MPs who believe ‘women have a penis’ will be named and shamed ahead of general election

[fromorbit]

Brilliant plan sure plenty of Mumsnetters will be up for being part of the volunteer army asking questions:

An “army” of volunteers in an apolitical new grassroots campaign is gearing up to meet all MPs and parliamentary candidates at hustings events and on their doorsteps to ask each one the question: “What is a woman?”

Their answers will be video recorded and uploaded individually to a website which is being launched in the coming months.

It will allow voters to find out instantly whether their next MP thinks women must be born female and that binary biological sex cannot be changed, or whether they believe that male-born transgender women are women too.

Sharron Davies MBE, the former Olympic swimmer and feminist campaigner who has been appointed as the campaign’s first ambassador, said it would let voters “know if their MP will stand up for women”.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/09/23/mps-believe-women-penis-named-trans-election-sharron-davies/

We also need a women's issues hustings in every constituency in the election run by people who know what women are. Women Won't Wheesht (WWW) have already run the prototype in Rutherglen [the hustings was reinstated after an attempt to cancel it after they realised banning women's meetings is in fact illegal.]
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4899435-womens-group-hustings-for-rutherglen-hamilton-west-byelection-cancelled

These are big promises, but none of it is remotely deliverable as long as the police, who are institutionally captured by the rainbow flag brigade and misogynistic to the core, continue to be more interested in persecuting women over transphobic stickers than they are in actually investigating rapes and sexual assaults.

Quite apart from the fact that Labour don't actually know what misogyny is because they think it is something a male person can be a victim of, making misogyny a hate crime and expecting the police to tackle it is like making eating Red Riding Hood and her granny against the law and then putting the big bad wolf in charge of enforcing it.

Who is going to stop the rot in the police? Not Labour, that's for sure.

What are you talking about?
I don't believe in gender ideology. I don't see any value in a campaign asking MPs to define what a woman is (as noone believes the answers) or whether women can have penises (as I don't think we should be defining women that way and I don't think males without a penis are women).

Are you offended that I don't respect Matt Walsh's opinion? I was hardly laughing at him so your reaction seems extreme.

floisme Yeah you are probably right!
I used to love this board and just in spite of myself still pop on to try to have a feminist conversation. But it's really futile at this point.
It's very weird to have moved from being perceived as a transphobe 10 years ago, to a TRA now.

It’s a great board. No one has to be here

Indeed. And nobody is forced to ask their MP whether they self identify as a fool and claim that a woman has a penis.
This a massive battle that women have been forced into (none of it at our instigation) and we all tackle it in a multitude of ways.

Anyways I am very much looking forward to seeing how my local candidates answer the question, and yes I'll definitely be scrutinising the Labour candidate's answer the most, for the simple reason that this is where my vote would normally go. It won't be the only factor but it all helps.

I'm not quite sure what you're on about @AdamRyan . You seem to regard it as a dreadful state of affairs if those candidates' who have batsh*t opinions on the reality, safety and opportunities for women are noted. I think it is a potentially wonderful resource for those who want to dismiss those candidates who dismiss the rights and interests of women, and children.

For instance, David Lammy who thinks a woman's (dehumanised into a dinosaur) cervix is no more than something that can be jimmied up in a workshop or similar. Lisa Nandy who said male bodied rapists should get access to a woman's prison if they want. It would show all the dodgy types for one reason or another. Deceitful or credulous? Quite a few parties, if not all, are full of this bull.

I am laughing at your two camps categorisation. One either has to be a ideological zealot (or deceitful about that in order to appear in vogue). Or, a conservative religious (plain Conservative voter may do for you, I suppose).

I can't wait 🍿

Which was my point from the outset, that this campaign does nothing useful

so ignore it, no one will be forcing you to ask the question, film the answer, upload the answer, find the website, read/watch any of the answers given.
Lots of things people do are not useful, see football and most other team sports, but we generally just ignore the things we find not useful to us.

It's quite odd, isn't it? That poster has spent days telling us that this campaign isn't useful. Why? If it's not useful it won't fulfil any purpose and will be ignored. Why spend so much time trying to save us from wasting our time on a "useless" campaign? It doesn't make sense.

Why not just leave us to waste our own time on this "useless" campaign?

Not really sure why some people think that telling women what they should or shouldn’t do is going to bring the desired results. Has any thread that has either started or devolved to that achieved the desired results of the person who is seen to be even inadvertently telling women what they should do, or read, or like or think?

I fucking hope so!

I concur with previous posters who question why someone would spend so long arguing about a campaign they think will be useless, without suggesting an alternative use of resources they think would be better.

But just had to note that this is a logical fallacy.

I don't see any value in a campaign asking MPs […] whether women can have penises (as I don't think we should be defining women that way and I don't think males without a penis are women).

The bit in parentheses is mistaken. “A implies not-B” does not imply “Not-A implies B”. The presence of fur on an animal means it can’t be a frog. But bald cats and humans are still mammals, not frogs.

Anyhoo, is the website live? What is it going to be called? I’d like to keep an eye out for it,
I’m very interested in seeing which candidates in my area are gender critical, understand biological reality and have the courage to speak out.

If Sharron Davies is going to be the face of it, I suspect keeping an eye on her tweets (those of you on X) might give a heads up.

Thanks cake, the actual point of this thread, publicising the website which will ask MPs if they know what a woman is, has got a bit lost.
I am personally invested in finding out which parliamentary candidates are able to speak clearly on what a woman is and defend women’s rights. I’m also not interested in voting for anyone who is venal, a coward or a liar.
my only weapon is my vote and I will use it for women’s rights.

I think that just getting this question out and normalised is awesome sunshine.

For people who don’t really know there is an existential fight for women to be recognised as a discrete sex, seeing this question every where and then the (hopefully dawning) realisation of what the end result of losing our ability to name ourselves leads to will be new to a lot of people.

👏agreed

Agreed. I'm not prepared to sacrifice my rights for an 80k a year MPs cowardice.

That. ^^