Post Westminster Hall Debate - what are the next steps to ensure the sex based rights of biological women

[IwantToRetire]

The other thread is now full https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4800027-debate-relating-to-the-definition-of-sex-in-the-equality-act-2010-will-be-in-westminster-hall-on-12-june-2023-430pm

And what it will achieve we will have to wait and see.

But is clarifying the EA the most important campaign to ensure women's sex based rights.

Or ...

Now she says she misspoke - "Tribunal tweets was absolutely correct that I accidentally said XY (😬🤣) [...]". (My emphasis.) But since she said in Westminster Hall that, "I have no idea what my chromosomes are. I assume that they are probably XY, but I do not know—I have not got a clue what they are" it is now clear that she deliberately misled parliament when she said that she didn't know what her chromosomes are. I hope that she gets reported to the appropriate parliamentary authorities!

Her Wikipedia page has now been protected to stop 'persistent disruptive editing' by a editor who was determinedly adding Hansard as a source and said 'please do not disrespect our parliament by ignoring the words spoken within its hallowed walls' in respect to Kirsty's 'admission' of being trans 😄.

It has been surprisingly entertaining to watch the editing war.

As I said upthread, only the penisy kind of women get to self-identify like that.

The misogynists in charge of Wikipedia know exactly what a woman is.

Statement on the reference to suicide made during the Westminster Hall debate - Sex Matters

Spreading alarmism about suicide is unethical. Self-harm and suicidal ideation are known to be contagious. Sensational and excessive reporting has been shown to increase the likelihood of imitational suicidal behaviour among vulnerable people, including young people.

Suicide threats can also be a form of emotional abuse, used as a form of coercive control and manipulation.

https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/statement-on-the-reference-to-suicide-made-during-the-westminster-hall-debate/

Next steps?

For me it means looking to see if there's a gofundme me for bricks with which to rebuild Hadrians Wall, to keep those SNP harpies away out of England!
As for KB's attire, it wasn't her jamas, it was an ordnance survey map showing which planet she, Moran and the other pathetic specimens belong on because they sure as hell don't belong to this one!

When campaigning it is always worth looking back to see how far you have come.

Those that remember the dark days of only a few years ago will recognise that the debate was an achievement. Lots of very ordinary male Tory MPs giving well thought out speeches on the importance of single sex spaces, with support from a small number of Labour women. The 'other side' were only able to summon some fringe members of the SNP and Labour. The LibDems were absent. The Minister confirms that she will pursue the issue in consultation with Baroness Kishwer of the EHRC.

The Ayes had it.

Those that remember the dark days of only a few years ago will recognise that the debate was an achievement.

And the number of MPs attending was an improvement over a few years ago as well. This is a previous debate from 2018 about changing the GRA.

https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/55146a39-db05-4cb8-b256-41ddbc47f2bc

Only about half a dozen MPs attended and David TC Davies was the only one speaking up for women. Highlights include Layla Moran saying she can see into people's souls.

Thread here:
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3429969-Watch-live-Government-debate-on-self-ID

Not RTFT but surely the next step is supporting ForWomen.Scot’s fundraiser for their appeal against the Haldane judgement. If that is upheld then the meaning of sex will have been clarified in law.

The Ayes had it.

If you mean the vote at the end, the motion was that they had debated the 2 petitions - not that they agreed with either of them.

(If you mean that the pro-women, pro-clarification side of the debate had better speakers, made better points, and would have 'won' if judged by an impartial observer, then I agree.)

One group who have worked very effectively behind the scenes is Conservatives for Women. Within a year (2012-2022?) they managed to encourage about half of Tory MPs to come out as gender critical, leading first to some Boris contortions till he finally agreed he knew what a woman was, to Rishi's straight forward and open confirmation. I suspect their work has also been reflected in the appointment of some good women's ministers, and presumably in the appointment of Baroness Kishwer Falkner at the EHRC.

Turning this around is moving a mountain, but there are signs that we can do it.

Next is a similar operation with Labour and LibDem MPs. (Are the SNP beyond salvation?) Each time someone claimed that the Tories were only supporting single sex spaces because of political expediency, they provided evidence that they are aware that the Labour, LibDem and SNP positions on this are electoral kryptonite.

https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/westminster-hall-debate-on-our-petition-to-make-the-equality-act-clear/

At this rate, the best I think we can practically hope for is that Sunak offers gender reform as per Falkener/EHRC advice, but only as a sop in the manifesto...ie as an aim or promise if Tories win the GE.

Labour won't do the same, just mouth platitudes that Self ID won't be a priority for legislation in that first administration.

