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

Exactly. This is just basic. I want to know which MPs actually know what a woman is, and which are brave enough to say so explicitly.

One of them is an ex conservative aid.

We do already have free speech laws, but they are not working adequately, the Telegraph reports from the weekend about how staff with GC views are treated being just one example.

I agree with @EasternStandard that on a basic level, voters deserve to know how their representatives answer this question. It's obviously an important enough question/issue for the campaign to exist in the first place.

If another group wants to set up another campaign with a different question then they are free to do so.

Just another muddy the waters campaign.

I appreciate all the concern for women, I really do. But if this campaign obliges my prospective candidates to give a straight answer to a straight question then I will take the risk, thank you.

In what sense?

If you're worried that the MPs/candidates of the party you favour will lose votes by giving batshit responses to a really simple question (that everyone knows the truth of), the solution is NOT to avoid the question or smear those asking.

The candidates tell the truth, or they give their chosen batshit response. If the latter, the voters can decide if they're thick as mince or mendacious, and in either case whether they can be trusted to join the legislature.

I can't see the downside here.

We do already have free speech laws

Kinda.

We have the HRA:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1/part/I/chapter/9

And that's it, as far as I know. Subject to lots of qualifications.

It will muddy the waters by asking MPs questions? What is the risk, that people hear what MPs think on a subject?

Somewhat ironic to be told "we have free speech in this country" on this boards of all places. 😑Where we spend countless threads discussing which women (and some men) have been cancelled, bullied, threatened, abused and sacked by the very people who claim that "women can have a penis". Not to mention spending our hard earned ££ on funding women like Allison Bailey, Maya Forstater, Julie Bindel Jo Phoenix and the rest to take the "women have a penis" believers to court to try to make them behave in a legal & democratic manner and stop silencing everyone who knows that no woman has a penis.

Good luck to the organisers of this. Quite right that every elected politician should be challenged about believing in fantasies and standing on the side of those actively gaslighting and harming children along with telling lies. Especially as so many women have been bullied and hounded out of Labour & the Lib Dems for disagreeing with the "women can have a penis" believers.

And if it means that labour and the lib dems are unable to form a government because of their oppressive bullying attitude towards the electorate who believe in women's rights & child safeguarding, then that's their fault.
We have a shitshow of a government and it's unbelievable that the opposition is so in thrall to an evidently dangerous ideology that they prioritise pandering to them rather than protecting children and women's rights.

I agree they aren't being applied properly to GC women. Where these cases have been legally challenged (Bailey, Forstater, Stock etc) the women have won though. Their free speech is protected.

There is an element at the moment of some far right movements trying to undermine a lot of our legal frameworks under the guise of "free speech". I find it concerning. I'm sure others disagree but just worth bearing in mind with this kind of thing.

We have defamation laws. And laws about inciting racial hatred. Laws about promoting terrorism. Harassment laws. Treason and obscenity laws. Various company confidentiality and non disclosure laws that individuals sign up to.
None of us have the unfettred right to say whatever we want. We are all bound by legal constraints. And I think that's right.

Grass roots? It's clearly an astroterf organisation, if you'll forgive the pun.

This is what Riverside Advisory do:

However, Gallagher’s private client work through his second business, Riverside Advisory, has also attracted attention. He represented those falsely accused and incorrectly investigated during Operation Midland – and was reportedly hired by Prince Andrew in March last year. Described as “straight-talking” and “energetic, intelligent with a great sense of humour”, Gallagher is a sought-after fixer as an industry leader in public and regulatory affairs.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:8zfQPuI33YwJ:macemagazine.com/politicalconsultants/mark-gallagher/&client=firefox-b-d&sca_esv=568184447&hl=en&gl=uk&strip=1&vwsrc=0

"He represented those falsely accused and incorrectly investigated during Operation Midland " Representing those accused by Carl Beech during the massively incompetent police investigation is a bad thing? Really?

#OperationLetThemSpeak in action again

It's absolutely crucial that we are vigilant about freedom of speech and expression. This is always a balance, but the balance must be observed.

We should all be able to ask questions of politicians, and hear their answers.

I find it curious that anyone would argue that we need less free speech, less openness, and less knowledge, tbh.

I'm a (slightly) left-of-centre floating voter. I have never voted tribally in my life. This means I vote based on (a) party manifesto (b) individual candidates.

