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?

Not sure which man I'll have to 'feel like' ..

You could try Phil Buncie?

Yep.
I'll self ID as a man.
Lovely pay rise! :)

It's only confusing if you start out from the gender critical view that gender = stereotypes. If you start out from the genderist view that gender = an ineffable feeling that people have, then it doesn't make sense to insist that trans people 'live as the opposite sex'.

For lefty public figures like Jess, genderism is the best of both worlds because they can be seen to reject sex stereotypes and support trans rights at the same time. Gender criticism means they have to choose, and that's something they'd rather avoid having to do if they can.

I think she's saying that woman is all in the mind/soul (pick one) and not remotely in the body.
Also that several billion of us (penises notwithstanding) SHARE the SAME mind/soul (pick one) and DIFFER fundamentally from the other half of humanitiy's minds/souls.
Such soul sharing commonality is much more relevant than sharing the same bodily anatomy and so 'women' as a group of several billion is much better explained by our common minds/souls (and by our stark differences to men's minds/souls) than anything else, and definitely not by our sex.

Therefore, all those people (penises notwithstanding) with a KNOWN woman mind/soul must, as a matter of progressive thinking, share sports, prisons, changing rooms, hospital wards and every conceivable means of collecting data categories, with all other ASSUMED possessors of woman mind/souls.

Who, in the absence of any known declaration to help us group them, we'll just presume to be the people with vaginas, shall we? Jolly good, let's.

Oh, and, the idea that this common group of womanny mind/soul possessors should perform a life role is like, so regressive, yanno?
So, let's just stick to "they all (penis notwithstanding) have womanny mind/souls and THAT'S why they're a common group, M'KAY?

Jesus wept....

What is it about Birmingham Yardley MPs and Mumsnet.

I remember when Jess beat the odious John Hemming in 2015.

So disappointed. I thought Jess was sensible and she was about the only person who could have convinced me to vote Labour.

The web chat today was an embarrassment. Clueless not just about the gender stuff but lots of policy issues.

The Labour Party is eating itself. RIP

I think it is pretty clear that she is on board with Labour codifying coverture into law again.

What is the point of MNHQ deleting comments that have already been published by a newspaper? If they're thinking the DM will amend it's screenshots upon request I think they're in for some disappointment.

This is just embarrassing, honestly, both for MNHQ and for Phillips. Phillips is making the classic mistake of thinking that if nobody is complaining about something it means they enthusiastically support it or don't care what happens in regards to it, when the reality is that most of the public is only just starting to realize that this may present some serious issues. MNHQ is trying to herd cats and making themselves look censorship happy and behind the curve on public opinion in the process.

The whole point of a politician signing up for a webchat is for the public to be able to ask them questions. Gender ID and the laws related to it is something the public wants to ask about. Preventing them from doing so, whether it's the site hosting the conversation being overenthusiastic with the delete button or the politician attempting to control what they can be asked about, makes it look like one or both parties have something to hide. And also defeats the purpose of doing a webchat in the first place.

Nobody really cares what type of biscuits a politician likes. We want to know their views on topical issues and how that might impact the actions they'll take if voted into power. The whole attempt to steer webchats with politicians on a site for women who're mostly mothers towards twee nonsense about non political issues just comes across as massively and archaically sexist.

With a flick of her wrist, Justine Roberts could have this issue front and centre, just about everywhere. It's such a shame.

I think if Jess made a party political broadcast solely on this issue, with no double speak, regarding what she believes in then she would have lots of people asking her about it when she knocks on their doors.

Only if she is really honest though, like how the number of women who rape figures will go up to an all time high, but it's ok because we will put the biological man who raped her in a female prison because that's what she believes in.

Lots of people aren't aware of it which is why they aren't asking, not being asked doesn't mean everyone is on board!

I can't stand liars

Well, I've never seen a TW who wants to be a regular woman in jeans, t-shirt and pulled back hair, make-up free and working in a factory, oh no!

Most TW I've ever seen are in heels, long hair, full make up, fitted skirts or dresses, and a strategically placed scarf around their neck. If anyone is reinforcing the idea that proper women model themselves on a 1950s housewife, look no further!

After all, "The most difficult part of being a woman is choosing the right thing to wear" - Caitlyn Jenner.

Gender criticism means they have to choose, and that's something they'd rather avoid having to do if they can

Yes. That's why JP ignores the conflicting rights issue and blithely trots out nonsense about her deep commitment to protecting women's spaces, whilst championing the lobby's desire to obliterate them. As for biscuits? I don't even trust a politico like JP to be honest about a frivolous question like that. And interestingly, her answer was another swerve...

