Women’s Equality Party votes for Self-ID

[AnonGCMum]

I gather from reading Twitter that the WEP has today voted to support self ID. I’ve looked, but I can’t find the text of the motion that was voted for. Has anyone seen it? I’ve seen Sophie Walker’s open letter asking members to vote against mobile.twitter.com/SophieRunning/status/1596036529209724929

More generally, is the WEP worth getting involved with? I like the idea of a feminist party but if they’re going down the self-ID/TWAW route then it’s not for me.

Cracking post Red Toothbrush and cracking thread posters! Loving the energy.

@RedToothBrush an absolutely cracking post!

@RedToothBrush thank you for articulating the problem so well. That needs to be shouted from the rooftops

yes red!

And readers, this is an example of a poster who cannot provide the evidence they are attempting to assure you is there.

Could this be another example of the the JK Rowling essay paradox? The one that was considered transphobic but not one person can come up with any credible answer to what was transphobic about it?

Do go and read through those links up thread. The ones that ministry seems very determined for you to read because they seem to have linked them more than once as such zealous ‘gotchas’.

What I believe you will see is adults having conversations about balanced discussions. Where adults expect there to be speakers from different viewpoints at seminars, on panels, committees and at conferences.

And that that in no way means left leaning people become far right by association.

The push to label it as ‘working with the far right’ is driven by fear of ‘impurity’.

It has gone so far that someone who holds a view that a group consider to be worthy of denigration, should be declared a hater and should never be heard.

This is a forum board on a site called ‘mumsnet’. We recognize childish behaviour when we see it.

This last doubling down by ministry is an appeal to authority that they know they don’t have.

Any poster who has the evidence they claim they have at their fingertips in such abundance could so easily copy and paste the posts with the time stamp so we could go and check the integrity of post and the full context and either agree or disagree with them. FFS it is a thread on this very board apparently, riddled with far right subversion !

Should be easy, right?

Yeah? Nah. It is easy to see the claims lack credibility. It was pretty much a given when the claims of victimhood arrived.

In this new world, words have been stripped of meaning.

‘Working with’ means having a selfie taken with some stranger.

‘personally invited’ means accepting an open public invitation.

‘unsafe’ is being within 500 m of an opinion your ‘group’ hasn’t pre-checked and approved of. Or expressing a thought of your own that has not been regurgitated from an approved thought leader.

‘fascist’ and ‘far right’ seems to be anyone who a person doesn’t agree with.

’transphobic’ has been written in what can only be labelled extreme (by any person with critical thinking ability) manifestos to be pretty much anything that disrupts some trans people getting their own way.

‘evidence’ then also becomes an amorphous blob of mist created by group think but lacking any substance at all.

And it started with:

‘Woman’ being anyone who calls themself a woman.

Thanks ministry. Your post from last night was a great display of desperate fumbling for authority.

But we can only amplify your initial request ministry, yes please readers go and read the links and see if you can find the evidence that ministry told us was there, or maybe was told was there, but failed to produce to convince anyone.

And thank you. For you did bring ‘cheer’ to the thread. We got a ripping song (thanks B!), a great post by Red, and what you may not know, posts from new readers!!!

Great job in cheering us up. Thanks ministry.

Women are being asked to explain their alignment with the far right. To prove they are not.

How about this. The politics of these women has never changed. We should be asking for a demonstration of how their politics have changed.

The far right has long put down women but suddenly has an epiphany and decides that women's sex based rights is for them. To try and gain ground and take it from the left which normally sits on this ground.

But they could only go squatting in this place because the left moved on from it. There was no space for them there before. The left say they are 'progressive' now and that your big clue. They say by their own free admission they have progressed from sex based rights to gender based rights.

So can someone explain to me in what way the women defending sex based rights have actually changed their politics? Can they demonstrate they have moved substantially on from sex based rights to ermmm... those other kind of sex based rights.

The argument of alignment with the far right falls down at this point. The shift happened around women not the other way around.

Its not so much a flat earth argument. More a 'everything revolves around the earth not the sun' argument... Whilst in reality the earth is still round and still orbits the sun.

@RedToothBrush

That post was just fantastic.

Here is another study:

www.moreincommon.org.uk/our-work/research/britons-and-gender-identity/

www.moreincommon.org.uk/media/p5uln04a/britons-and-gender-identity-data-tables.pdf

Quick conclusions:

only 19% think TW should be able to participate in women’s sport
Only 24% think male bodied TW should be able to use women’s changing rooms
only 29% think male bodied TW should be able to use women’s toilets

Happy to discuss any of these studies posted in depth.

However, I notice that you ministry presented not one shred of evidence to support that superficial statistic you posted (and yes, we did notice you stripped away all the rest of the data set for that superficial statistic and posted simply that one table....) or did you really think people don't understand data and what conclusions can be drawn from it?

RedToothBrush that post needs to go onto 'break it down for me' and into newspaper articles as the 'pronouns are rohypnol' post did. That's better journalism than most broadsheets manage.

I agree with Hellebore . Please do everyone go and read the threads flagged. Read them thoroughly and carefully. And see for yourself the stark bollock naked emperor hiding behind the curtain. Women are not the ones afraid of evidence.

So Sandi Toksvig pleads on twitter for financial support but turns replies off entirely... twitter.com/sanditoksvig/status/1597587282848272386
RIP WEP

But surely all the transwomen will be giving huge donations? Or is this a case of ooops we picked the wrong horse? I’ve seen how generous women can be for crowdfunders when needed, wonder if transwomen will do the same for the TWEP.

