Jackie Doyle Price appointed to W&E Committee

[ScreamingMeMe]

The only news outlet that seems to have picked this up is the odious Pink News, who discovered that Jackie's Parliamentary page has her as a member of the Women and Equalities Committe since 2 November.

Pink News and Peter Tatchell are unhappy.

members.parliament.uk/member/4065/career

"Oh @PeterTatchell darling. I fight for the rights of women. And my views on marriage are consistent and why I have never married myself. Lots of love xxx"

twitter.com/JackieDP/status/1458764937791213573?s=20

Thanks for sharing. I must go and thank/congratulate her!

That’s lovely news for a Thursday night!

PinkNews | Latest lesbian, gay, bi and trans news | LGBT+ news
UK

Tory MP Jackie Doyle-Price, who’s spent years opposing LGBT+ rights, joins equalities committee

LILY WAKEFIELD NOVEMBER 10, 2021

PinkNews | Latest lesbian, gay, bi and trans news | LGBT+ news

UK
Tory MP Jackie Doyle-Price, who’s spent years opposing LGBT+ rights, joins equalities committee
LILY WAKEFIELD NOVEMBER 10, 2021
bookmarking iconBOOKMARK ARTICLE
Twitter
Facebook
Snapchat
Reddit
Email
Jackie Doyle-Price
Jackie Doyle-Price, Tory MP for Thurrock. (Getty/ Rob Stothard)

Tory MP Jackie Doyle-Price, who voted against same-sex marriage and thinks trans rights are “regressive”, has been quietly appointed to parliament’s Women and Equalities Committee.

The committee’s role is to hold the Government Equalities Office to account on issues of expenditure, administration and policy, and it is made up of cross-party MPs.

According to her parliament profile, Doyle-Price was appointed was appointed to the committee on 2 November, however neither she nor any member of the committee has publicly acknowledged her new role.

She appears to have replaced Nicola Richards, the Conservative MP for West Bromwich East who left the committee on 2 November. Her office told PinkNews she “regrettably left the Women and Equalities Select Committee because of time constraints”.

PinkNews has approached the Women and Equalities Committee for comment.

Jackie Doyle-Price has an extensive history of anti-LGBT+ comments
Jackie Doyle-Price has made no secret of her opposition to LGBT+ rights during her political career.

In 2013, the MP for Thurrock voted against marriage equality, and later abstained from a vote on extending same-sex marriage to Northern Ireland. To this day, she continues to defend her stance.

Last year, despite literally voting against equality for same-sex couples, she declared: “Darlings, I have always supported equality for same-sex couples.

“I don’t support the state interfering with religious sacraments. All civil marriages should be styled civil unions. That’s what informed my vote on same-sex marriage.”

Doyle-Price has attempted in recent years to style herself as a defender of lesbians by joining the “gender critical” anti-trans rights movement.

PinkNews | Latest lesbian, gay, bi and trans news | LGBT+ news

UK
Tory MP Jackie Doyle-Price, who’s spent years opposing LGBT+ rights, joins equalities committee
LILY WAKEFIELD NOVEMBER 10, 2021
bookmarking iconBOOKMARK ARTICLE
Twitter
Facebook
Snapchat
Reddit
Email
Jackie Doyle-Price
Jackie Doyle-Price, Tory MP for Thurrock. (Getty/ Rob Stothard)

Tory MP Jackie Doyle-Price, who voted against same-sex marriage and thinks trans rights are “regressive”, has been quietly appointed to parliament’s Women and Equalities Committee.

The committee’s role is to hold the Government Equalities Office to account on issues of expenditure, administration and policy, and it is made up of cross-party MPs.

According to her parliament profile, Doyle-Price was appointed to the committee on 2 November, however neither she nor any member of the committee has publicly acknowledged her new role.

ADVERTISING

She appears to have replaced Nicola Richards, the Conservative MP for West Bromwich East who left the committee on 2 November. Her office told PinkNews she “regrettably left the Women and Equalities Select Committee because of time constraints”.

PinkNews has approached the Women and Equalities Committee for comment.

Jackie Doyle-Price has an extensive history of anti-LGBT+ comments
Jackie Doyle-Price has made no secret of her opposition to LGBT+ rights during her political career.

In 2013, the MP for Thurrock voted against marriage equality, and later abstained from a vote on extending same-sex marriage to Northern Ireland. To this day, she continues to defend her stance.

Last year, despite literally voting against equality for same-sex couples, she declared: “Darlings, I have always supported equality for same-sex couples.

“I don’t support the state interfering with religious sacraments. All civil marriages should be styled civil unions. That’s what informed my vote on same-sex marriage.”

Doyle-Price has attempted in recent years to style herself as a defender of lesbians by joining the “gender critical” anti-trans rights movement.

In 2020, in an appearance on the podcast of Posie Parker, who has been banned from Twitter for “hateful conduct” and has given interviews to white nationalists, Doyle-Price described trans rights as “regressive” and gender-affirming healthcare as “dangerous”.

