Joanna Cherry has been elected as the new Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights

[Clymene]

What a wonderful accolade!

I'm so pleased for her. I know she'll do a phenomenal job - compassionate, kind and wise

twitter.com/humanrightsctte/status/1549792744134086656?s=21&t=hlRmao7fOyr3B5hhnvW1wQ

Still no answer as why the appointment of Joanna Cherry is worrying, I see.

How can the rights of women to anything be defended if you :
a) can't/won't define what a woman is
b) include men in the definition

Not denying it then!

Well seeing as neither you nor Mishy give a shit about the right for females to have single sex provision, what other rights that you do care about are also "being gone after"?

"" marks not needed because it was innocent! Not as in the sense of accidental (since we have to spell these things out to those who are determined to misunderstand). But because there is nothing non-innocent, ie bad or shameful, about giving LGB people their own spaces.

It is wrong to tack T onto the end of LGB because LG and B are sexualities, whereas T is not. Nothing in LGB rights comes into conflict with women's or or other people's rights.

T is a whole different, separate movement whose demands are directly in conflict with women's rights.

Joanna Cherry is a particularly good choice for this role, as her own human rights have come under attack in response to her defence of women's human rights.

Not denying it then!
😂 I'm really not her
althiugh wouldn't I say that if I was
No, seriously I'm really not
Why not try asking MN who will tell you instead of your ridiculous theories because what, my username is like her real name?;

Hi @GoodJanetBadJanet welcome back. Sorry you missed the maltesers. So have you decided what rights trans people are worried about being removed yet?

Of course I know you're not her Janet. I'm just messing about and poking fun at the Mishy's name mixup. I thought that was obvious to be honest!

Almost as obvious as you ignoring the other question in my post.

Judith?!

No thanks.

I would like Janet to explain more precisely what Janet meant using UK specific information as this is a thread about the outcry about Joanna Cherry and the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

Yeah. Not really seeing how .Joanna Cherry and roe v Wade are linked. Did @GoodJanetBadJanet ever give a reply?

Judith Butler 😂She couldn't nail an actual nail into a marshmallow.

Has @GoodJanetBadJanet flitted off again?

I think it was being misbutlered and the lack of malteasers.

Lol, @MishyJDI, this extreme right-wing in US really gets about, doesn't it? Imagine having the power to appoint Joanna Cherry to this position, we must all organize immediately!

Can I just check with you, as you must surely know, which UK-based institutions we can trust to resist this malign influence of US extreme right, is it Stonewall? Do they have a policy on making sure foreign powers don't have this much influence in UK? Can you please link, pretty please, in the spirit of educating mumsnet?

To be fair, I am not sure that Malteasers have worked in the past. We are still waiting for answers on other threads as well.

A long time ago I used to argue against fundamentalist Christians online about gay marriage. They would ask me to give my best arguments for it , and I would enthusiastically respond and defend my position. It’s so striking to me that gender supporters come on here and simply REFUSE to back up what they are saying. All we get is deflection and snarky, back handed comments. And it happens all the time.

To the pro genderists - you disagree with us, right? You think trans rights in the U.K. are being threatened. How is it too hard to explain what those rights are and the way in which they are being undermined ? My suspicion is you don’t know and haven’t really thought your position through. You seem to expect us to just take your view at face value. Trans rights ARE under attack , end of story. We don’t need to hear what those rights actually are. And to be honest you sound a lot like the anti gay marriage people. It would reach a point where they would change the subject or deflect or insult because they literally could not defend their position beyond “I don’t like gay marriage and that’s it”. And if that’s the best you’ve got it’s not going to be very effective.

maybe you can’t see it, but from an external perspective it’s really cringe how you can’t answer the most basic questions about a cause you apparently believe in.

I think the reason they cannot argue coherently is because they have never had to in the past. Before women started to wake up to this, a simple cry of, ‘TERF’ or transphobe would have been enough to stop debate. Now it doesn’t as those words no longer mean anything relevant, so they are put in the position of having questions directed at them. And they have no answers as they didn’t need to. It’s why questions are TRA kryptonite and why they resort to insults and ad hominem.

Hey, you have gone too far.

Tim Tams are completely different to penguins.

TTANP

So shes been made a chair on human rights but theres a group of humans that she believes doesn't deserve rights?

If you all can't see how deliberate this move is you must be blind!

TTANP

I agree rabbiywoman. I am still reeling from the insult!!!!😁

Transgender people are very well protected in this country against discrimination in employment and provision of services so as far as I see it, the trans rights under threat would be to be able to access women's spaces with impunity as though they were actually women and access to hormones, surgery etc as though it were priority, life saving treatment on the NHS. this includes the social transitioning and medicalising of children.

So why don't they implicitly say this? This is what they want. However it is dressed up as 'we just want to live our lives' 'we are being excluded from public life and public spaces' 'you tell us we don't exist' etc which all sound dreadful at face value.

I think anyone hearing these mantras and putting it together with the narrative that trans women are the most abused, maligned and vulnerable in society are going to immediately think that trans women are instantly harassed and hassled in a public place which is unacceptable. But that's not what it means. It literally means that when they go out in public they want to be able to use the ladies loo.

Now, women have pointed out again and again how that actually does impact on our rights to use ladies loos. Or changing rooms, etc. But rights aren't like pie, we are told, and it's such a nice neat little mantra that it is repeated ad hominim with no thought to what it actually means.....

The rights of other groups aren't like pie at all. If you put in a disabled ramp for ease of access, it does not stop able bodied people from access - but start saying that people uncomfortable with trans people in their same sex toilets can just use the disabled loo, and you are taking someone else's pie.

The rights of Muslim women to, for instance, wear headscarves does not effect anyone else's rights, but saying a trans woman can use their women only space where they might adjust their head scarf literally takes away their pie.

Same sex marriage does not impede anyone else's rights to marriage, but saying homosexuality is same gender attraction rather than same sex attraction literally takes away someone's pie and replaces it with a completely different pie they don't want.

Eh?

which group does she think should not have rights?

I mean, we are waiting to hear which rights some people feel they don’t have. Some clarification would be grand.

Accuse her with some fake nonsense and that's enough, apparently.
Very Maoist. Very Stalinist. Very Salem witch trials. That's how these plonkers work.