I'm thinking we need to realise the party heirarchies are more aligned than different. Forget that most Tories were GC in the Westminster Hall debate and most Lab/SNP were genderwoo, I believe there is unannounced unanimity in the Tory and Labour leaderships, both broadly in favour of more alignment in the genderwoo direction, Labour somewhat more outspoken, Tories somewhat more ambiguous.

You only have to look at the recent anti democratic legislation on stamping down on protest. Starmer has announced he won't reverse it.

I'm truly of the belief that the direction of travel on gender has less than a cigarette papers difference between the two parties, whatever individual MPs might have said a few days ago.

https://twitter.com/ForWomenScot/status/1651614049941987329?s=20

If you click on the twitter link above it has the fundraiser link on it.

They curently have a stretch target of £50 000 it has 12 days left to run. They are currently at £46,037.

(or... coughs... you could buy a book of poems written by Mumsnetters with 100% of the profit going to For Women Scotland https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0C739HTDK^^ )

Unfortunately given how little public support women get, we cannot always get the women we prefer to speak for us.

Wise words OP.

Thanks to those women

I think there is a fundamental difference. I think that the Tories' initial support for self-ID came from a place of insecurity. They got Section 28 and gay marriage wrong and so were concerned not to get gender wrong and again be dubbed the nasty party. (It is important not to forget that in 2015 when Stonewall added the T, no one questioned Stonewall and its influence was everywhere.)

I suspect that none of the male MPs who talked knowledgeably and passionately about the safety of women and girls, ever really believed that a man could put on a dress and become a woman. Indeed I am pretty sure they didn't. However other than David TC Davies, who grasped early on that this was an important issue, they carried on busying themselves with affairs of state.

Over time the briefing and lobbying by so many, including the right wing media and groups like Conservatives for Women, has given them the confidence to trust their moral compass and speak out.

Quite why the equivalent, male, northern, Union backed, Labour feels unable to do the same is unclear. The climate and culture do not seem to exist, and they can see what happened to Rosie Duffield, so they will be ignoring it as a "woman's issue". (I suspect that several may already be struggling with ultra left-wing activists within their local parties, so don't want to give any additional reason for deselection.) David TC Davies had all manner of complaints and abuse thrown at him when he was the sole head above the parapet. Rosie has almost certainly had worse. They are our brave lightening rods. Lets hope that Labour MPs including JC join her in the same way that a few good Conservative MPs (Jackie Doyle-Price, Kemi and even Liz Truss did then joined by Miriam Cates and others) joined Davies, until the trickle became a stream.

Catching up and I agree with this. She gives the strong impression of political opportunist.

It was only March when she did what she did in Parliament. A mere 3 months ago.

Well, the suprise of the night was Jess Phillips who pretty much came down on the side of sanity.

I suspect of all the MPs in Parliament who've had to balance personal GC opinions with the pressures of "coming out", so to speak, she's the one who's likely struggled the most.

Rosie Duffield is a "mere" backbencher, never in any position of policy influence, despite huge personal abuse, she has freedom to speak out.

Jess is deep in the party heirarchy and policy making apparatus, she's had to maintain a "not rocking the boat"/consensus public face, so for her to have unambiguously come out for women's rights and definitions to be sex class-based, priority over gender, will have taken a lot of courage (I was gonna say cojones, but in an argument on sex and gender...lol).

I‘m not sure why Jess Philips is talked about more than the difficultly Labour still has with the rest of the MPs who are TWAW

The debate cleared that up for me, there is a divide between the parties tg

Because it's so visible, and so dramatic when a proponent who was previously moderately TWAW or non committal, announces a newer TRA skeptical position.

Just read a Quillette article on the "anti-reality field" of this social movement.

Totally sane conventional opinions just five minutes ago are now the new superstitions.
Opinions that were more primitive than superstitions five minutes ago are now the new "science" and "reality".

Jess Phillips conveying opinions that were resolutely boring and unremarkable, now framed as beyond the pale by wider elites received opinion.

This is where we've got to in 2023.

Quite why the equivalent, male, northern, Union backed, Labour feels unable to do the same is unclear.

The union backing will be part of the problem. Virtually all the unions are full-on genderwoo.

Jess is deep in the party heirarchy and policy making apparatus, she's had to maintain a "not rocking the boat"/consensus public face

She's in the opposition party! They're meant to challenge, oppose, shine a light on things. It's not meant to just be down to one or two backbenchers to hold the government of the day to account.

Party consensus, not common cause with the government.

Yep. There's not anyone on the front bench I'd count as NOT a political opportunist, though ...

Of course there's opportunism in politics. It's politics. It goes with the territory and I'm realistic.

But IMHO there's opportunism and then there's trampling all over women's rights and the memories of murdered women. Sometimes it's beyond the pale.