The MP, who has repeatedly pledged her support for the anti-trans pressure group LGB Alliance, said: “It’s really regressive that we’ve almost re-adopted gender stereotyping and almost turned it into a science.

“We all know going through puberty is not a pleasant time and some girls will feel very uncomfortable with their bodies. And the fact this movement is encouraging them to think, ‘Well, you might not really be a girl’ in childhood, I just think is so dangerous. And we just need to give children the chance to grow up.”

blah blah blah - I'm not copying the rest; it's a absolute ballache

www.pinknews.co.uk/2021/11/10/jackie-doyle-price-women-equalities-committee-lgbt/

Oh that's excellent. I get depressed whenever I think about Caroline Noakes. Great that J D-P will be there too now.

Following those tweets I saw in a newspaper clip someone posted how skewed and dangerous Peter Tachell’s views are.

By was of justifying child sexual abuse, he mentions how in a certain tribe the older warriors have sex with the young boys who then grow up to be fine.

There was a recent thread about Afghan children being sold, and it came up that Afghan war lords have little boys to rape and to dance for them, and some police officials have tiny boys for sex. In the U.K. surely we would see that as abuse? Or not?, Peter Tachell?

I am thankful to Jackie Doyle, and wonder how he thinks anyone should listen to him.

so is being against marriage equality something we should appreciate? In my book, that is nothing positive...

The appreciation is for being in favour of women's equality - something that's exceedingly rare.

We're faced with people who think there should be no female-only provision in rape crisis services, and that lesbians are bigots. (Far worse views than I've ever heard attributed to her.)

It's all hands on deck against them, frankly, to balance the playing field, and she seems to be one of the strongest female advocates at the moment.

Did you have some other perfect female-supporting candidate in mind?

Being against gay marriage isn't necessarily an anti gay stance- although it can be.

If you believe the definition of marriage is a union between a man and a woman, then same sex marriage is a contradiction in terms. Many people who are against same sex marriage are perfectly happy with civil partnerships.

It isn't a hill I'd die on, but I can understand the linguistic issue people have with it.

“CatherinaJTV

so is being against marriage equality something we should appreciate? In my book, that is nothing positive...“

CatherinaITV
I am glad Peter Tachell isn’t in her job even if he did vote for gay marriage and she didn’t.

Some of us are set in our ways, linguistically. I can remember being very confused about 'husband' and 'wife'- if both were men, how do you know which should be the bride, etc. I quite literally couldn't conceive of two grooms or two brides.

I'm well aware how ridiculous that sounds! Times have changed. It did confuse me at the time- my brain was not flexible enough to understand the change in language.

*Last year, despite literally voting against equality for same-sex couples, she declared: “Darlings, I have always supported equality for same-sex couples.

“I don’t support the state interfering with religious sacraments. All civil marriages should be styled civil unions. That’s what informed my vote on same-sex marriage.”*

*“It’s really regressive that we’ve almost re-adopted gender stereotyping and almost turned it into a science.

“We all know going through puberty is not a pleasant time and some girls will feel very uncomfortable with their bodies. And the fact this movement is encouraging them to think, ‘Well, you might not really be a girl’ in childhood, I just think is so dangerous. And we just need to give children the chance to grow up.”*

Yes. 100% this.

Jackie, you speak sense.

It's my understanding that quite a few people, if they are religious, make this distinction about civil partnerships and marriage.

I guess it's about balancing protected characteristics. Religious belief, with sexual orientation.

I was a bit confused about it all, at first, because there are some other people I admire who also believe the same, but I think that's the explanation.

@picklemewalnuts

Being against gay marriage isn't necessarily an anti gay stance- although it can be.

If you believe the definition of marriage is a union between a man and a woman, then same sex marriage is a contradiction in terms. Many people who are against same sex marriage are perfectly happy with civil partnerships.

It isn't a hill I'd die on, but I can understand the linguistic issue people have with it.

One of the reasons SSM was not on the table for many gay rights organisations early on is that it was more controversial among their own membership.

There were some who say marriage as inherently heteronormative and not something to be copied. (And I believe I may have heard PT take this view to some extent?)

For others, the sociological purpose of marriage is primarily about protecting women who were married to men, and children, and they felt that was something that shouldn't be compromised in any way.

Basically, if you take a simple view of equality which means everyone needs to be the same, it seems like a no-brainer, but lots of people think that when we are talking about how sex differences intersect with social structures, it can be more complicated.

It's not been a good thing, this reflexive assumption that a different view on this is homophobic. It's very much played into the narrative that a more nuanced view on gender issues is transphobic.

@JellySaurus

*Last year, despite literally voting against equality for same-sex couples, she declared: “Darlings, I have always supported equality for same-sex couples.

“I don’t support the state interfering with religious sacraments. All civil marriages should be styled civil unions. That’s what informed my vote on same-sex marriage.”*

*“It’s really regressive that we’ve almost re-adopted gender stereotyping and almost turned it into a science.

“We all know going through puberty is not a pleasant time and some girls will feel very uncomfortable with their bodies. And the fact this movement is encouraging them to think, ‘Well, you might not really be a girl’ in childhood, I just think is so dangerous. And we just need to give children the chance to grow up.”*

Yes. 100% this.

