Women across six political parties are uniting

[MrsSnippyPants]

Women are talking and they are collaborating.
When we stand together we are powerful.
Follow for updates;

twitter.com/WomenUnitingUK/status/1236381105609211906?s=20

www.facebook.com/Women-Uniting-100505458243076/

spinster.xyz/@WomenUnitingUK/posts/103783791207412706

it should be sexa- partisan support

Just as long as it's not gendera-partisan, I'm good with it.

Obviously can't sleep until I hear more ...

Is this a UK version of Hands Across the Aisle?

I'll suppose we'll know at midnight.

Not until 01:00 apparently.

It is only fitting that Mumsnet are the first to know:

WOMEN UNITING FOR WOMEN

Initiated by women from across 6 political parties, for ALL women, we assert that;

Women have the right to female only spaces such as changing rooms, hospital wards, toilets, sleeping accommodation, refuges, hostels, and prisons, as well as treatment by female staff, all of which are set out in the Equality Act 2010

Women have the right to discuss policies which affect them, without being abused, harassed or intimidated.

Women have the right to organise themselves, as a sex, across a range of cultural, leisure, educational and political activities and to participate in single-sex sports, to ensure fairness and safety at all levels of competition.

Schools and educators must ensure that their policies meet the safeguarding needs of ALL students, whilst taking into account the protected characteristics of the Equality Act 2010.

Women and girls are subject to discrimination on the basis of their sex, and sex is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act of 2010.

#TheWordWomanIsTaken

WE ARE CALLING ON THE GOVERNMENT TO LISTEN TO WOMEN! PLEASE SIGN OUR PETITION HERE: www.change.org/WomenUnitingUKProtectOurSexBasedRights

Useful background: uncommongroundmedia.com/the-2010-equality-act-is-being-undermined-by-official-guidance/

hmmmmmmmm ....

Does someone know more than that oblique tweet. Could go either way.

Is it just the different Women's Pledges joining up?

That would give us Labour, Tory, Green, Lib Dem, SNP and WEP.

Even if they do, and it would be a positive step, the idea that the ruling patriarchy in each Party would go, oh sorry, of course women are biological women, we take it all back, and tell trans women they cant speak or stand for women in our party - not likely!

The spinster link was somehow an email address.

So have edited it, and to save MN adding in if you copy and paste it should work spinster.xyz/@WomenUnitingUK/posts/103783791207412706 for the specific post or for all their posts to date spinster.xyz/@WomenUnitingUK

Only 2 people have signed the petition?

Yes Iam it went live minutes ago!

Why is this petition on change.org instead of the parliament petitions site?

The Parliament petitions site was still inactive at the time this was organised as the new committee had not yet been convened.

Thank you. Unity is the key, absolutely.

Signed, and made a small donation to promote this more widely.

Does the government ever respond to petitions on that site? The parliament site is up now, with only 85 petitions on it, so it would be easy to get on page 1 at the moment.

Sorry if this sounds negative, but I think a petition on the site that the government has to take notice of is better than one on a site they can simply ignore.

Change.org petitions have had quite a bit of success in the past. The .gov petitions have to be approved and nobody could give us an answer on how long that would take given the committee was only reconvened this week.

"Although the Govt's e­-petition site is a recognition of the fact that the public are using online tools to call for change, there are various elements of the Government’s e­-petitions system that
provides a barrier of what is often a person’s first step into public participation:

● Almost half of petition requests submitted to the site by the public are rejected before they
reach publication stage

● The gateway to an official response is an ambitious target of 100,000 signatures. This is
unrealistic to achieve and instantly puts a person off from starting a petition.

● Petition starters regularly tell us that they “need 100,000 signatures”. This target has created a damaging effect on civic participation. We see petitions on Change.org
regularly receive a response from politicians and achieve change when they have far less than 100,000 signatures.

● The language on the site is unclear; there is a misconception that 100,000 signatures will lead to a debate in Parliament. Many petitions exceed the threshold of 100,000 and lead to no debate.

● The site also implies that the only way of getting a debate in Parliament on the issue you
care about is through the Government’s e-­petition tool. We have seen petitions on Change.org spark their own debate without the use of the Government site, for example the petition started by Jack Monroe about the rise in food banks which led to its own debate and vote in Parliament .

● It perpetuates the idea that civic participation has to have a Government target. Instead, the Government can act as an ally or advocate ­­ creating a positive experience of Parliament, we see this regularly on Change.org."

www.parliament.uk/documents/speaker/digital-democracy/Digi067Change.pdf

My post was made before longer statement.

Please, please put this on the UK Parliament Petition web site.

Using any of the competing social media petition web sites is like p*ing in the wind.

Even if the only come back with weasal words they have to reply after 10,000 signatures and hold a debate after 100,000.

And it is true the debates are shunted off into Westminster Hall sometimes, but they do get televised. And it is then on the record which MPs care.

