I do not understand. I just do not...

[JellySlice]

Jes Phillips said:

I do believe transwomen are women and helped to write the report that suggested changes to the GRA because fundamentally, during that enquiry, I couldn't understand how asking someone to live in a role as one sex or another would actually happen. It seemed bound entirely in 1950s perceptions of men and women.

What does she mean? Surely that is exactly what being a trans person is? Isn't being trans (TW or TM, not NB or the rest of the umbrella) basically trying to live your life according to the stereotypes expected from the other sex?

Yeah. She’s talking gibberish. Quelle surprise.

I didn't understand it either.

I did wonder as I had heard her talk about the 1950s stereotypes and thought she was GC.

Is she another who thinks TW are natal women transing to present as masculine ?

But that doesn't make sense either!

Not read whole webchat (which is where I presume this is from) but surely she means asking someone to live as the opposite sex is not possible because it depended on 1950s stereotypes so therefore because TWAW then TW could just declare they are women? Ie self-Id?

A webchat of swinsoneque deluded proportions

I interpreted this as
I couldn't understand how asking someone [a trans person] to live in a role as one sex or another would actually happen

Ie, she thinks without the GRA there will people who are being asked to live as male or female when they don't think that of themselves.
Am I close?

Daily Mail readers are going to think she's batshit.

Bye bye Labour government for another 20 years.

Complete lack of understanding that sex and sex role stereotypes are completely different things.

One is biology. The other is old fashioned, 1950’s gendered nonsense.

The GC position is that we need to unhitch the two. Not weld them together permanently and fix the stereotypes (gender) as the intrinsic, immutable factor.

I don't understand a word.

Has she written a coherent statement and then put it through a woke translating machine?

Are there typos? Is this a strategy - make unintelligible answers to avoid blowback?

Pfft.

Oh KTJean that makes far more sense!

Actually Stella Creasey said the exact same thing. This is the line they're all trotting out in Labour obviously without thinking.

The GRA Currently asks someone to prove they've been "living as" the opposite sex for 2 years. So that can only be done by invoking 1950's style sexist stereotypes.

Their follow on logic is that the GRA should be updated to selfID, risk to women a collateral damage issue, rather than abolished completely.

I think she is trying to say that because she believes TWAW, therefore there shouldn't be any kind of criteria or restriction to enable a man to change to the gender of woman. If we try to come up with a list of criteria that a man must meet to qualify for a gender change, then we can only come up with regressive stereotypes. Therefore, self-id is the way forward because it removes the need for any kind of gatekeeping based on rigid and regressive stereotypes. If you truly believe trans women are women, then they don't have to fulfill any criteria to identify as their desired gender in the same way that natal women don't have to conform to any criteria to be a woman.

I think that's how she sees it. It all hinges on viewing trans women as literally women.

I couldn't understand how asking someone to live in a role as one sex or another would actually happen. It seemed bound entirely in 1950s perceptions of men and women.

Ah, she means she doesn't see how it's possible to ask someone to live as a woman. So she proposes scrapping the requirement to 'live as a woman'. And believes TWAW.

So, she's a TRA, effectively.

Cheerio, Jess, enjoy your Swinsonment!

^ lol evoking.

Invoking is to do with God's and devil's etc.

Thanks, Nonnymouse, yes, crossposted.

It's madness. 'Gender roles are sexist and outdated, therefore men can be women'.

Urgh, it's such a lazy way of speaking.

What is a transwoman, then, Jess?
Which transwomen does she believe are women?
At what point does she believe they become women?
If they were 'always women', should everyone around them have instinctively known that, and felt equally comfortable to share female-only facilities with them pre-transition?

I just don't get how anyone 'believes' it without at least some inner reservation: 'Well, TWAW except those who are sex offenders taking the piss, of course'/'Not Ryan in Form 9z who wants to stare at the girls changing and now has a most excellent excuse for doing so'/'Not the ones with a male name and a full beard'/'Not the ones who do it part time, when it'll least affect their career'/'Not the chap my friend is married to, given he's fathered two children and never bothered to mention it before' - that sort of thing.

