Conservative 'Women's' Association...

[BaronessSnippyPantsofCroneArmy]

I know many of us had hoped that the Conservatives hadn't completely gone down the rabbit hole, but sadly the CWO has done so.

Their 'spokesperson' Sue Pascoe is actively deterring women from joining the party and standing for office by blocking dissenters and calling WPUK etc. 'hate groups'.

Twitter thread here:
twitter.com/CUPWomensPledge/status/1285515110493163520?s=20

For those who don't twit, here is the letter:

docs.google.com/document/d/12XeyTOSvji7So61ly7uyl22NgEqoN25meQFP_ZOOgJc/edit?usp=sharing

The conservatives pretty much invented the rabbit hole. It's only in the last few months they've noticed the screaming error of self ID and started havering and thinking about backpedalling.

Sue Pascoe is not a main spokesperson for the CWO

That tweet from Sue Pascoe is from 2018. Why has this blown up now?

so how come transwomen are getting into so many women's spaces and influencing policy. The EA has really failed us, there were clearly not enough safeguards.

I want to be able to support transwomen, the 5000 who need our support, and not feel as though my support will be taken as a signal to take my rights.

@2Rebecca

That tweet from Sue Pascoe is from 2018. Why has this blown up now?

The tweet telling JK Rowling to 'desist' is a couple of weeks old. What is your point?

Sue continues to block anyone who dares question the TWAW mantra. This is unacceptable behaviour form an office holder, particularly when the people being blocked are party members.

Nobody said they were 'the' spokesperson, they are 'a' spokesperson, in their role as mentioned in this article:

'Sue Pascoe is Acting Area Chairman of the Conservative Women’s Organisation in North and East Yorkshire.'

www.conservativehome.com/platform/2020/07/crispin-blunt-and-sue-pascoe-its-time-to-correct-the-stoking-of-alarm-and-spreading-of-misinformation-about-trans-people.html

Fascinating, I was unaware of Sue until now. They certainly don’t seem to speak For women.....how odd....

[quote BaronessSnippyPantsofCroneArmy]I know many of us had hoped that the Conservatives hadn't completely gone down the rabbit hole, but sadly the CWO has done so.

Their 'spokesperson' Sue Pascoe is actively deterring women from joining the party and standing for office by blocking dissenters and calling WPUK etc. 'hate groups'.

Twitter thread here:
twitter.com/CUPWomensPledge/status/1285515110493163520?s=20

For those who don't twit, here is the letter:

docs.google.com/document/d/12XeyTOSvji7So61ly7uyl22NgEqoN25meQFP_ZOOgJc/edit?usp=sharing[/quote]
That is absolutely dire. The Conservatives should be unambiguously rejecting the new orthodoxy. Not capitulating to it and regurgitating its mantras. As for calling WPUK a 'hate group?' Beyond pathetic. The Conservatives should be ashamed. WTAF?

I can't see WPUK on the Prevent proscribed list, but can't see Britain First either, can see National Action: so is it true that WPUK are an organisation of concern to Prevent?

Sue Pascoe is a trans woman, it seems.

It's obviously great that Sue is happy, and feels life is now more congruent. Nobody should be forced to live in a way that causes them fundamental distress and discomfort. It's a shame Sue doesn't extend that courtesy to others, by understanding the difference between sex and gender, and that it's not bigotry for women to assert their own boundaries based on biological sex.

Women's groups are hate groups?

I'd love to see how they define a group that is sexist, racist, homophobic, doxes and harasses women, and uses rape threats, death threats, and threats of curb stomping to shut up women 🤔

"Reported" is pretty meaningless. I mean, I could report our local toddler group.

I got confused by the remark that WPUK was regarded on the same way as Britain First, it seemed to imply some sort of acknowledgement of the 'reporting', but as neither are on the proscribed list maybe it meant that they were reported but not deemed necessary to put on the list: or does it mean they are both on another list waiting to be reviewed? Otherwise the statement that they have been reported is a bit meaningless?

Like wellbehavedwoman said!

@wellbehavedwomen

Sue Pascoe is a trans woman, it seems.

It's obviously great that Sue is happy, and feels life is now more congruent. Nobody should be forced to live in a way that causes them fundamental distress and discomfort. It's a shame Sue doesn't extend that courtesy to others, by understanding the difference between sex and gender, and that it's not bigotry for women to assert their own boundaries based on biological sex.

Oh. I see. So that would explain...

@wellbehavedwomen

Sue Pascoe is a trans woman, it seems.

It's obviously great that Sue is happy, and feels life is now more congruent. Nobody should be forced to live in a way that causes them fundamental distress and discomfort. It's a shame Sue doesn't extend that courtesy to others, by understanding the difference between sex and gender, and that it's not bigotry for women to assert their own boundaries based on biological sex.

I wonder I feel Sue Pascoe's ex-wife is a conservative and may wish to be a member of her local conservatives women's group but doesn't feel able to join?

for the former Mrs Pascoe and do look at the Transwidows thread on here. TinselAngel and others will provide a warm welcome should you wish to join them. Obviously the rest of FWR will as well but that thread is a 'safe' place for transwidows to discuss issues affecting them.