Jess Phillips throws GC women under the bus

[watermelonpeas]

www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/01/17/jess-phillips-labour-leadership-transgender-rights-juno-dawson-pinknews-interview/

I'm glad to see that Tinsel's question about spousal "veto" and JP's support for its removal was allowed.
Aaand it's gone. Seriously, MNHQ? No questions allowed about JP's explicit support for a proposed amendment which would affect women? This is ridiculous.

"Also if one topic is dominating a thread, mods might request that people don't continue to post what's effectively the same question or point. (And we’ll suspend the accounts of anyone who continues after we've posted to ask people to stop, so please take note"

I see. So we can't ask for answers about the many different issues women and children face (eg safeguarding in schools, medical procedures on under 16s, issues about censoring free speech, women losing all women shortlists, allowing men access to rape crisis centres etc) as we are dominating. Right.

These are all very separate, distinct and important issues - separate questions we genuinely want answers to.

Ask what you want! But actually don't, if it's about women's rights.

(Oh, and if you keep asking, we will delete you and ban you).

Maybe we should collate all our questions into one list in one post there so people could see the extent of the Problem That Cannot Be Discussed.

@MichaelMumsnet I appreciate webchats are moderated differently and that you have a rule about how many questions can be asked on sex/gender but I think it's incredibly unfair that you have deleted Tinsel's question about the GRA spousal exit clause.

Only a few days ago Phillips was tweeting that it should be got rid of because it was 'awful'. For many of us this would have been the first topic we thought of asking her about. I know at least a few of us were deliberately holding off to give Tinsel or one of the other transwidows the chance to ask that question from a position of personal experience.

Jess Phillips has been absolutely in the thick of this whole issue since 2015 when she sat through all the evidence in the trans equality inquiry. Her name's on the report that recommended self-ID and recommended weakening women's sex based rights in the EA. The reason we had the GRA consultation was directly because of the work that Phillips played a major role in. She then sat through all the evidence in the Equality Act inquiry and will have been involved in the report which made recommendations for new statutory code around female spaces - recommendations which were rejected by both the government and EHRC.

I reckon we have rather a lot of questions to ask Phillips on this topic - certainly more than most web chat guests. Yet we seem to be allowed fewer even than usual.

My question was about school safeguarding. No other question on that.

Been deleted.

Inconvenient questions about safeguarding being shut down again.
Where have we seen this before??

MNHQ you are in danger of being complicit in hiding the safeguarding concerns around children.

Oh. Dear.

Help or get out of the bloody way.

Exactly Michelle.

I suppose the fundamental mismatch is that we see these events as a rare and crucial opportunity to access our very deaf and very hard to reach politicians and make major concerns known. MN and politicians see these events as nice bit of light PR.

Well said Pencils.

From the webchat thread:
This issue has dominated previous webchats, which we don’t think is fair to our guests nor to the entire Mumsnet user community, some of whom have said they felt put off joining in - not something any MN user has said to us about multiple questions on other topics.

Felt put off? I'm sure a lot of posters feel put off every time they see that twee question about biscuits. Will you ban it please?

*MN and politicians see this as a nice bit of light PR
*
Spot on

*Help or get out of the bloody way
*
Exactly

Maybe a list of questions is the way to go but as we chats are moderated we can just write Philips an email.

House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA
Phone: 020 7219 87033_
Email: [email protected]k_

I would say that the people Labour leadership candidates need to speak to most are those who are politically engaged and have previously voted Labour but are currently disengaging from the party in their droves.

One such demographic would be materialist feminist women. Another would be those interested in free speech. Another would be those interested in the safeguarding of children.

But you know - if Jess wants to broadcast and not engage, that's fine. She can just continue to be either the leader of or the losing leadership candidate in a declining political party. And if Mumsnet doesn't want her to engage with the people who would like to vote Labour but currently don't - then why invite her to come? What good will it do Mumsnet, the Labour party, or Jess herself?

