Labour councillor reveals she suffered 'transphobic abuse' at party conference

[cheeseismydownfall]

And where did Patricia Hannah-Wood, a trans woman, suffer this "abuse"?

In the loos, apparently. The women's loos, I assume.

I wonder what the nature of this alleged abuse is? A woman expressing her discomfort with having to share a female-only space with a male-bodied person?

But as we have been told, there is no conflict between women's rights and trans rights, so...

Fionne Orlander always uses men's toilets. Says never experienced any abuse.

I can't imagine Patricia would.

In fact, has there ever been a report of a transwoman being assaulted in a men's toilet? I don't recall ever reading one.

@Clymene

Fionne Orlander always uses men's toilets. Says never experienced any abuse.

I can't imagine Patricia would.

In fact, has there ever been a report of a transwoman being assaulted in a men's toilet? I don't recall ever reading one.

To hear TRAs speak the Men's toilets is awash with blood and stacked to the rafters with the broken bodies of TW who dare to enter and yet I've searched and searched and searched and cannot find one incident of a TW being physically assaulted in the Men's toilets - not one.

We are always being told we can report to the Police any incidents in the Women's, therefore the same applies to TW, yet nothing, nada.

Also, we are always being told that is a man wants to rape or assault us the sign on the door won't keep them out so the same applies to TW - the Women's won't be any safer.

It's not fear of physical assault or even verbal abuse that keeps them out of the Men's it's purely and simply that there is no validation available in there, women need to be used as the props in their validation.

Ok so I can understand the victim may not see the point in reporting if they think it won’t be dealt with - which as it is a Labour conference seems odd, but whatever- after all no report doesn’t mean no abuse, but the witnesses keeping quiet on Twitter seems unlikely but ok, maybe in some (newfound) sense of respect for privacy no one feels able to discuss it in a public forum.

So I’m not saying it never happened but there’s a gaping hole where any evidence should be and perhaps it’s time for someone to come out and release a few details.

And that’s not happening.

I agree it would clarify matters if something a little more concrete was said.

But Pink News are still dicks for the hyperbole as they can’t say what was horrific about it unless they have details they are refusing to publish.

OP here. I just tried to show the incident to DH and followed one of the links upthread. I found the relevant segment, but the allegations about the abuse have gone???

I've just checked again, it is the official stream from the Labour Party account. The overall length seems pretty much unchanged (just short of 8 hours) so it hasn't been subject to a general edit to condense it. But it's gone. They've altered it.

Edited that part out?

Of a live feed then available after?!

This is their conference. Loads of supporters can't be there in person. Watching the recording of all those who spoke is done to provide the full days action, as it were.

They have edited it?

What the hell? That feels wrong on all sorts of levels. Why would they cut out the impassioned statement about transphobic abuse when it's an important topic for the party?

Is it definite that's happened?

That feels really dishonest. I assume there's no note underneath to detail anything cut and why? Or even that they do edit?

To deny their supporters and anyone else who is interested the opportunity to see and hear all the speakers? Why? And that's a decision that would need to be agreed by quite a few people including some with some clout. I'd imagine.

Why have they cut out this segment where there was an impassioned press for trans rights and iirc more as well.

That is outrageous if they have done that esp without a note to advise viewers of the fact.

Arabella- unless I have misunderstood posts there are two accounts on the thread.

'Ok so I can understand the victim may not see the point in reporting if they think it won’t be dealt with'

That doesn't really tie up with the going on stage and telling the whole conference about it. To my mind.

Plus as you mentioned. The idea that labour would not act is... ?

Given the long term activists etc they kicked out for having the wrong views a couple of years ago or so.

I can see it would be cut if abuser named or described.

But there's no indication in Patricia's speech about anything. Not even a hint of what time, which bogs etc.

I am genuinely disturbed by the party that is essentially the opposition editing this content. If they have done this and don't flag it/ say why. Then that is utterly dishonest. And strange.

I would never have imagined that would happen, genuinely.

Do not fear, Patricia is still here.

At about 2.38

@Sonarl

This is trending on twitter

Saving, printing. Love it.

Patricia is still there, but they seem to have cut the accusations of horrific toilet transphobia

@NiceGerbil

Edited that part out?

Of a live feed then available after?!

This is their conference. Loads of supporters can't be there in person. Watching the recording of all those who spoke is done to provide the full days action, as it were.

They have edited it?

What the hell? That feels wrong on all sorts of levels. Why would they cut out the impassioned statement about transphobic abuse when it's an important topic for the party?

Is it definite that's happened?

That feels really dishonest. I assume there's no note underneath to detail anything cut and why? Or even that they do edit?

To deny their supporters and anyone else who is interested the opportunity to see and hear all the speakers? Why? And that's a decision that would need to be agreed by quite a few people including some with some clout. I'd imagine.

Why have they cut out this segment where there was an impassioned press for trans rights and iirc more as well.

That is outrageous if they have done that esp without a note to advise viewers of the fact.

