Mumsnet Webchat about women/mums in politics with Stella Creasy and Caroline Nokes - 1st February

[Bosky]

Anyone got any questions for Stella and Caroline?

Go to:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/mumsnet_live_events/4468388-Webchat-about-women-mums-in-politics-with-Stella-Creasy-and-Caroline-Nokes-1st-February

@RedToothBrush if you ever stand for office, you've got my vote. Absolutely outstanding posts.

@CosmosLily

YetAnother - People have indeed answered me and I've acknowledged that. A post brought on another question, or am I only allowed the one? In future shall I just stick my head in the sand when I don't understand something, or is it probably better that I ask questions and try to actually learn something?

Eresh I shouldn't have used the word derailing, that's not what I mean. More "shut down" I guess. Because people agree that there was no point in having the webchat, they didn't expect any answers because they expected/knew that the MPs wouldn't have the same definition as them on what a woman is, so then why bother posting? Was it either to shut down the conversation, or, probably more likely, to keep repeating it so that they (the Mps) understand they need to address the issue and not ignore it?

I would say it's the latter.

If Boris Johnson came on here for a web chat to discuss rebuilding post Covid or any other Covid topic and 90% of posters were bringing up and challenging him about Partygate would you be surprised?

Politicians work for us, they don't get to decide what we care most about. Especially when you know half the time these web chats are just a tick box exercise to them so it can go in a report somewhere that they engaged with X demographic.

Eresh - They were asked how they define women and they gave their answer. Should they have expanded? Probably/definitely. But they did answer the question.

I disagree. "Anyone who identifies as a woman" is not an adequate definition. It's vapid nonsense.

A definition needs to make sense. What are these people identifying with?

OvaHere - Wouldn't be surprised in the slightest, no. I think you're right. The whole thing felt very "fake" when I read it, before I posted on this thread, so it's great that I now know why it felt like that.

Eresh - It does indeed need to make sense. In this context, my take is that posters were asking that question so they knew whether or not to bother with the conversation, as if they didn't respond with the same view as the majority then there'd be no point. So whilst not an adequate definition, it's still their opinion. There were also posters asking "what do you think a woman is" or sth similar (if I recall correctly) so maybe their answer was more directed to those posts, rather than to the one asking for a definition.

If someone asks me what a cat is, I need to be able to explain enough information so that someone knows what kind of object I'm referring to. Is it sentient? Is it a mammal? Is it four legged? Is it domesticated? and so on. "A cat is whatever anyone thinks a cat is" isn't going to be much help.

Eresh - I do see your point and I agree with what you're saying. As I said, I don't know if their response was to posters who didn't say the word "definition", but that doesn't really matter/isn't the point at the end of the day.

"A woman is anyone who identifies as a woman", while talking about having more of these mysterious "woman" humans, who weirdly seem to be disproportionately connected to certain physiological attributes, in politics, is obviously going to be challenged.

What a woman is, is not an opinion.

The Equality act states separately those who have legally changed gender through reassignment and sex.

Not gender. Gender reassignment and sex.

Not self id.

How many councils have policy which conflates sex and gender? How many nhs trusts are doing it? Or schools? Or prisons? Or sports? The list goes on.

Is this in line with the Equality Act? Does this mean that the Equality Act isn't being correctly applied?

Why isn't the existing law being observed never mind enforced?

Are political parties - who run these fucking councils - misapplying the law in the same way. Why are politicians conflating sex and gender?

Is this political parties enforcing a pseudo law via the back door unlawfully? Does this constitute an abuse of power?

If political parties can not accurately represent the law in the policies they right, what the fuck are they doing?

Oh and by the way, can we have a webchat about why women going into politics but can we please be kind and ignore the actual fucking law and keep conflating sex and gender at the same time?

Huh wat?!

Maybe just maybe there is a link between how women feel marginalised and how the Equality Act is routinely ignored and not upheld and women still face massive prejudice on the basis of their sex and cant challenge what happens to them because organisations are institutionally sexist and it costs the earth in both finances and emotional toll to take these fuckers to court with no guarantee that you will be able to prove your case anyway.

Just a thought.

It would be good if they could answer a straight question, they know full well that people want to talk about why their position is a problem for women's rights and women as a political group.

It is abdunantly clear to the public that the skills you require to be a politician are how to avoid a question rather than how do you solve a problem.

See, just about every major political issue of the past 20 years or so.

Caroline Nokes seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding at the heart of her thinking and she is actually in charge of the inquiry into making it easier to get a GRC. She appears to think that the people called "transwomen" have a GRC, and others are "people who identify as women" and clearly from her expressed views she'd like more of them to be able to have a GRC.

Quote (my bold):

I think it is really important to focus on this being a chat about how we get more women involved in public life. I want that to be all women, natal women, transwomen, and those who self-identify and do not yet (or perhaps ever) have a GRC.

In short, she seems to see the GRC process as transforming males into "transwomen" which is only achieved by going through the process. I would completely question her whole understanding of what people are saying when they talk about "transwomen" and women's rights.

If Boris Johnson came on here for a web chat to discuss rebuilding post Covid or any other Covid topic and 90% of posters were bringing up and challenging him about Partygate would you be surprised?

What is it, media training 1 0 1 - don't become the story.

