Irritated by Jess

[Thecatonthemat]

On channel 4 news last night, Jess Phillips talking about the amendments to the Domestic abuse bill, giving it 8 out of 10. There was also a clip of a former police investigator who was clear that it is serial male offenders who are the danger. Jess found herself unable to say the words woman or female or men and male in what was otherwise a thoughtful analysis. For the casual viewer, the implication that it could be anybody doing the serial abusing, of anybody of any sex sounded just plain odd. Who gains from this obfuscation?

Sex offenders

Men

Given that the government had to make an amendment on language in part of the bill to include the word woman, thereby acknowledging that most DV takes place against women, am also very disappointed (hope I'm right on that one)?

Playing devil’s avocado, I can conceive that someone in JP’s position may feel that all DA victims benefit (obviously, DA victims are overwhelmingly women), by her not being dragged into me-railing by trans and men’s rights activists accusing her of “exclusionsary language”, NAMALT and the like, so by avoiding referring to sexes of abusers and victims, she is keeping the conversation around the DA bill and DA victims’ needs. It is how we are being forced to behave thanks to the bullying behaviour of certain types of activists. I agree it is not fair and not right, but I can understand some women just wanting to get things done at the moment.

It’s not quite the same to my eyes as removing sex-based language in medical contexts, for example, as whilst domestic abuse is overwhelmingly a gendered issue (correct use of gender, as it is due more to sex-based stereotyping/social conditioning than biological sex differences), it can, obviously, affect both sexes, unlike, for example, cervical cancer, pregnancy etc.

It still sucks though.

At the end of the day, these politicians don’t want to cut short their chances of getting a slice of the pie. Sex as the means of reproducing the human race has become a minefield. So many will avoid it.

My Labour MP is always telling women we don’t have the facts and are prey to alarmist unfounded concerns. He is dooo sold to the TWAW mantra that even states that gender identity is a pc.

Savvy. Focuses attention on what needs to be supported to get the bill through. Avoids risking being derailed by accusations of transphobia or sexism. Women will not benefit less from the legislation because Jess didn't say woman or man when talking about it. But they will benefit less if the legislation doesn't get passed.

But the police person had no problems in naming the perpetrators. Yes the legislation should go through of course, but to pretend that there are somehow many people without penises responsible is ludicrous.

I do think you’re making a bit of a logic jump from gender neutral language to “pretending many people without penises responsible”. But yes, the (male?) police officer felt less obliged to appease the lurking activist bullies, that is an interesting observation yet sadly unsurprising - they are not the usual target, whereas a female politician campaigning on women’s issues absolutely is.

There are many, many instances when being unable to accurately name the problem obfuscates addressing and managing the problem. In this instance though - if it still gets the job done, and avoids being sidetracked, I understand the appeasement.

I wish Jess would just focus on something else tbh. I think she does just as much harm as she does good for women.

tbh, I've some sympathy with the explanation that Cwenthryth lays out - and I'm still apprehensive about the long term harm in the shift of perception it might encourage if we stop using terms that refer to sex and identify the class that is most often the perpetrator or the victim.

In a different context, Glinner, Helen and Arty discuss pronouns and the influence on the way judges respond - plus the impact on sentencing and crime statistics: in some very sensitive areas:

It matters because this kind of imprecise, inaccurate reporting is at odds with our basic perceptions about men and women. Enough of it will lead us to believe that the perceptions themselves are wrong. The danger of this is two-fold. Violent men will be treated more leniently than they have any right to expect and women will be saddled with the reputation for violence that men have earned for themselves. Not only will men have succeeded in appropriating the mantle of womanhood but they will remake it in their own distorted image.

NB: I was transcribing from a video - I haven't seen the article - around 21min mark.

I wonder if perceptions of DV are in danger of being distorted in a way that will disadvantage women and children if discussion of DV is to be a sex class free zone.

I am always irritated by Jess but she does have her good points.

@Cwenthryth

Playing devil’s avocado, I can conceive that someone in JP’s position may feel that all DA victims benefit (obviously, DA victims are overwhelmingly women), by her not being dragged into me-railing by trans and men’s rights activists accusing her of “exclusionsary language”, NAMALT and the like, so by avoiding referring to sexes of abusers and victims, she is keeping the conversation around the DA bill and DA victims’ needs. It is how we are being forced to behave thanks to the bullying behaviour of certain types of activists. I agree it is not fair and not right, but I can understand some women just wanting to get things done at the moment.