If the other petition has only just gone live and most sensible UK women will be tucked up in bed getting ready for IWD tomorrow, if at all possible please more to Parliament web site.

Social media petitions sites are just part of virtual escapism and virtue signalling. They just get lost in the froth of competing isolating bubbles

Please dont waste what you have started.

Signed.

I was told by an SEN charity that change.org is more effective, a couple of years ago. I was asking the same questions - they'd been advised to go that route by their media advisors.

We can't just move it! It has to be 'approved'. Honestly, this has been the subject of much discussion and this is the decision we went with.

re new longer statement about change.org

Petitions on change.org and all the others only get attention IF the MSM report on them.

And as we know it is highly unlikely (apart from the Times) that any MSM would pick up on this.

Jack Monroe was (temporarily at least) a media darling.

With all the hysteria in the media over the corona virus the possibility of the MSM picking this up is really slight.

Unless of course you have the media contacts.

Also the other thing about change.org that is a bit cringey is they have depolicised it so if you share via facebook it automatically creates a link asking you to sign a petition to support your FB friend who has signed it without saying what it is about. This means a lot of people just skip over the link via facebook as it looks so childish to say please sign because I have.

media advisors will be 20 year olds who think outreach is what appeals to them and their friends.

Seriously, if the petition is to reach women in isolated communities or in the heartland of conservatism what some juvenile apolitical techie thinks is how Momentum led Labour up an election cul de sac

Is it safe to assume that 'ALL women' means 'all adult human females'?

You're confusing those who deal with day to day running of the social media accounts, with those planning policy. The idea a major charity would allow a 20 year old to have that sort of sway is pretty laughable, quite honestly. It's akin to assuming the staff in call centres get to determine the policies. I'm going to assume that you know that isn't how that works, either.

You've yet to clarify the issue of ensuring approval for a petition on such a hot potato issue. Nor how it would be more effective to host a petition on a site which relies just as much on media attention, but lacks any mechanism for paid promotion by supporters.

Can I just ask why you always post to say that women organising collective action on this subject are doing it completely wrong? You do the same about FiLiA and WPUK, and I can only repeat: if you honestly feel the women presently getting off their backsides, and working to create places and campaigns for the rest of us, are doing it all wrong, there's nothing to stop you from showing them how to do and be better. We need a big enough tent for everyone, so great - enlarge it. Meanwhile, as someone who doesn't have time or energy to organise in that way, I'm just glad other people do, and are.

Do we know who the women are?

Both initiatives are commendable MrsSnippyPants . . . but . . . I have made my feelings known already about petitions to Parliament being put on third party sites, ie. I think it is bonkers and I won't sign them. Sorry - but you'll not miss one signature.

Something that you need to check out though. The "Women Uniting" petition on Change org says.
"Women Uniting started this petition to The Rt Hon Elizabeth Truss MP, Minister for Women and Equalities (UK Government) "

Both "Women Uniting" and "The Rt Hon Elizabeth Truss MP, Minister for Women and Equalities (UK Government)" are clickable links.

The link for Liz Truss relates to the Change org "Decision Makers Tool", ie. it should ensure that petition responses are sent to "Decision Maker" Liz Truss.

About the Decision Makers Tool

Decision Makers is a new feature we have developed to make Change.org to facilitate a two­way dialogue between decision makers and the public ­ be they, elected representatives and constituents, or companies and customers. It also allows decision makers to monitor petitions directed towards them as they are started and as they grow. The feature allows anyone being petitioned to respond, with that response emailed directly to all signers of that petition.

However, if you click through the "Liz Truss" link
www.change.org/decision-makers/the-rt-hon-elizabeth-truss-mp-minister-for-women-and-equalities-2f272629-7a16-4153-a5f9-31bc873f85c3
you get this: "This decision maker isn't available".

I am guessing that "Decision Makers" have to "opt in" to this feature?

Meanwhile . . . just saying . . . on the Government Petitions site there are 85 open petitions, including:

"Change the Sexual Offences Act so women can be charged with rape against males" - already over 3,000 signatures

Five are "awaiting a response" having exceeded the 10,000 signature threshold:
petition.parliament.uk/petitions?state=awaiting_response

One is "awaiting debate" (on closing schools due to Covid19 virus):
petition.parliament.uk/petitions?state=awaiting_debate

"Women Uniting" sounds a really good UK cross-party initiative and as a thoroughly pissed-off Labour Party member I would like to know more about it.

Twitter is on the "silencing women" case already, if you didn't know (screenshot).

"Caution: This account is temporarily restricted."
"You're seeing this warning because there has been some unusual activity from this account. Do you still want to view it?"

(YES - 'eff off, Twitter!)

signed

How typical that the TRAs got to the Twitter account first, although I liked the responses.

I've signed the petition too. Now I'm going to follow that up by emailing Liz Truss and my own MP to reiterate the key messages. Just because the Decision Maker is not available doesn't mean that she won't know of it by the end of the day.

Here's to International Women's Day!