'It’s time for some radical honesty.'

I don't think you really mean that, Sandi.

I agree Chicken

Special male people can fund this. It's busy serving them, and their interests. Nowt to do with me.

'Costs are rising, and as the crisis hits women’s income we are seeing a direct impact on donations and memberships.'

Radical honesty: that's not the reason you're losing members.

The crisis is affecting womens income. It’s a good job they have all the males they’ve pandered to who will definitely give huge donations. Just think, maybe, just maybe if they’d have prioritised women, JKR might have helped them out….

Another "not far right" thread

lots of people just wanting to discuss far right talking points without heaven forbid being racist themselves

"I'm not racist.....

"The Albanian influx we are currently seeing in the U.K. will be much much worse for women and girls than Rotherham etc was. The combination of gang culture and absolute disdain for women fuelled by a vague adherence to Islam is utterly toxic."

More not far right posters

"the issue being discussed is how groups of young men from, e.g. Pakistan or Albania, are presenting a specific threat to women in the UK. So, the grooming gangs would be a very good example. Or we could talk about forced marriage or FGM."

Three cheers for @shasha21

not afr4aid to call out the many far right adjacent posters on here
"shasha21 · Yesterday 08:52

"Im sorry but this is just really disgusting. The most creepy, inappropriate men with 0 respect for women that I have ever met have been white British men. My husband and his circle of friends and family are from an Asian country that you’d probably look at and judge and assume they’re sexist. They’re actually all extremely respectful around women, far more so than any British men I know. if anything, their culture means that they’re pretty protective of women and very aware of not crossing any boundaries by accident or causing any offence. I’m sorry but this IS racist and extremely ignorant and I’m horrified that MN are allowing racial hatred to be incited in this manner."

**

No ministry.

Don’t attempt a weak swivel.

You claimed evidence was to be found specifically in two threads you have posted.

And then were unable to produce posts from those.

Go back and find posts to fit your far right examples in those.

I mean feel free to pull in posts from this other thread if you wish, but do it properly please. Username and date and time and the full text of the post so we can trace the post and the context.

So far,

"The Albanian influx we are currently seeing in the U.K. will be much much worse for women and girls than Rotherham etc was. The combination of gang culture and absolute disdain for women fuelled by a vague adherence to Islam is utterly toxic.”

and

"the issue being discussed is how groups of young men from, e.g. Pakistan or Albania, are presenting a specific threat to women in the UK. So, the grooming gangs would be a very good example. Or we could talk about forced marriage or FGM."

refers to the number of trafficked women from Albania that was being reported recently. Did you miss that being reported in the media?

You do understand that there is an issue with women being trafficked to the UK for sex work, don’t you?

And rather than ‘far right’ that these post are referring to that trafficking issue and making reference to how the grooming gangs operated and were allowed to escape detection. In fact, Julie Bindel wrote extensively on how the fear of racism allowed a group of males to establish and continue these gangs. She is credited with forcing the issue into the open.

Do you understand the concept of not allowing any group to be treated as untouchable for the safety of girls and women?

That means holding all men, regardless of religion or culture, to the same high standards of safeguarding? You understand that, don’t you?

Is Julie Bindel ‘far right’? Please explain why?

At this point, you either seem to not understand feminism and feminist discussion very well OR you don’t seem to understand what far right politics is about and are just grasping at what you feel outraged by or have been told is ‘far right’.

Again, do you understand feminist discourse which looks at the collective experience of female people and evaluates it regarding safeguarding those women and girls?

It is done ‘collectively’ and not just at the individual level.

No group should be held as exempt from safeguarding. No group should be treated any differently when protecting children and women.

If you find any post racist, report it and if MNHQ believe that it is racist too, it will be deleted.

So far though, you have attempted to portray feminist discussion about a reported current abhorrent issue, trafficked women, and the known issues surrounding grooming gangs that allowed girls and women to be raped as ‘far right’.

In fact, you have just actively demonstrated what Julie Bindel was describing as the reason why those grooming gangs who raped girls and women were allowed to establish and continue their activity.

By labeling discussion about fears of it happening again as ‘racist’ and ‘far right’ when it is a discussion about never allowing safeguarding lapses to happen again because people make those accusations.

Well done.

They forgot to turn comments off on their FB page… oopsie 😂😂😂not getting quite the response they hoped for. Their only defender seems to be a woman hating bloke. Go figure 😂

They were bankrolled to the tune of £100,000 by a man whose child transitioned.

I wonder if those donations have stopped now they have voted in favour of self ID.

Why aren't powerful middle-aged whit paedophiles called "grooming gangs"?

I think we know the answer.

Some interesting reading from a survivor. You can of course accuse her of prejudice if that is what gives you "cheer".

Experts say that grooming gangs are not the same as paedophile rings. It’s something that central Government really needs to understand in order to prevent more grooming gang crime in the future.

In November 2017, the Swedish government held a meeting where they stated that: “Sexual violence is being used as a tactic of terrorism”, and as such, it was recognised as a threat to Sweden’s national security.

The link between terrorism and rape undertaken by Islamist gangs was not being ignored. They called for counter-extremism education. This sounds like a balanced and intelligent governmental response to me.

www.independent.co.uk/voices/rotherham-grooming-gang-sexual-abuse-muslim-islamist-racism-white-girls-religious-extremism-terrorism-a8261831.html

www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/what-do-we-know-about-the-ethnicity-of-sexual-abuse-gangs