Agree, Michelle.

Let the 'webchat' go ahead and discuss, I don't know, the price of tea and biscuits, or whatever. It's pointless even trying to engage with people who just want stirring soundbites but don't actually have any intention to listen or engage.

Labour are not even a political entity in this country at this time, anyway. Full of sound and fury ...

Yes, Lang. If they want an echo chamber, let them have it. It's been their modus operandi to congratulate each other on how woke they are for the past ten years anyway, and it's obviously serving them well, so crack on, Labour! Have fun!

As I said earlier in the thread, I don't think any of them have an overarching vision that could inspire the country to vote for them anyway. They each manage to inspire their own faction of the Labour Party and that's it.

Politicians need to earn votes. Voters do not need to earn a hearing.

Politicians need to earn votes. Voters do not need to earn a hearing.

Hear hear.

The restrictions being put on women wanting to discuss politicians' own policies are ridiculous. Why are politicians being protected from the informed views of their constituents when they volunteer to come and speak to them?

This is the post democratic era, remember? Mandelson said so. Not speaking to , it's speaking at , while excluding anyone who disagrees with the prescribed beliefs (and their evidence, facts etc) because wrongthink.

I stopped reading and engaging with web chats quite some time ago. It’s obvious that the politicians who take part don’t actually want to discuss real issues - just a quick opportunity to pat women on the head and patronise the ‘mums’.

Politicians who cannot listen women’s concerns in a mature, considered way don’t get my vote.

I'm not sure gender identity is seen as such a feminist issue outside MN. I work with a woman who would fight to the death for equal rights for women but she's also very keen to be inclusive of all people. Moat people I meet are either anti trans because "yuk" or support everyone's right to live as they choose. People do look at me quite oddly if I suggest supporting trans rights tramples over women.

People do look at me quite oddly if I suggest supporting trans rights tramples over women.

That's because the campaign against self-id isn't about opposing trans rights. It's about opposing a privilege granted to people who identify as trans that is not granted to any other protected group and which infringes on the rights of other protected groups.

We do not oppose trans rights. None of us are campaigning to abolish the Equality Act provisions which grant people who identify as trans protection from discrimination and harassment.

If Jess wants to broadcast and not engage
I wonder what would happen if MNers decided not to engage with the webchats when we know the main issues aren't going to be addressed ...

I'm normally sympathetic to MNHQ but I'm really disappointed that Tinsel's question was deleted. It was Jess Phillips who raised the issue of the spousal veto / exit clause on Twitter, without any prompting. If she wants to be party leader it, seems absolutely right to me that posters from the trans widows thread should be allowed to question her views, which, I repeat, she expressed herself. Otherwise really, what's the point?

I can’t get through Dawson’s dreadful prose.

Patronising arsehole. Used to lecture gay men on how to be properly gay, now lectures feminists on how to feminist properly.

Fuck off, ‘Hon’.

Meh, politicians answer the questions they want to answer

She’s got no hope of winning the leadership so I wouldn’t worry too much. She is a traitor to women though and she should be ashamed of herself.

I wonder what would happen if MNers decided not to engage with the webchats when we know the main issues aren't going to be addressed

Well, post-deletions, that chat thread isn't exactly zinging. 26 posts: 5 on gender, 3 by MN (2 of which are saying don't ask about gender) and 1 complaint about a deleted post.

So either MNers as a whole are disengaged from Labour (bad for Jess) or they want to engage with Labour but about verboten topics (also bad for Jess).

I do accept that webchats shouldn't be dominated by one topic if others want a look in but it does not appear that anyone wants a look in!

posters from the trans widows thread should be allowed to question her views, which, I repeat, she expressed herself

Exactly. What's with the mollycoddling? Jess Phillips brought it up herself, I would have thought she'd be up for discussing it.
Or did MNHQ receive instructions from her people to delete any questions about her support for the removal of the exit clause?