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

I hope this works out. It would be great to know what we are voting for or avoiding voting for.
It would raise the stakes for all the politicians who want to minimise women’s very commonly held views
Wed need to clarify the definitions used to be clear everyone is on the same page with what is being described in all the candidates’ Qs and As.

Semantics.

We're living in a world where a male states that he has a cervix on TV, and nobody challenges him. Nobody. Not one soul in that studio said "hang on a mo".

We no longer know what people actually mean when they say man and woman because of this crap. Your question is just as easily answered with a lie as any other, and is just as appropriate in the context.
I don't mind which one gets answered.
I don't give a stuff who is asking g the question, or who is funding it.

I want each and every candidate to be forced to take a position on one side of the fence or the other. I expect some will change positions in the future but I want to know what their position is NOW so that I, a voter, can make an informed decision.
I want to know where people stand on all kinds of issues, and this is the one issue where PUBLIC SERVANTS have been allowed to fudge and dodge.

No more.

You might think it's semantics but to me it isn't.

Women are not just the same as men without a penis. A man who has his penis removed has not "transitioned" any more than a man who has kept his penis. Men cannot become women imo.

I want to know where people stand on all kinds of issues, and this is the one issue where PUBLIC SERVANTS have been allowed to fudge and dodge.
And that's also not true. Politicians fudge and dodge on all sorts of topics. It's the nature of the job.

Ask a Conservative MP if its OK that the Prime Minister pays less tax than a nurse and see what happens. Or if its OK that sewage is being pumped into our rivers.

Ask a Lib Dem what their position is on rejoining the EU. Or a Labour MP.

Listen or read a book by a politician, any politician, talking about what their job actually entails. They vote how they are told by the whip and half the time don't even really pay attention to what the vote is about. They are pressured to toe the party line and if they rebel they lose their chances of promotion or cabinet roles, or are even expelled from the party. Its like any other job in the regard you have to say what the boss wants or suffer the consequences.

A strategy where individual MPs are put under pressure on this issue isn't going to have an effect on party policy and is likely to create a more hostile environment, especially for female MPs

Female MPs already suffer death threats and vile abuse on line, imagine what the TRAs will do if they say "women can't have penises". I don't know why any feminist would advocate for that.

100% agree that we need to keep up the pressure to protect women's rights. But shaming individuals is not how to go about that.

100% agree that we need to keep up the pressure to protect women's rights. But shaming individuals is not how to go about that.

So ... how do we go about that? Without putting pressure on individual MPs?

I must have missed the time Jeremy Clarkson and Nigel Farage became sex offenders 😂

I think it needs to come from grass roots and I think the sex based campaigning has worked incredibly well over the last 5 years. 5 years ago it was "no debate" and all the parties were TWAW. That's largely gone away.

Personally I'd say join a party and join their sex based rights movement. I think grass roots is the way to go about this. Really happy to see the Lib Dem voice announcement.

Volunteer to help canvas for whatever party but only if you can give your opinion on this matter to voters.

Tell door knockers and canvassers how you feel about it.

Write to your MP to make your views known.

Donate to sex based rights charities and even consider joining one to campaign.

I agree, I would like to know those sorts of things too, but I also want to know if someone I would consider voting for believes all the gender nonsense and by extension (IMO) a removal of single sex spaces/child safe guiding and this website idea will be a quick way to find out.

Like I posted a few pages back it's factual yes or no answer, 'Do you think women have a penis', no nuance, no opinion piece. The answer is the same no matter who reports it so no angst about 'unpure' sources.

It's a quick and easy way to get the measure of a someone as a politician and a person.

Again, I agree with what you're saying, but also I don't want to vote for someone who believe in gender woo woo because I would consider them unfit for public office.

I've just read Suzanna Moore's article on the DimLebs conference in the Telegraph. Apparently they've rewritten Three Lions to be a pro-EU song. Some of the new words

Gold stars on the flag,
four freedoms still gleaming,
glory years of peace,
kept us all campaigning

Of course, 'gleaming' and 'campaigning' don't rhyme, but 'cam-peening' does. Which, for me, just about sums them up.