Does she mean that it would so unfair to ask a man to live as a woman - as in the sort of woman that gets paid less, gets ignored by doctors and police, gets to do all the wife work and facilitating the lives of others, that sort of shit you know, rather than wearing short skirts, trying knickers on in M&S and trying to date lesbians?

It was very disappointing. She must have known her audience here would have expected better than lightweight babbling about being kind. I thought she'd actually criticised recently tbe whole idea of sound bite solutions to things.
I follow her on Twitter and she never mentioned this once. Apparently because no one raises it on the doorstep it isn't an issue.

I have read that post several times and I haven't got a clue what she's trying to say.

Isn't being trans (TW or TM, not NB or the rest of the umbrella) basically trying to live your life according to the stereotypes expected from the other sex?

Using some form of mental gymnastics, genderists have decided that if you want to live your life according to the stereotypes of the opposite sex, or a mix of both sexes, declaring yourself trans or nb means that you are rejecting stereotypes.

No, I don't understand either.

She doesn't even know it's your gas bill that determines whether you're "living in role" or not.

I'm saying all across the bloody site at the moment - I'm honestly reeling. She's ignorant about policy or what's behind policy on every issue she was asked about.

I couldn't understand how asking someone to live in a role as one sex or another would actually happen. It seemed bound entirely in 1950s perceptions of men and women.

And I don't understand why she didn't conclude from that that the GRA should be scrapped. Because gender is based on stereotypes and sex can't be changed.

I have given birth and been a SAHM. I do most of the cooking and ironing. When we travel together, dh does the driving.

Doesn't that mean that I am living "in a role as one sex"? And as dh has furthered his career in a STEM area, takes ds to watch their team play football, and does the driving when we travel together, isn't he, too, living "in a role as one sex"?

How are these gender roles (apart of course from the biological one of giving birth) any different from putting on makeup, having long hair, wearing dresses and heels?

And I don't understand why she didn't conclude from that that the GRA should be scrapped. Because gender is based on stereotypes and sex can't be changed.

Absolutely, Oldcrone. How she got from there to woman must therefore be a feeling in someone's head is baffling.

twitter.com/sarahditum/status/1219281300529602561

Sarah Ditum seeing what I see: a hopelessly inadequate candidate (only she's kinder about it than I am).

Reading Jess Phillips' Mumsnet chat, I feel less and less convinced by her answer gender ID policy questions by referring to her experience in the women's sector. If anything that makes it worse that the GRA inquiry she was on didn't take evidence from the sector

And the more I think about that, the more I think that she hasn't really had to handle a brief or any policy detail, and in one instance when are did, the result was an unimpressive lack of scrutiny that let activists dictate policy

I'm sorry to find myself feeling that way because she's stalwart on prostitution & supporting Counting Dead Women, & a good energetic advocate for her constituents. But she's obviously not ready for leadership & this campaign seems to be exposing how little she's aware of that

I think she means being a woman is all about some ‘inner feeling’ and nothing to do with biology or how you dress, any surgery, or how you live your life. Thus a man who goes to work in suits and ties, has a beard, has a stay at home wife and kids, who is in the masons, went to and all boys school, goes out every other night to have drinks with male work colleagues, who shops exclusively in men’s clothes shops, never taken paternity leave, has a two seater sports car as only his wife needs to drive the kids anywhere, never cooks his kids supper, etc, etc, is a woman if that is what his inner feeling tells him and is therefore Issa entitled to wave his penis in the girls changing room and gain the benefit of any women’s leadership support as other women.

She seems to think that she can self identify as a straight talking politico, whilst speaking in doublethink. She doesn't believe in freedom of speech, she can't grasp that the trans ideology is predicated on regressive stereotypes and she didn't address Labour's shrinking support. Utterly useless.