@nicegerbil yes, I think so?

It is about 2 hours 30 mins or so into the video I linked to above. I've rewatched it and it isn't there. The rest of Patricia's speech is, but not thy bit (it was at the beginning IIRC).

Can someone else check I'm not being an idiot?

Oh ok, I haven't any sound on, plus I didn't want to listen again.

@ItsAllGoingToBeFine

Patricia is still there, but they seem to have cut the accusations of horrific toilet transphobia

I was wrong Still there, time stamp 2:39:20

No it is still there, no editing as far as I can see.

Ah OK, sorry, I don't know how I've missed it (twice). Glad I checked.

@NiceGerbil

'Ok so I can understand the victim may not see the point in reporting if they think it won’t be dealt with'

That doesn't really tie up with the going on stage and telling the whole conference about it. To my mind.

Plus as you mentioned. The idea that labour would not act is... ?

Given the long term activists etc they kicked out for having the wrong views a couple of years ago or so.

Well that’s the thing, isn’t it?

If it’s a sticker why not say? I’m sure Keir Starmer would be horrified by a sticker. We’ve seen enough comments that show Labour view stickers and the ideas expressed on them to be abhorrent.

So speak the truth and let the people condemn. (This does not mean I object but I’m sure plenty in attendance would. We’ve seen it before)

Yet it’s a vague claim, without evidence or clarification.

There’s far less evidence than the Wi Spa flasher which had posters here claiming hoax. I’m better than them. Whether this is likely or not I’m prepared to hear evidence before I announce it didn’t happen.

But the evidence isn’t forthcoming (despite enough time elapsing for something to have been said).

It’s not out of the realms of possibility. No one is saying they witnessed an alien abduction here. “Transphobic abuse” is a broad term and seems to mean anything the person making the allegation wants it to. But why is someone able to get on stage, speak in extremely loose terms and have so many accept unquestioningly?

This would be easy to prove. There are witnesses. The alleged perp could be identified and challenged by officials. If it’s a sticker say that.

Why would an allegation be made on stage with nothing to back it? Why do so many accept it without any proof? What else can be said on stage as an appeal to the emotions without any need to show the facts? Why are the Labour Party happy with unsubstantiated claims of abuse to be made? Why is it ok? Labour ought to address it. They won’t.

The other thing here is that after the speech. And hearing about the abuse.

I would fully expect the relevant person to find Patricia and invite them to discuss. On their terms. What happened. Who did it. The group of colleagues who witnessed the abuse.

Because it's the labour party conference, this issue is something they are really prioritising. Given there is an attendee, who did this at the conference of all places to Patricia. That says the person is prepared to risk penalty/ expulsion, so if they're prepared to do that then my guess would be they would do it again.

So surely having heard that the party would be keen to act. And to tell the conference that they have acted. To not do so would be remiss. Unsettling for other trans people at the conference.

In fact it's a given they would talk to the victim, find out how they wanted to proceed, and let everyone know they were on it. To not do that would be a failure on their part imo.

I mean say at a work conference a woman went up and said to everyone they had been subject to sexualised verbal abuse from another attendee. You would expect the organisers to get on it and fast. And reassure everyone that you were on it because it was unacceptable.

No?

Patricia got up on stage and shouted to the rooftops. Patricia did not feel fear. Only outrage. Unlike the average woman confronted by a male in her safe space.

It would be fair to assume Patricia hates women. Is that because Patricia is jealous whilst simultaneously having zero imagination of what it is to be a woman? Imagine being the poor ‘sister(s)’ Patricia was denigrating on stage. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

Men are afraid women will laugh at them. Women are afraid men will kill them… Wayne Couzens was sentenced yesterday. He had no issue distinguishing between a man and a woman. The cognitive dissonance is bewildering.

BBC headline news this morning:

People stopped by a lone plain-clothes officer should challenge their legitimacy, the Met Police says.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58757375

Yet (vulnerable) women encountering males in female-only spaces have to STFU, yes?

I feel like my head is going to explode.

I feel like my head is going to explode.

And if you dare to share that, you’ll be treated with disdain and derision. ‘Cos lady penis.

… And has been pointed out on other threads, said police officer just needs to identify as trans.

@cheeseismydownfall

BBC headline news this morning:

People stopped by a lone plain-clothes officer should challenge their legitimacy, the Met Police says.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58757375

Yet (vulnerable) women encountering males in female-only spaces have to STFU, yes?

I feel like my head is going to explode.

So if that plain-clothes, male-bodied police officer were to follow a woman into the ladies loos, we should assume that they have a woman's gender identity?

At that point it would be deeply transphobic to question or challenge the officer?

Have I got that correct? Perhaps one of our resident TRAs could confirm.

@Mummyoflittledragon

… And has been pointed out on other threads, said police officer just needs to identify as trans.

Interesting. Women are not allowed to challenge men in women's private spaces (where men are not allowed) but should challenge men in public spaces (where both sexes mix).

I see PWH as being full of sound and fury and signifying nothing.