Jess Phillip's championing the removal of asking the consent of a woman before her marriage changes.

[FloralFestiveBunting]

twitter.com/jessphillips/status/1213887262414581761

Well that's disappointing, to say the least.

Please stop confusing the Labour Party (in all its forms) with the Left - the biggest ally women have had in this fight has been the Communist Party and their understanding of sex based rights and oppression

But Jess has always pretended she can't define a woman well since it became expedient to do so

With her background she knows about coercive control, abuse, DV, etc but sex-based analysis is impossible when she can't define a woman.

I'm past being angry about this. It's laughable. Honestly, if the woke crowd were actually the Tories in disguise, trying to make Labour a lost cause, they couldn't do a better job.

And a PP is right, they're not left-wing. Their structural analysis is woeful. They're misognists in t-shirts and they don't represent the electorate, but Labour is too cloistered to realise.

I'm so furious I feel like an utter fool for believing her.

I know I'm the forum cynic, but I have kept saying she's not to be trusted. She's never had any convictions or principles. She's only ever backed what she thinks is the winning horse or what she calculates will advance her career. It's only ever been positioning with Jess.

The average voter watched Swinson spraffing off about gender identity during the last election and thought “Jesus Christ, she’s insane”. Most people think it’s guff and it just feeds into the narrative of a metropolitan elite out of touch with the electorate. It might play well to momentum but it will
Kill an already fragile Labour Party.

Well - they’ve been repeatedly warned and they seem determined not to listen so we can look forward to Tory rule for at least another 10 yrs.

They don’t have one single clue abou5 what ordinary people think

Not a clue

Just stuck in their elitist classist bubble

Gawd I sound like Lang which is a good thing. 🍷 Lang

We need to call a spade a spade, Jess Phillips and others are in favour of forced conversion. The law as it stands allows a couple to stay married if they chose or a fast tracked divorce and temp GRC if one or both of them is unhappy with the change in circumstances, it seems like the perfect solution.

How would this even work in practicality, would you force someone to sign a new marriage certificate they didn't want to?

They already are prepared to rewrite history about the place that the marriage took place for someone with a GRC "[w]here the original marriage certificate indicates the marriage was solemnized according to religious rites, or on religious premises, a new certificate will remove this information, indicating instead that the marriage took place in a registry office."

Well, I have a vote as a member of an affiliated union. I will vote (or not vote, it seems more like) accordingly.

I won't hope for a clear statement of sense but I will take either a none mention or something vague and non-committal because the choice is so sparse. Sigh

Oh well that’s her finished then. Do we know if Keir Starmer is gender critical (can’t see it somehow...)

Never liked her/believed her. Don’t trust any of them at all. 4 years time will all this be any different?

dog rightbackatcha

They already are prepared to rewrite history about the place that the marriage took place for someone with a GRC "[w]here the original marriage certificate indicates the marriage was solemnized according to religious rites, or on religious premises, a new certificate will remove this information, indicating instead that the marriage took place in a registry office."

What is with these people and their deep seated desire to change past certificates and pretend things happened with didn't, waving their documents as proof? Physical, material bodies aren't evidence of anything, but a document you had altered to lie about the past does??!!

I mean, I know the hardcore TRAs just hate women with a slavering, porn-driven glee, but what in the name of sanity makes a politician look at a policy like this and think one of the big selling points is removing a woman's right to consent?

Jess Phillips was on the Maria Miller-headed equalities committee that first advocated self ID and denigrated the women who objected.

Everybody's support of trans widows here, is very heartening. Thank you

Is there a politician (from any party) who has actually spoken out for the protection of women's sex based rights? Maybe we could start a list, assuming there's more than one of course

Tinsel

There is no power on earth that could convince me not to back trans widows.

She's foolishly trying to appease the TRAs and Momentum bros who are trying to scupper her leadership bid by calling her a transphobe. She hasn't yet realised that they can't be appeased.

This.

They are all having to court the left like crazy just to get the leadership.

Yes. They know that they aren't going to be anywhere near government any time soon so it's a case of Go For Woke.