It’s not quite the same to my eyes as removing sex-based language in medical contexts, for example, as whilst domestic abuse is overwhelmingly a gendered issue (correct use of gender, as it is due more to sex-based stereotyping/social conditioning than biological sex differences), it can, obviously, affect both sexes, unlike, for example, cervical cancer, pregnancy etc.

It still sucks though.

I'm sorry devils avocado?

Domestic violence discussion always gets derailed by squeals of NAMALT and MAN HATERS LIKE YOU DESERVE IT plus of course the often repeated video of a group of women stamping on a man they were actually transwomen but that apparently isn't the point because (predictably) TWAW and your a TERF if you disagree to me this is part of the problem discussion is shut down perpetually until women give up we really must give up I don't know anyone in the trans community who supports sex offenders turning trans for prison purposes in fact they want to distance themselves from them and other violent people because they believe that to tar one tars them all with the same brush

I like devils avocado and will be using it whenever I can, especially when words mean whatever we want them to mean...

The police officer was female, which may or may not be important to know/observe.

Good on her then.

Devil’s avocado may be one of my personal quirkisms that I don’t realise aren’t actually common parlance! I picked it up at uni so a few decades ago now! Way before avocados were 😎

Never heard of a devil's avocado! Haha..

But it's obvious that Jess is playing the role of someone using woke language to completely minimise the risk that men pose to women. Well done Jess.

I don't know anyone in the trans community who supports sex offenders turning trans for prison purposes

Not that topic, but it reminds me of the discussion about consistency in the #RapistHill thread about Jacinta Brooks:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3383043-First-they-came-for-the-rapists-and-I-did-not-speak-out-because-I-was-not-a-rapist

JP has sat on the fence for so long on this issue that she must have splinters in her bum.
She just cannot bring herself to say that accepting TW as W poses problems for women. Thus negating everything else she says.

remember the pile on that happened to her friend Rosie Duffield? Did she support her? No. Not a squeak. JP has a strong sense of her priorities IMO, and JP comes at the top of them.

I used to really respect Jess but have lost it completely. I can't listen to a word she says now. She's a hypocrite and I honestly don't feel she really cares about women at all, she's just very ambitious and willing to do what it takes. Am sure she'll go a long way, her sort usually do and she'll do it by trampling all over the women she professes to help. Bitch.

I almost respected your opinion there, Trixie, until you added a nasty misogynistic insult at the end.

Not watched it.

Where did they get the police officer from? Because sounds like they were very clear to the viewers which handily let JP talk about it without having to put herself in the firing line.

As long as someone is saying the facts in these interviews then that's all good.

On the provision of services to those experiencing DA.

And similarly to a point I made on another thread.

Different groups have different risks, situations and needs.

When it comes to being killed, women in heterosexual relationships are more at risk. They often (due to social structures to do with biology) have limited access to money. They for obvious reasons will be taking any children with them. And they need to flee. Suddenly and unexpectedly. And then hide. And then try to get to grips with no job, no house, got kids, and an incredibly angry violent man looking for them.

Women built refuges to help these women.

Men who are with abusive women, men being abused by male partners and women being abused by female partners. And of course trans people experiencing DV. Have different needs and risks.

Where is the actual consideration and data and analysis of what will help these different groups most?

I've not seen it. All I've seen is essentially. Women have this it's not fair we want in.

But it may not be the best solution. For anyone. Or maybe it is? Larger places with different wings? I mean I don't know.

And that's the whole point that raises massive ??? around so much of this for me. Where is the identification of where help is needed, what help is needed? How best to deliver it. I never see that.

And that worries me because it really points to (and supports what a lot of women thought anyway) that the whole point is NOT helping people who need it in the ways that are best for them, and ALL about simply opening up everything that women and girls have because we're female, to everyone.

I mean I asked on another thread of the posters who were in favour of a certain use of language. Whether it really helped the people they said it included. I laid out why I thought that was unlikely and what would be better.

None replied to that post.

It's always the same. Women give us your stuff. Wouldn't some extra stuff that is more tailored to the needs be better? Extra stuff? Oh no that wouldn't be any good at all.

It's always the same. Women, give us your stuff. Wouldn't some extra stuff that is more tailored to the needs be better? Extra stuff? Oh no that wouldn't be any good at all.
This.