Consequently, I tend to be extremely interested in what candidates think about various issues that are important to me. If my potential MP is, for example, a climate change denier or a Brexit supporter or a Stop-the-Boats activist or a TWAW-and-lady-diques-are-so-feminine believer, I want to know so I can decide whether to give them my vote. And I'm not altogether interested in the purity of the investigative source of the information, but rather in whether the candidate's opinion has been given freely and reflected accurately.

I'm even more interested in it, since there are a load of men turning up here to warn us how dangerous this website will be.

I'm suspicious of the "No need to ask the Conservative candidates".

Of course you do! If you're really want to check and it matters to you, you ask them all. Plenty of Conservatives support the TRAs.

If candidates are too concerned by their stance on their definition of what a woman is, that means that they are beginning to understand the issues in the UK right now.

For all those who are expressing concern for the group who are involved, why is this a concern really? Again, what is the issue with any group who is merely publishing the candidates answers about what a woman is?

It could well be a 'grass roots movement' that then has a wide source of backing and investment and they may be doing this completely for their very own benefit and only be piggybacking onto women's groups efforts. It could be that a consultancy group has given their time because they believe in supporting the 'grass roots movement'. It could be some groups who are still women's rights campaigners but not feminists will be involved.

There are many scenarios here.

If we assume this is the case, that the organisers are not feminists, how does this impact the end result? That we know how a candidate defines a woman.

If the women who give of their voice and their time are aware of this, what is the issue?

If women don't do their own research into who they assist, then that is their issue to deal with. So, again, if they know and understand who is involved and the end result is as advertised, that we know how candidates can define women, what is the issue?

Yes. It's a bit 'here be dragons'.

FWIW, I find it chilling that people are suggesting that free speech and/or freedom of expression is somehow 'rightwing' or confined to the right wing.

Then again, given the upcoming grimly authoritarian Hate Crime Bill from the SNP, they may have a point.

Well gosh! Thank you DadJoke for attempting to tell women who and what they should be interested in supporting when it comes to candidates putting potential votes on the line and being published as to how they define 'women'.

I would not have expected a different type of contribution from you.

I'm curious as to what discussions the fretful posters on here have had with labour & the lib dems about why they have bought in to the ultimate conspiracy theory - that facts and science no longer exist and that women can have a penis? On the scale of provable facts, this one's as simple as it can be. Verifiable, provable and evidenced.

I'm sure their anxiety would be better directed at all the politicians throwing away women's rights & child safeguarding. Maybe ask why both parties have become finishing schools / retirement homes for male supremacists rather than democratic institutions that foster free speech and where women's voices are allowed to be heard?

I expect the people contending for our votes to tell the truth about their policies whoever is asking.

This thread has told me various people think it's unreasonable for me to have any expectation of integrity in public life. In fact, apparently I should applaud it if left-wing party members lie to any questioners suspected of being right-wing.

The answer is no.

If someone asks me what 2+2 is, I tell them it's 4. No matter who they vote for, or who's paying them to ask me, because it's the truth.

I expect the same of MPs and prospective MPs, especially as they will be paid far more than I earn, in order to represent me. I will not be reducing my standards and expectations of other people, because I have this thing called "self-respect". I will continue to retain self-respect, no matter how many posters it inconveniences. Even if the posters are non-female ones.

@AdamRyan

There is an element at the moment of some far right movements trying to undermine a lot of our legal frameworks under the guise of "free speech". I find it concerning. I'm sure others disagree but just worth bearing in mind with this kind of thing.

I find this very interesting. Please tell me more about these far right movements and the legal frameworks that they are trying to undermine?

I think that the public needs to know.

The website will be set up with videos of the MP candidates answering the questions.

MP candidates now know this is happening and that they should expect this action. They will have to own their opinions publicly. If anyone takes their opinion out of context, that will have to be addressed and that candidate will still be publicly on record stating their opinion.

The group behind it says they are apolitical. This does not mean they are not allowed to have their own political beliefs. Far from it. It means they should not show bias towards any one party. It also doesn’t mean that there will be no political party investment or someone involved with any particular political party.

Including using professional services. Such as a PR agency.

Any person using the web site as a source of information needs to be responsible for their own research if it is needed. They can make their judgement as an adult.

Just like every single other choice about which content to consume about any topic. If it turns out it is run by those only interested in free speech, again, what is the difference? Did we discredit the laughing auditor’s videos as being not worthy of watching because he wasn’t a feminist and probably not interested at all in the feminist perspective? Are we supposed to not watch video if it is uploaded by an extreme trans rights supporter?

If this website does what it says, and is run by a free speech group, are we not supposed to view it and evaluate it as we do with every other piece of content published?