Jess Phillips: no trans person I've met says we shouldn't say "woman"

[ResisterRex]

There's a long interview in the Telegraph to promote her book. There's no share token option so only the sex/gender "what is a woman", and importance of language section is below but the interview does also cover her VAWG work and list she reads in Parliament each year.

It's hard to tell if she means we shouldn't say woman for women, and transwomen for transwomen. Or if this means TWAW.

www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/04/09/jess-phillips-no-trans-person-met-has-said-cant-say-woman/

"I ask Phillips what she makes of the endless debate within politics of what constitutes a woman – shortly after we meet, her boss, Keir Starmer, comes under pressure againn_ when he refuses to answer the question. Phillips, who is on compassionate leave when it happens, claims to have “missed that interview. To be honest I’ve not heard the Keir thing”.

In the past, she has said that she believes biological sex exists, “and we are discriminated against on the basis of our biological sex, without question.” She has also noted the “de-womanising of language” in regard to the Domestic Abuse Bill passed in summer 2020 that made no mention of women. “There are so many dissenting issues that are there to distract from the substantive,” she says now. “The substantive of women’s rights deeply matters to me. And not taking away the language of women, because I don’t want to – I like it, and I don’t know who’s demanding it. No trans person I’ve ever met has said that we shouldn’t say ‘woman’.”"

She wants to be the next leader and is trying to play it safe.

Disappointing, and foolish, as it pleases no one.

My MP is Tory, but so similar, just thinks about her own career and stands for nothing.

Starmer's answer was the only possible grown-up answer in the circs, especially from someone with a background in human rights law.

Starmer's answer was unclear. He could have been a lot clearer about supporting women's rights to single sex spaces while still defending the rights of trans people to be treated as their desired sex in almost all social situations.

She reads a list compiled by Karen Ingala Smith.
Yes I know that and, as far as I'm aware, she has always credited KIS.

I don't know what Phillips' motivations are - I could speculate but people are complex. I think her behaviour on this issue is extremely disingenuous but, as far as I'm concerned, that doesn't negate other things she's done that I think are good.

See - posters in FWR in disagreement! That really will break the space-time continuum for some people.

Of course, in a biological/medical context, women do not have penises and men do not have cervixes. But everyone is a human being and when it comes to human rights everyone has them. So there is a problem in reconciling the two when one group's entitlement infringes another group's rights. You know all this.

In reality, the conflict is the rights of women and girls to have words and spaces to themselves away from men, and men having those words and spaces also.

What no person who pleads for compromise is able to tell me is which men exactly get to follow my daughter into a changing room?

I find her really fake . It's a shame as she has a good mind but I wouldn't trust her.

See - posters in FWR in disagreement! That really will break the space-time continuum for some people.

I think we'll cope.

@tabbycatstripy

She does a lot of the disingenuous ‘not heard anything about that’ thing.

How do you know a politician is lying? When they start a sentence with "To be honest...."

But everyone is a human being and when it comes to human rights everyone has them. So there is a problem in reconciling the two when one group's entitlement infringes another group's rights. You know all this.

I've seen countless posters stating that there needs to be a careful balancing of rights being countered by MRA's with comments of 'rights aren't a pie' and 'there's no conflict between trans rights and women's rights'. The mantra TWAW by it's very nature shouts down any concept that there is any infringement of women's rights.

It's a conundrum that needs rational discussion and compromise.

Well yes. Been a bit difficult given no debate, no platforming, acceptance without question and the silencing effect. There seems to be a bit of a push for 'respectful discussion' at the moment but it rings rather hollow when it comes from people whose idea of debate in the near past was 'die in a grease fire, bitch'.

@Norma27

Jess is my MP and I met with her once purely to talk about womens rights. (Those of you who followed me on twitter may know me as Dora before I was banned). I’m not going to say I know what she thinks as I don’t think that right. My take from meeting with her is that she doesn’t believe TWAW and definitely not in all circumstances. BUT she thinks we need to be nice and kind to these males and that they are very oppressed and in many cases should be treated as if they are women. There is one area where she told me she definitely believes in single SEX spaces once I told her and has (as far as I know) been talking to someone proactive in that area. I really hope she speaks up soon for females.

Been 'hoping' for the past few years. She's let us down every time.

@Floisme

She reads a list compiled by Karen Ingala Smith. Yes I know that and, as far as I'm aware, she has always credited KIS.

