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/

ElderAve
I’d have put myself in this category too. Until the Joanne Rowling tweet engaged me and I did a bit of reading. I had absolutely no idea.

It’s depressing. Jess would be a better potential leader of the Labour Party if she were coming on MN to help identify issues and concerns that need to be addressed so that the Labour Party can win the next election.

Instead MN are taking action to ensure that Jess is not put on the spot by having to field more than one question on the biggest current political issue for women on this site. Because, as we all know, Jess wants to gain the party leadership, and to do so, she dare not upset the misogynists within the party.

Sorry Jess, politics are changing. Lots of people, left and right, are sick of woke identities politics, where accusations of hate take the place of proper debate. A leader needs to listen and to lead. Not appease.

I’ve just posted this on the chat thread. Probably more appropriate here.

I’m just watching Jess on sky. She said one of the issues people had with Corbyn was that he didn’t listen. I know Jess has been asked gender critical questions (I was at an event and heard one) so the hypocrisy is strong with this one. If she’s not got someone to read these threads prior to the web chat tomorrow she’s a fool. She MUST know the depth and breadth of the feelings & opinions on this single issue.
Still watching and she’s said ‘honest’ multiple times. I used to really like her and I could weep.

@cunty she’s also pitching herself as the only person who stood up against antisemitism- which feels grossly hypocritical given her failure to confront misogyny

I think I’m out of words 😶

Personally, after having seen her performance in an interview with Andrew Neil the other day - I rate Lisa Nandy above all of the candidates. Unlike the others she does not have such an obvious profile n/or obvious association with the Corbyn leadership or cabinet. She seems to tell it like it is, without having committed herself to policies or ideas that she does not hold to be true or believe in.

Jess Phillips is too tainted and 'associated', plus she would not be a convincing leader on an international level. Kier Starmer will probably win the leadership election, but I hope Lisa Nandy is given senior role, and hence more experience for a future leadership bid.

I think there are quite a few places where she disagrees with Dawson's nonsense and indicates some understanding of what the TRAs are like:

I think in what has become a culture war, one thing that always worries me is this the source of the controversy. The source of the controversy, sometimes, is people suggesting that we have to remove the word “women” from things like sanitary products and that we have to change the way that we talk about literally everything.

no trans person I have ever met said that they didn’t want me to use the term “breastfeeding”, or to talk about my periods.

I worry that groups of people who, maybe have good intentions of inclusion, it creates a fight that is then being really, really damaging

The reality for me is that I will never think that a person procuring sex is the same as consent...I still very much believe that a model where we criminalise people who think it’s OK to buy sex is the one that I would favour.

I think there are quite a few places where she disagrees with Dawson's nonsense and indicates some understanding of what the TRAs are like

Maybe, but she's still, necessarily, pre-committed to policies and 'stuff' she's already said in public and on record, and has lobbied for.

She is standing squarely behind a policy that removes the right of any female at any time to be able to have any privacy from any male that wishes to be present, regardless of how vulnerable, humiliated or frightened that may make that female. All females must poo beside males. Pee beside males. Undress beside males. Sleep beside males. Accept intimate care from males. Accept this and get your pants off, and don't let the male see you cry or it's a hate crime.

Or, for the many females who can't and won't tolerate this - many for protected characteristic reasons - those females lose access to female single sex services.

In order to provide people born male with a choice of two services to use, and to make sure that their feelings are respected.

Words fail. Leaving aside the whole homophobic aspects, racist aspects, anti faith aspects, anti safeguarding aspects - Jess, there is no point in you worrying about women having to sell access to their bodies to males, when you're depriving women of any bodily respect, privacy or equal humanity. You are rendering females a subclass. A subordinate class.

Own it. If you are going to do these abhorrent things, have the guts to face those females and face up to the realities of what you are doing to them.

Given that questions are submitted so far in advance for webchats, and whoever is answering them gets a chance to look at them and prepare answers, I think it would be useful if MN provided a space where all the questions were organised under different headings.

So, people could ask what they liked before a pre-arranged deadline, giving plenty of time for mods to go through them, remove any that were directly offensive, and also word for word repeats (though maybe the number of people who asked the same thing could be recorded beside the question) The rest could be arranged in topics - in this case for example, maybe general Labour Party questions, GRA-related stuff, leadership election, personal beliefs and values, fun stuff about biscuits. (And perhaps a portion of time set aside for spontaneous questions and responses.)

This way, politicians (or whoever) could choose a representative few questions from the list. Everyone could see the ones they'd swerved (and draw their own conclusions.) They could maybe widen their answers to address more points.