I think she would be the death if the Labour Party with the electorate. She rarely finishes a sentence or completes and idea before she goes off at a tangent. Her thinking is muddled very often and she speaks as she is thinking so often sounds confused about points. Her reactions are emotional rather than reasoned and it results in emotional and emotive verbal responses from her. She is painful to listen to.

However, Jess Philips aside, 'trans' politics are of no interest to most of the electorate. I don't understand why anyone here thinks they are. Most people are sick of hearing the wrangling and arguing of the small group of voices nationally who go on about it. In fact, if the truth was told, many people have no experience to relate to the issue, no understanding of the terms used and are baffled by and uninterested in the whole thing. These are the ridiculous things the Labour Party gets entangled with that put voters off them.
They were the downfall of Corbyn- whose PC views about Israel and Palestine were represented as anti-semitism and loving terrorists which is ridiculous. However, most people are not aware of the details of his stance - which allowed the Press to misrepresent it and he could not see the damage he was doing.
Trans anything is of no interest to me in terms of who leads political parties. It is simply another PC bandwagon and the latest fad for teenagers. I am aware of 3 teenagers who have transitioned in appearance, dress, name, on school registers, with their families and then all have decided they wished to revert to their original sex. No doubt there may be some genuine trans people but it has become a fashionable fad for many and us not one of the country's most significant issues affecting the majority.
People look to leaders to be able to manage the economy, improve employment, housing, the NHS, schools, social care, reduce crime and terrorism, solve foreign office issues.
Yes equality is important and the rights of women are incredibly important - we are over 50 % of the population and our rights have been hard won over more than a century. Those rights should never be eroded. I can not work up much interest for the GRA and I doubt the vast majority can.

She did also tweep in favour of WPUK’s demands - something that is ‘concerning’ for wokesters

I really hope Lisa Nandy just doesn’t take any bait on this topic. Or we’ll just have to go for the least-worst option.... not sure who that would be at the moment. Disappointed David Lammy isn’t standing now.

LangCleg has it - it's just crab bucket politics, climbing on top of each other for internal appointments within the LP.

It's just all...bollocks.

If Jess Phillips found herself leading a Labour Party into an election campaign that they had a prospect of contending in, & to my grief I suspect we won't see that for a decade, then I'm pretty sure Jess would take a sounding on what played with the electorate on women's issues & clap along to whatever was most electable.

Right now, it's just about notching 'Leader of the LP, 2020-2022' on a CV.

It sure as fuck isn't about mounting a credible opposition.

Gah.

Not surprised. I remember what she said about Cologne.

What is with these people and their deep seated desire to change past certificates and pretend things happened with didn't, waving their documents as proof?

I'm reminded again of 1984. They seem to think it's an instruction manual.

Just echoing my frustration that Jess Phillips, who incessantly refers to her experience working in women’s shelters, should be so unthinking in her assessment of the spousal veto.

There are some good replies to her tweet highlighting the inaccuracy of the term which implies that a person can be prevented from transitioning, not that they need to be divorced before getting a GRC.

I think the problem is that the narrative about partners welcoming their partner’s change of gender became dominant before there was widespread recognition of coercive control. Obviously there are situations when partners do willingly remain with their partner who has changed gender (Jan Morris’s wife for example) but that does not mean every controlling and selfish person will automatically change their personality if they transition.

I think the problem is lulujakey that by seeing it as an issue that affects a tiny number of people, the public especially the female public has been blind to the effect of the TRA capture of policy & practice

The moment anyone can self ID as a woman but remain a biological Male there are no more women’s rights

That’s what the wider public don’t see with the “be kind, it’s only a few deeply suffering individuals you nasty bigots” narrative

What is with these people and their deep seated desire to change past certificates and pretend things happened with didn't, waving their documents as proof?

Indeed. Birth certificate, marriage certificate - not worth the paper they're printed on. Lies basically.

I disagree with pp that gender reform issues would not be perceived to be important. But at the moment too few of the general public are aware of the parties' stances on the issue or the implications. And some of the parties are, understandably, not exactly equivocal in their position.