Jess Phillips says a woman can't have a penis and that sex and gender are two different things

[bellinisurge]

Here twitter.com/talktv/status/1514542152885452804?s=21&t=g7M6M2EAFww7ZBC6MK5mFQ

Will she get a back lash for this, I wonder?

‘What would be the point of a GRC then? The whole point of the GRA as originally passed was to falsify the legal documentation (birth certificate etc) of a GRC holder so that they could be legally recognised as the opposite sex in almost all circumstances.’

Not really for me to say. It might be a personal matter (as I think identity should be).

My sex is hardly ever relevant in officialdom. It’s only relevant where I need a guarantee that I will have equal treatment (EA covers that), or where I need slightly different treatment, and the sex exceptions in the EA should cover that.

But if someone wants legal recognition of their ‘gender identity’, in principle, it doesn’t bother me. I just don’t think it gives them (or should give them) the right to conceal or force others to disregard natal sex.

Natal sex doesn't matter until it does. And then it really does. In healthcare, in employment, in safeguarding, in sport. I don't spend my life seeking healthcare, going on maternity leave, in a vulnerable space, playing competitive sport but when I or anyone else does, sex matters. What am I living with is the menopause and absolutely no man on earth, regardless of plastic surgery, swirly hems and lippy will NEVER experience it.

Oops, double negative. I mean EVER

@FOJN

Excuse me a moment

FUCK OFF
FUCK OFF
FUCK OFF
FUCK OFF
FUCK OFF
FUCK OFF

As you were

Great way to offer a constructive analysis, bravo

Thing is, they don't listen to constructive analysis. It's all "right wing dog whistle " etc etc. Obviously we'll keep trying but "No" is a complete sentence. As is "Fuck Off".

I'm all for golden bridges.

Once JP has both feet on one, not a couple of delicately quivering toes, I might start to take her seriously.

Meanwhile...nope. Not to be trusted.

Great way to offer a constructive analysis, bravo

I would have thought it was fairly obvious my intention was to express anger not offer constructive analysis. I wasn't aware that attempts at constructive analysis were the only posts permitted here.

Great way to offer a constructive analysis, bravo

So nothing to say about the subject of the thread?

Just using your first post to have a dig at someone?

Lovely 😒

I think expressing yourself in concise sweary terms covers a lot of people's views -"we aren't fooled, you've let us down so badly in the past, don't believe you"

Im fairly positive that poster has form for policing posts

‘Natal sex doesn't matter until it does. And then it really does. In healthcare, in employment, in safeguarding, in sport. I don't spend my life seeking healthcare, going on maternity leave, in a vulnerable space, playing competitive sport but when I or anyone else does, sex matters.’

I agree. I think it’s okay for a GRC to provide a legally recognised statement of identity. I don’t think it should legally change someone’s sex for the purposes of concealing natal sex.

We live in a society which condemns women who express their anger using words whilst we tolerate men expressing anger using their fists.

Thanks for the support.

Anyway that’s what I think a GRC should do. The point is it does actually change legal sex, and although that shouldn’t affect single sex spaces, trans activists argue it as if it does and service providers behave as if it does. So I won’t support self-ID, or Labour, who pretend their policies have no implications for women.

I haven't spotted Jess Phillips getting ripped to shreds by The Cult yet. That's interesting for what it says to Labour about dipping their toes in reality. We'll see.

It's good that she has said it - finally - but women have been asking her to say this for YEARS and she hasn't. I also think she's seen that as more people become aware of the impact on women's rights, and the toxicity and threats women have endured, that the whole TWAW mantra isn't as popular as it was. I mean it was pretty clear that this was what she thought but didn't feel she could say it.

I'm kind of in two minds about Jess Phillips. I find her irritating and smug BUT I also see she does a lot for women and I can sort of see how she might have thought this might have been threatened if she'd waded into the trans debate on one side or t'other.

Great way to offer a constructive analysis, bravo. @Hawkins001

Do you mean like this constructive analysis, that is routinely trotted out on social media platforms?

@CorvusPurpureus

I'm all for golden bridges.

Once JP has both feet on one, not a couple of delicately quivering toes, I might start to take her seriously.

Meanwhile...nope. Not to be trusted.

Yes, the golden bridge actually has to be crossed, this isn't something JP gets to do on a retractable bungee cord to yank her back the moment it gets uncomfortable or it's expedient.

@FOJN

We live in a society which condemns women who express their anger using words whilst we tolerate men expressing anger using their fists.

Thanks for the support.

Perfectly put.

I bet a fiver that the poster policing women's anger here has never, for example, tried policing the sort of men who send public pipework threats to JK Rowling.

(I'm sure my money is safe.)

@bellinisurge

She can't unsay it now

Of course she can. Jess Philipps has spent at least the last four years wavering and backtracking over this issue. She knows exactly what a woman is because they're the ones she has thrown under the bus time and time again. She's an opportunist with no principles who has seen the response to Boris' statement and decided she'll be the high-profile Labour alternative. She's as much of a charlatan on this issue as Boris is.

sort of men who send public pipework threats to JK Rowling.

I would welcome public pipework threats as my responsible water authority and council are indifferent to the regular leaks and damage to the road. I would like that threat on headed notepaper and a schedule of works.

And, yes, it's, sadly unrealistic, that the self-appointed tone police would consider the threats to JKR to be at all problematic.

@WildIris

Great way to offer a constructive analysis, bravo. *@Hawkins001*

Do you mean like this constructive analysis, that is routinely trotted out on social media platforms?

What happened to being better and more constructive and offer detailed analysis etc, just because one aside or the other has to resort to swearing, rudeness, unhelpful behaviours, then why not be better ?

@FOJN

Great way to offer a constructive analysis, bravo

I would have thought it was fairly obvious my intention was to express anger not offer constructive analysis. I wasn't aware that attempts at constructive analysis were the only posts permitted here.

If an op asks a question etc, what's the point if people were just swearing, or cursing ect ? Yes we may be frustrated, angry ect, but why resort to crude words, when we can debate and have consecutive analysis to develop the topic and understanding more ?

@RufustheFloralmissingreindeer

Im fairly positive that poster has form for policing posts

Yes, I try to ask posters why they feel the need to swear rather than actually engage in constructive debate and analysis with the ops question, I don't need to police the threads as unless I'm mistaken, swearing is against mumsnets rules ?

I actually wouldn't be angry about JP saying what she said. It's the laugh, the implicationthat it's such a silly question. All I want is clarity, honesty, and a good faith discussion. Above all I cannot stand duplicity, double speak and pretence.

And much as I think Boris is generally incompetent/a liar/useless, his recent statement was actually one of the very, very few I've seen that seemed fairly honest.

Hawkins will have missed the NoDebate in struction.