Crucially, the politicians could also gauge the level of interest in a particular topic, and popular feeling on it. If there were 200 questions about the GRA and only 7 on hobnobs vs chocolate digestives, that in itself sends a powerful message.

No experience of organising web chats, so am prepared to be told this wouldn't be possible. But it strikes me as being a more democratic and productive approach.

It would definitely be better if all the questions were allowed to stand but then collated/representative ones picked out for answering.

Reading that interview with Dawson Phillips is well aware of the "heat" in this issue, The Labour Party must realise that at some point concerns must be addressed, not just TWAW responses.

The Labour Party must realise that at some point concerns must be addressed, not just TWAW responses.

Jess Phillips should watch/listen to the interviews Jo Swinson did before the GE, and think about how she would tackle those questions. If her conclusion is that she would do no better than Swinson, she should reflect on why that might be. If you're defending policies which make no sense you're never going to be perceived as honest and competent.

Look, we can all see it. Labour is unwilling to face up to the negative effects of Wokeism - including but not limited to genderism - and what part this has played in its collapsing support and disastrous election performance. MNHQ, separately, has decided that politicians won't come to its webchats if the membership here insists on pressing this issue and so is enabling the deliberate purblindness in order to continue offering webchats even though they will no longer be representative of its membership's views.

It's so idiotic and self-defeating that it beggars belief. But that's where we are.

^^ exactly what @oldcrone said.

Part of the issue is we know politicians don’t believe this bullshit around self ID. But somehow we have got into a position where to say so is career suicide and so they come across as simultaneously deeply dishonest and arrogant.

The emperor really has no clothes

Does we know where the other candidates stand on this issue?

Maybe they could all do webchats so we could ask them...

I think it's been made clear that by politicians telling HQ they're too scared to do webchats in case they get 'harangued' and 'shouted at', it's very clear that said politicians are not remotely interested in meaningful engagement with electorate via these webchats. In fact that's exactly what they'd like to avoid. It should be in summary MP talks to Mummies and look at the jolly japes/how relatable MP is.

Hence HQ having to limit it to zoflora and biscuits and what lipstick to coax any of these poor incredibly well paid, publicly accountable and in position of trust people to be brave enough.

True inclusiveness would be a return to when man or men stood for all people and women and children were subsumed by men under the laws of coverture.

Jess Phillips has been asked many, many questions on this, in a previous webchat
link
and has preferred to answer questions about her favourite biscuits.
I think we need to hear an MP speak about this, especially JP, who prides herself on being outspoken and fearless, but it's evident that, even if MN put all the questions up, she would ignore them.

If she ignores them then I shall vote accordingly.

#LabourLosingWomen was for a reason. The party needs my vote.

To be fair I think I will be putting Lisa Nandy as my first preference anyway, but what happens on Mumsnet will inform where I place Jess Phillips on my order of preference.

Jess certainly identifies as being brave and fearless, by the Guardian's article yesterday.

Unfortunately the subtext of this is obvious. In reality, no one can announce in words who they have decided they are and how people are therefore instructed to perceive them. In reality people read a person's actions and gather the evidence to make their own decisions and then use their own categories. You can't just tell people you are a hero, and expect to be treated like one: there has to be demonstrated objective shared reality in actions, leading to people drawing their own conclusions. This leads to the sadness of people trying to use words to magically manifest a reality they would like upon others, instead of focusing on actions and doing the work. And then getting sad and angry with those others for not believing in what they were told. (Don't shout at and harangue me about my actions, I TOLD you I identify as being x)

'By their deeds shall you know them' is a very important quote to keep in mind when listening to any politician. Or as we often say here, as females are experienced in empty words, 'when someone shows you who they are, believe them'.

the thing is we know any candidate will be ripped to shreds if they so much as dare question TWAW etc, whatever they think privately. Seems to me JP has gone much farther down that line than she needs though. If I was a LP member I'd be thinking carefully about who is most likely to be GC (despite what they say in public) and supporting them, but I would NOT be insisting they come out publicly now. Because that would ruin any chances of them being elected.
We need a decent leader of the opposition for so many reasons. We also need someone with the courage to pull the LP out of this mess and listen to what ordinary people AKA their supposed support base think on this issue.
So let's not make it impossible for that person to get into that role.

Interesting point. I'm not a Labour member but would agree they probably have to read between the lines. Shit, but the way things are.

Just now read through the whole list of (allowed to stand) questions for this webchat: I've been muttering sourly about only zoflora and lipstick being allowed. I take that unreservedly back. They're almost all well phrased, heavy weight questions of women at their absolute best, its bloody inspiring to see. Try and spin that group of females as pink, frilly and giggly if you dare.