina? I do feel terribly uneducated when I hear people like her (and Sheila J) speak

She was obviously livid at the question asked about right wingers. And I get that. But she was also angry that someone praised Debbie's piece on the TES, and stood up and looked daggers at Debbie and shouted something like "no way".

The issue here is that, while Hayton professes to be concerned about women's right to sex-segregated safe spaces, Hayton is hypocritical because Hayton uses women's sex-segregated safe spaces when it suits. I have witnessed this behaviour myself. Hayton has a complete disregard for women's boundaries while professing to be concerned about women's ability to impose those boundaries.