I don't care who is leading/organising the campaign. Frankly, if MPs have a problem with telling us whether they think a woman can have a penis, they are waiting for someone to expose their ridiculousness. Hold stupid, offensive views? Then don't complain when people hold you to account for those views.

I don't care who is co-ordinating it.

The important thing is someone is getting their finger out and showing us who believes this nonsense so we can judge if they are the sort of person we want to trust with our vote.

As I keep saying, it's not the messenger or their motives I care about it's what an individual politician believes.

Yep. You're right about all the lies and fibs on all issues, I just feel that this is one with a simple yes/no answer. If a politician (or anyone, actually) is prepared to lie to my face about the sex binary, I want to know because if they'll lie about that, they will lie about anything.

It's the most basic of litmus tests for me.

"But shaming individuals is not how to go about that.But shaming individuals is not how to go about that."

So, it is shaming to upload an MPs definition of women?
Why? If this is something that an MP is ashamed of, isn't that a significant point to start with?

If a candidate hasn't got their head around the issues yet, they will have had plenty of warning that this is happening. And political parties need to give them appropriate support.

If the political party is 'ashamed' of their stance, they need to address that.

Yes, @Baldieheid that is exactly how I see it as well.

It's what my dad used to refer to as a type of 'simple idiot test'.

Does this mean that he has failed the purity test and we can all turn our little minds back to knitting and kittens?

Mark Gallagher’s main company, Pagefield PR, represent some high profile sportswomen. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the initiative comes from a concert of sportswomen. And who can blame them for not wanting to put their heads above the parapet. Good initiative.

Well, I guess it fills all the spare time they must have 😂

So, Mark Gallagher is a 'spin doctor'. And the question remains, does it matter?

Can you explain if the women who support this initiative as public figures have done their research and are satisfied as to the intentions of this initiative, and those providing the content for upload have done their research, what the issue is?

Is Mark Gallaher incapable to managing the process?

Are you always this disingenous? I didn't remotely suggest that gender critical people shouldn't support whoever you want. Another poster asked who Riverside were, and whether GC people were being used for other purposes and I answered. I'm not the only person who has doubts about them.

If Sex Matters had run this campaign (as I initially thought) there would be no issue.

"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?"

Oh, you sweet summer child! That evaluation should include a look at who is behind it, and what their motives are, for example, why are the tobacco and oil lobby funding the IEA?

That evaluation should include a look at who is behind it, and what their motives are

Again, as quite a few of us are saying we don't care who is behind it or what their motives are.

If a politician states they believe a man can become a woman/a woman can have a penis is it a yes/no factual statement with no opinion/no ambiguity.

As such the politicians belief would be reported the same way were it reported in the Guardian or the Daily Mail (for example).

The website will inform people about a certain belief a politician may have and then voters can decide if they want to trust that person with their vote by taking that knowledge and using their own judgement.

It is a factual yes/no answer and who reports that answer is immaterial to many, including me.

No. I am pointing out that we are very capable making our own decisions. I have pointed this out to other posters as well.

You are again here trying to tell people who are dominantly women, that a website is going to be problematic because a person providing a professional service to some other people you disagree with is involved. Perfectly happy that you have a voice on this platform, however you have a pattern for shaming women who disagree that males can become women. Your post here is just par for the course.

I love SD, what a good idea. I won't vote for any party who don't know what a woman is.

It isn't a factual yes/no answer, as well you know.
Legally, people with penises can be women.
Biologically they are not adult human females.

You are basically doing the same as "trans women are women - do you agree?" But from the other side of the fence.

There is no good answer for particularly female MPs. Say "women cant have penises" and get rape and death threats from TRAs. Say "legally, women can have penises" and get ridiculed by the press and accused of fence sitting like starmer and castigated by feminist groups.