Women’s equality party consult on self ID

[Kit19]

(Its all go at the moment!) with the aim of “shifting the dial”

It’s being overseen by NatCen which is a research body (MN May wish to note it was where Nancy Kelly worked before she went to Stonewall)

www.theguardian.com/society/2020/sep/17/womens-equality-party-runs-consultation-on-self-identification-for-trans-people

How can they consult on this? It's the job of the government to consult on things like this so I don't really follow what they're doing, or get what they would be able to do with the results. Their website doesn't have much, all I found was their twitter feed pointing to the Guardian article posted.

I’m assuming to inform their party policy and to manage internal rifts

This is actually quite a sensible idea as long as it is truly neutral.

@Kit19

I’m assuming to inform their party policy and to manage internal rifts

That would make sense. It wasn't how I read the article so must be my mistake.

Slight problem ... (as I understand it, someone correct me if I'm wrong) a lot of women who were members left them because they declared without consulting the membership that TWAW. So they must be working with a biased sample.

So It's an internal consultation of their own party members - right? Because I think that report makes it sound much bigger than that.

I can't bring myself to read it. Let me guess, they want to shit the dial in one direction only, yes?

SHIFT, pardon my mistype.

The selection of NatCen to run the consultation makes the whole thing a joke really. The party are never going to concede ground on this and so have spent a long time stalling before appointing NatCen.

It used to bother me that they let TRAs dominate but in practice WEP are ineffectual and pointless across the board so it's not worth worrying about.

“shifting the dial”

They'll need big strong arms to shift me! Maybe a poster on another thread can help.

I have been meaning to join them actually as they have done some good campaigns on sexual violence and childcare. My understanding was the membership was pretty much 50:50 split on the issue and had just agreed to disagree.

A friend who is a member is definitely pro trans but also doing lots of good stuff on important issues so I just ignore her posts when I don't agree with them (and vice versa I expect).

@Taswama

I have been meaning to join them actually as they have done some good campaigns on sexual violence and childcare. My understanding was the membership was pretty much 50:50 split on the issue and had just agreed to disagree.

Yes, I've read the co-founder's book on forming the party and she is a big supporter of trans stuff - has a young cousin who is enby IIRC. But there was definitely the sense that membership is split 50:50. Though as the book was written a few years ago, who knows what the situation is now.

Party leader Mandu Reid has a Twitter thread about this, describing it as a "citizens' assembly process". She talks about discussion, dialogue and different perspectives, but also says, in a single line paragraph, "it is not a debate".

There are loads of responses from TWAW zealots expressing their horror and disgust at the possibility that this process could involve listening to heretics and infidels who dare to question the creed and cast doubt on the faith.

Some of these responses may be taking the piss; it's hard to tell sometimes.

mobile.twitter.com/ManduReid/status/1306952770952593411

@Taswama

I have been meaning to join them actually as they have done some good campaigns on sexual violence and childcare. My understanding was the membership was pretty much 50:50 split on the issue and had just agreed to disagree.

I can't see that this is sustainable - how can you have a Women's Equality Party when the membership can't even agree on the definition of the word 'woman'?

(And given that half the membership will define 'woman' as 'anyone who says they are a woman', which is meaningless, I'm not sure what the point of the WEP is.)

Having read the responses to her tweet I’d say the chances of finding common ground are slim to nothing!

I went to an online discussion on it and get the updates as a member. I think it is sensible personally. We need to find ways of getting through the current situation/impass/nastiness and I think this process & the one world rugby used might both be good models. We'll see. but the responses to Mandu reid don't suggest that consensus is really possible (tho I'm sure most responses were not from members).

It arose because someone (not sure who) brought a motion to an agm to say twaw, gra should be reformed to self id & ( I think) nb people should have legal recognition. It didn't pass (!) but was referred back so that instead there had to be a proper consultation of members on this issue. Members are being asked to think about this issue, & how/if it interacts with other areas of party policy. A 'citizens assembly' has been formed. They have chosen who to hear evidence from. The first evidence session is available online I believe.

It's true alit of gc women left over how the party treated Heather b-e so the sample has shifted.