I don't know what Phillips' motivations are - I could speculate but people are complex. I think her behaviour on this issue is extremely disingenuous but, as far as I'm concerned, that doesn't negate other things she's done that I think are good.

See - posters in FWR in disagreement! That really will break the space-time continuum for some people.

You're being far too reasonable, Flo.

@FOJN

I don't want to take that away from her - I think she does a good thing.

She reads a list compiled by Karen Ingala Smith. Her hypocrisy is unforgivable, how can she highlight male violence against women whilst supporting a policy which would increase a women's risk of experiencing male violence. I'm glad our politicians have to hear the name of every woman murdered by a man I just think it's time for someone with more integrity than JP to do it.

I have huge admiration for KIS. Counting Dead Women started in 2012 which predates proposed reforms to the GRA.

Yes this is what I am feeling now. Let Karen be invited in to read the list. I do really doubt her integrity and motivations. I saw her speak once, with Jacob Rees Mogg. It was interesting on friendship, but the way she spoke about being a lifelong Labour supporter made it sound like a religion rather than supporting a party whose principles align with ones own well thought out views, accepting that the situation might change at any point. She came across as thinking that she is one of the righteous, and I am so fed up with how damaging and dangerous this thinking is.

Well it's not very often that I'm told I'm too reasonable, I should take a screenshot

More seriously, I am beginning to wonder whether we might win the battle over self-ID but end up so fractured that we'll be unable to fight off the next threat. I don't know what that next threat will be, but it will happen, and when it does we may well find ourselves having to pull together with the Jess Phillips and the Lisa Nandys and, Lord help us, even the Laurie Pennys of this world.

So I will continue to give credit to Phillips where I think it is due, however much she might piss me off.

we may well find ourselves having to pull together with the Jess Phillips and the Lisa Nandys and, Lord help us, even the Laurie Pennys of this world.

The Golden Bridge does not mean that you forget previous history and use that to assess the durability of an alliance.

I didn't say anything about forgetting.

I think you are right to consider how all of this may play out beyond self ID, and the immediate pressing concerns feminists have.

It feels to me it's an emergency effort right now to try and stop the filleting of the word 'female' of all meaning - but beyond that, i've no doubt there will continue to be more attempts to find ways to dismantle women's rights. Eternal vigilance, etc.

Once Stonewall is no more - and I can't really see how they will continue much further - and Mermaids has either gone or perhaps returned to being the support organisation it was before it was turned into a de facto lobbying group/flag waver for GenderGP - and the Cass report has hopefully grounded and shown a more sensible and compassionate and level headed way forward for young people's treatment ... and the SNP have been booted out ... and LGB people have asserted their rights distinct from any piggy-backing other groups ...

... we will still face all the associated issues of internet harms balanced with the potential good; porn smearing ever further into snuff territory; women will still be doing all the shitwork and bearing the brunt of economic hardship, climate change, etc. Prostitution, surrogacy, dv will all still be problems. There will still be wars and women/children suffering because of that. Male violence and predation is not going to go away.

It would be good to try and get ahead of it, somehow. I wonder if we will be forced (we as a society) by this attempted burglary of language to define the issues, dynamics and structural problems far more clearly.

As a libfem, I had absolutely no idea of the stats on male violence or rape/sexual assault in the context of sex class. They are so stark, so clear, and yet so few people are aware of them.

@Floisme

I didn't say anything about forgetting.

I didn't phrase that appropriately.

I typically advocate for Golden Bridges because I appreciate that in the absence of them people with fight to the death because there is no escape from the dangerous territory/trap of their own creation.

Inviting people across a Golden Bridge will not, by itself, be sufficient to eradicate past actions for me. It is only through present and future actions that the durable value of an allegiance or existence of a shared understanding can be determined.

I'm not even talking about golden bridges. I'm imagining a future scenario where, if we don't find a way to work with women with whom we continue to fundamentally disagree, we will be screwed.

So like I have said, I try not to let my own feelings prevent me from giving credit to opponents where I believe it is due. If you don't believe Phillips deserves any credit whatsoever then fair enough, but I don't agree.

This is Jess Phillips' time to speak up if she genuinely gives a shit about women's rights. Even bloody Wes Streeting has paid lip service to good sense.
She collapsed into a puddle of uselessness when she did an MN Chat. Can't see her starting to talk sense any time soon.

Courage calls to courage everywhere. And she is lacking in it.