Jackie, you speak sense.

Is her view then that only religious unions should be called marriages then? Regardless of whether the couple are same or different sex? And that any non-religious union should be called a civil partnership even between a straight couple?

If so I can't find any issue with that.

*Is her view then that only religious unions should be called marriages then? Regardless of whether the couple are same or different sex? And that any non-religious union should be called a civil partnership even between a straight couple?

If so I can't find any issue with that.*

but if so, I'd like her to propose that any union that has "only" been officiated in a registrar's office and not a church should be called a "civil partnership" and not a "marriage".

I think that for some people, linguistically and religiously, ‘marriage’ meant an interdependent union of opposites - like the yin and Yang symbol- with the possibility of procreation.

So on that literal view of what marriage meant it was not possible for gay marriage to make sense, even if it was understandable that gay people wanting to form a union should have had the same rights to you protections in law as those conferred to heterosexual couples through marriage and also through the religious sanction conferred.

Some people had thought that the possibility of a Civil Union plus a church blessing would fulfil those needs.

This line of thinking was not against a gays or their right to equality as such. Equal does not always mean identical.

Ironically, it also worked the other way. At the same time as this debate about gay marriage, there was was a heterosexual couple who wanted, but were denied, the right to a Civil Marriage because they did not want any religious ideas entailed in their union. I am not sure if the law has been changed now to allow this for heterosexual as well as gay couples.

but if so, I'd like her to propose that any union that has "only" been officiated in a registrar's office and not a church should be called a "civil partnership" and not a "marriage".

Well that's what she seems to be saying, I was just asking if anyone knew for certain that's what her view was?

Glad you agree Catherine that if her view is as above and applies to straight couples as well then it's fine. Agreement is good!

At the same time as this debate about gay marriage, there was was a heterosexual couple who wanted, but were denied, the right to a Civil Marriage because they did not want any religious ideas entailed in their union.

Civil marriage has been around for ages - any marriage at a register office is a civil marriage, there's no religious aspect.

The heterosexual couple wanted a civil partnership, which was a marriage-like contract designed for same sex couples and with slightly different rules to marriage.
These are open to heterosexual couples now.

Civil marriage has been around for ages - any marriage at a register office is a civil marriage, there's no religious aspect.

But it's still a marriage - my sisters-in-law really wanted to get married not partnershipped . For them, it made a difference (they are married now), just like it did for the heterosexual couple that wanted the civial partnership "only".

Is her view then that only religious unions should be called marriages then? Regardless of whether the couple are same or different sex? And that any non-religious union should be called a civil partnership even between a straight couple?

If so I can't find any issue with that.

That sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

Excellent news.

Ben Summerskill, the Stonewall leader who obtained civil partnerships for LGB people wasn't, himself, interested in pressing for marriage. I'm a lesbian and I know lots of us were happy not to be burdened with the oppressive weight of 'being married'. Civil partnership was what we wanted: a way to achieve the legal rights straight people had.

LGB people hold a range of views.

I think that for some people, linguistically and religiously, ‘marriage’ meant an interdependent union of opposites - like the yin and Yang symbol- with the possibility of procreation.

Historically and sociologically, procreation is the reason it exists as a social institution. If sex didn't result in children, people would just pair up, most of the customs and rules that go along with marriage wouldn't be particularly important. (Of course if we weren't sexed people wouldn't pair up at all, but in an imaginary world, why not?)

It's why plenty of societies that were very blase about homosexual relationships did not see the point of same sex marriage.

I've met gay male couples who strongly felt that marriage should be constructed so as to protect women who have kids, and that as two men, neither disadvantaged by reproductive role, both with similar earning power and able to be financially independent, that didn't apply to them. And that if we decided it was just as much for them, you could argue that those protections aren't intrinsic to the concept of marriage. At which point they could be lost.

I wonder, actually, if maybe that is why this idea seems more prevalent in the US, where there is less of a sense in the law that women should be completely independent in, for example, the case of a divorce.

Plenty of gay people were opposed to gay marriage.

“TeamRex

At the same time as this debate about gay marriage, there was was a heterosexual couple who wanted, but were denied, the right to a Civil Marriage because they did not want any religious ideas entailed in their union.

Civil marriage has been around for ages - any marriage at a register office is a civil marriage, there's no religious aspect.

The heterosexual couple wanted a civil partnership, which was a marriage-like contract designed for same sex couples and with slightly different rules to marriage.
These are open to heterosexual couples now.”

That’s what I meant. Civil Partnership. Thank you for the correction.

@CatherinaJTV

Civil marriage has been around for ages - any marriage at a register office is a civil marriage, there's no religious aspect.

But it's still a marriage - my sisters-in-law really wanted to get married not partnershipped . For them, it made a difference (they are married now), just like it did for the heterosexual couple that wanted the civial partnership "only".

Where did your sisters-in-law get married? If they definitely wanted to be married and not partnered then it should have been in a church.