The reason Johnson has become the story is because of his blantant disregard for the law and for his contempt for the public.

If you have become the story, as a politician you should be kicking yourself and asking why.

Here is a little case study article on how it all goes wrong and what you should do to avoid it:

custardcommunications.com/media-training-make-sure-you-dont-become-the-story/

Its got fuck all to do with women's rights.

Why have Creasy and Nokes got so many backs up? Why did so many people ask the question about the conflation of gender and sex in so many different ways?

Is it because their opinion and decision to decide that the Equality Act doesn't matter is the problem?

Is it because this represents a contept for the law and for the audience that they were trying to engage with?

Women.

Is it unreasonable for there to be a backlash as a result?

Is it unreasonable that women wanted to express their frustration in the same way they would, if another politician had just ignored the law in any other situation, instead applying their own (wrong) interpretation?

Are we really the unreasonable ones here?

@Ereshkigalangcleg - agree.

Without definitions in law, though, there will never be a possibility of sensible conversations.

Ruth Hunt created a monster/drew a master stroke with her trans "umbrella".

I need to be able to talk about trans issues and separate those pertaining to a male person in his 50s who has a fetish and no body dysphoria, from an autistic 13 year old female who has a history of eating disorders and is desperate to have her healthy breasts removed.

The way Caroline Noakes and Stella Creasy spoke suggests that they do not see a difference between those two people.

Stonewall are geniuses at lobbying. It would be awe inspiring if it was so utterly terrifying.

In answer to the question "What is a woman?" either of them could have said "A woman is an adult human female and any biological man who has had a gender recognition certificate to say he is a woman."

They didn't say that. Why? I guess because they accept the TRA definition of woman, which is that any man who says he's a woman is a woman. And that renders the whole idea of woman meaningless.

Draft of the GRA reform:

Definition: Woman. Any individual who says they are a woman, regardless of the sex they were born or the genitals they may have or any actions or experiences they may have had in their life.

Definition: transphobia. Any attempt to assume or otherwise assertain the sex or gender of an individual, whether deliberate or accidental. Any attempt to discriminate or exclude an individual on the basis of sex rather than gender.

Example: where someone is under going a medical examination, the doctor must always refer to medical terms but must not try and assertain, assume or otherwise ask questions which may help determine the sex of the individual. They may not be assigned to a ward or changing facility or sanitation area which does not align with their chosen gender, but you may not assume gender nor ask what gender is.

Good luck with that. Can't see any backlash or problems if its spelt out plainly and clearly for the public to see.

I need to be able to talk about trans issues and separate those pertaining to a male person in his 50s who has a fetish and no body dysphoria, from an autistic 13 year old female who has a history of eating disorders and is desperate to have her healthy breasts removed.

The way Caroline Noakes and Stella Creasy spoke suggests that they do not see a difference between those two people.

Actually, she would see a difference - the former would be a "woman" and the latter would be a "man". So we need more of the former in parliament, and fewer of the latter.

@CosmosLily

Something I don't understand - The webchat was an important topic, so as feminists why wouldn't you forgoe the incessant and repetitive questions that you knew would lead nowhere, in favour of actually speaking about the topic at hand? What was the point? Soon Mumsnet won't host these webchats anymore if they're all taken over by the exact same topic, which is literally in the rules to avoid doing as it becomes pointless. I just really don't see the point in this context. By all means continue asking those questions elsewhere but it pretty much caused the webchat to be mostly useless whereas it was an important topic to do with feminism that could've given insight to a lot of people, but now it's just a graveyard of the same questions over and over. I just don't get it, it looks like a vendetta and like you wont allow any talks about feminism topics until everyone agrees about this one thing, it's just not progressive.

Anyone was free to ask anything. If other questions had been posted I’’m sure they would have been picked up and answered. Writing down comments that could be deemed to be unhelpful repetition, could be easily skirted over in favour of others. But those other questions were very thin on the ground because there was more appetite to address the huge fundamental elephant.

The idea of 'becoming a woman' is so offensive in the way SC uses it. I wish she'd define it. Is it wearing a frilly dress and mopping the floor? Maybe if she got some childcare she'd have some time to read a fucking book.

I just don't understand her logic. How do you 'become a woman' other than being born female. The replies are good though. She winds me up.

Oops it didn't seem to attach.

On this particular webchat, the context of these Labour politicians and some history matters. In principle, I do (personally, I am sure some disagree and I respect that) believe that could be an argument in favour of putting aside "what is a woman?" for the purposes of talking about getting some other things done (not "getting women into politics" but other things that might benefit women, just basic economic policy stuff that might help women, mothers and families). I can slightly sympathise with a politician who was saying "I'm just trying to get something done for low income single parent families (mostly headed by women) and I don't have time for all this" or even "and I do think TWAW actually". I'd work with that woman and put the issue aside, strategically and temporarily, EXCEPT -

• EXCEPT! -

this is the Labour party who have actively purged GC feminists. They have actively made the terms of the debate this divisive. That is what they have chosen to do - they have actively chosen to follow an ideologically hardline agenda of exclusion. And as a result of that they have forced the conditions whereby GC women HAVE to address that issue before they know whether they can work with these people or not. It's not something mn-ers do because they are frothing maniacs. It's conditions that the Labour Party have brought about, by interrogating people and expelling them.