Thing is, as soon as someone says "transwomen are women" swiftly followed by "women have the right to ..." it doesn't matter what comes next as they are always including men in their definition of women. Or they are a horrible transphobe who doesn't really believe, but is capitulating for the sake of getting power.

The bit about 'none of the transwomen I've met have asked me not to discuss my periods' (paraphrasing) is utterly disingenuous too, and shows basic ignorance about trans-activism. She didn't need to look very far to find Munroe Bergdorf's tweets about the women's march, and if she had been watching this debate unfold, as she claims, she would have been well aware of the way 'cis-privilege' is used to stop women talking about their biology. It's sinister, and not something MN users have made up, and it's concerning on several levels that she's seeking to imply that.

(Interesting that underneath the piece on the DM page, there's a link to an article about a man who identified as a doctor and persuaded women to give themselves electric shocks for some spurious made-up medical reason which he filmed and watched for sexual pleasure....)

I feel the same as I did when Eddie Izzard went funny.

I used to really like Jess. And, I didn't mind the Lib Dems. There's a growing list of people I am disappointed in because they don't fucking THINK!

I think Jess does think. Just that what Jess thinks about is solely Jess and Jess's best interests. Another in the mould of David Whoops, Fucked up Britain For Decades But It Won't Bother Me As I Skip With My Millions Into The Sunset Cameron. In fairness, there are not many not in that mould, we're in the generation of the professional politician where those allowed to rise to the top are the ones who do what they're told, look right and parrot what they're supposed to.

We have women of the calibre of Anne Ruzylo in the Labour Ranks, watch her speaking on YouTube some time. I've seen the videos of her holding a whole room, with all the facts at her fingertips, answering questions on the spot from her own knowledge base, talking rather than reading a prepared speech. I can't think of any current politician at the top who can publicly speak like that, I was shocked at the difference when I first saw her do it. Put Anne on a webchat and I doubt you could find a question that scared her or she didn't want to engage with, or she waffled and professionally handwaved away. And when Anne talks about her real life experiences and working life, it wasn't writing policies or doing PR in an office either.

Why is a woman with skills like this being kept at the lower ranks of the party instead of talent like this being spotted and brought upwards? I can make a lot of guesses. Even more scary, how many more like Anne are there that no one's ever heard of?

And yet we're given the exact same product, just you can have it in Jeremy, or Jess, or Kier. Bluetooth compatible and no refunds.

That is a great point, Michelle.

I'd vote for Anne. And, I doubt she'd turn all unicorn and idiotic on me, either.

Thing is, when it's obvious that most of our political class change their supposedly deeply held conviction all the time based on what's most likely to get them elected (or just get them approval from their mates - a significant chunk of Labour politicians seem to have given up on getting elected, the LibDems too) then why should anyone vote for them? How can you feel strong support for anyone who doesn't appear to have any beliefs other than that they should be given more power? Phillips tries very hard to sell herself as a straight talking type, but the waffly bollocks she's come out with on gender proves that's not true. And they're almost all like that. And then they wonder why they're unable to get the vote out.

It's only confusing if you start out from the gender critical view that gender = stereotypes. If you start out from the genderist view that gender = an ineffable feeling that people have, then it doesn't make sense to insist that trans people 'live as the opposite sex'.

And neither have anything to do with sex. It always comes down to the conflation of sex and gender.

viv I suspect you could stand Anne in a public meeting in the hardest corner of Labour's old heartland and she'd convince the room she was a voice worth voting for. If you're looking for someone who actually represents voters based on real life experience and has the skills and political knowledge to translate that into meaningful, practical action - not involving wishes, dreams, magic money trees or identifying as via a lot of pretty words - it would be the Annes. They could drag the Labour party around and get the votes.

So the question arises: why do Labour not see this? Why are the top level people so different and so invested in something that has really made them an out of date, sinking ship losing the last of their loyalty based customers, rather like M&S and the BBC licence fee?

So the question arises: why do Labour not see this? Why are the top level people so different and so invested in something that has really made them an out of date, sinking ship losing the last of their loyalty based customers, rather like M&S and the BBC licence fee?

Misogyny and sexism. Men thinking they know better than women about what women want and need.

Not understanding how someone can live in a role as one sex... if only she could take one step further, eh? Roles are roles. Sex is sex. Roles don't change your sex.