Jess Philips on VAWG and single sex spaces.

[ArabellaScott]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/02/24/jess-phillips-lindsay-hoyle-jo-cox-murder-gaza-vote/

Interviewed in the Telegraph, including on VAWG, and trans issues. Archived in the usual places.

'Would she still like to be prime minister? “I’d still give it a crack, sure!” she says, firmly. “I used to want to be the home secretary. But I’ve learnt I don’t have that special skill of plotting, organising for your own progression that you need to get on. Women are less interested in that than men. My only ambition in politics is to halve the levels of violence experienced by women and girls in a decade. Despite two women dying every week there is still <a class="break-all" href="https://archive.is/o/X8IhI/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/10/09/jess-philips-womens-lives-risk-failure-reform-child-payouts/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">no strategy or target around femicide. We live in a patriarchy still. It is 2024 but all our institutions are based on a 1950s, or 1850s or even 1750s ideal that doesn’t work for women.”

Prior to becoming an MP she worked for Women’s Aid and ran rape crisis refuges. I believe her when she says it is her life’s purpose. Phillips is a rare bird in today’s politics – a confident, clever working-class woman.

So where is she on trans issues, how has her work on protecting women been affected by this debate? “The actual work hasn’t been affected at all. The political space has undoubtedly been affected, not all negatively.” Can she still speak about women? “Of course! I feel totally comfortable speaking out about women – sometimes when I talk about women that means different things. I am capable of holding two ideas in my head at once… I believe in single sex spaces for biological women, prisons, refuges etc. – 100 per cent. I’ve got the T-shirt on that. But also, if someone asks me to refer to them as a woman, I personally will do that. I’ll call you whatever you ask me to. <a class="break-all" href="https://archive.is/o/X8IhI/www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/04/09/jess-phillips-no-trans-person-met-has-said-cant-say-woman/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">I am happy to refer to transwomen as women. But also the idea that I am meant to parrot ‘transwomen are women’ as a slogan is f-g meaningless.” Classic Phillips. Having her cake and eating it.

“When I worked in women’s refuges, we always asked questions on the referral forms about people’s sex at birth, whether people had transitioned, basically. The language we used would probably get you sent to the gallows now.” She smiles and goes into a long explanation about how “there are all sorts of reasons why women who are referred might not be allowed in a refuge, not just trans. For instance, if a woman had a 14-year-old son with her, she wouldn’t be allowed in the main women’s refuge centre, she would be cared for in dispersed houses within the community with supervision so she could stay with her son. Or women with child protection issues or those with substance abuse issues.

This is Parliament’s responsibility, it’s up to the legislature to make it clear. She stresses that it is disabled women, older women and those with complex needs who have “the hardest time accessing the right kind of safe spaces… We need to have women’s biological spaces, but also when I was on Birmingham City Council, I commissioned domestic refuges for LGBTQ+ folk, particularly men beaten up by their partners. It should not be beyond the wit of man to protect women’s biological sex spaces and provide different spaces for trans people.”'

When I asked Jess at an event about males being allowed into women’s refuges if they identified as trans, she said she thought it should be on a case by case basis.

That was a few years ago so I’m glad she’s apparently changed her mind in the meantime.

This is nothing new. Jess Phillips swapped sides openly last year. Most notably at the Labour Conference where she clearly sat at the "mean girls" table by appearing on a Labour Women's Declaration platform. There is NO WAY back from that.

See these threads:
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4922319-labour-womens-declaration-labour-conference-video-how-can-labour-champion-freedom-for-women-and-girls

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4916509-has-jess-phillips-finally-found-her-spine?page=5

Yes she should have done it earlier, BUT I would guess 70-80% of us on this board were trans believers before we peaked. Jess had her doubts for years obviously, kept trying to keep everyone happy only ending up being hated by TRAs and by gender sceptics. Yes she is a bit opportunistic in some ways, but she is a politician goes with the territory.

Note though the one person who has always backed Jess Phillips was Rosie Duffield who has said multiple times she counts Jess as a friend. I notice people calling out Jess Phillips for not backing Rosie when in fact she did do that. Jess was one of the few Labour MPs who went on record years back defending Rosie in public in 2020. Yes she used political language, BUT remember most Labour people refused to do what Jess Phillips did, and it was risky to to do it. Since that point TRAs in the party who never trusted her have been gunning for her.
https://labourlist.org/2020/08/i-dont-think-rosie-duffield-is-a-transphobe-says-jess-phillips/
The two women clearly like each over. Like when Rosie got hassled in the Commons in Jan 2023 the first person to back her was Jess Phillips.
https://www.gbnews.com/politics/labour-mp-shunned-by-starmer-after-being-jeered-for-standing-up-for-womens-rights-in-trans-debate-none-of-them-ask-me/426963

Rosie Duffield said: “It's just disappointing isn't it, when every woman stood up those same people were heckling, not the men, even though some of them made the same point. But it was when women stood up (that there was heckling).

“My friend Jess Phillips was sitting behind me. She was just appalled.

“We were talking amongst ourselves about how every time a woman stood we got jeered, and that's not a great look.”

I think Jess peaked privately long ago to Rosie and others, but was possibly too cautious to come out. In that she is like a huge number of other women and men. Lets welcome her over, because if we are going to win this thing we are going to need plenty of people like her.

Note she was Shadow Minister for Domestic Violence and Safeguarding since 2020 till Nov 2023 when she resigned over Gaza. This is a disaster for gender crits in the party as she was one of the few truly sound people on the Labour front bench. It also demonstrates the odd view of Phillips as a careerist is pretty unsound - whether over Corbyn, women's rights, or this resignation Jess Philips has done a bunch of risky things with little long term career benefit. If she was male people would think of her as a cool maverick, she is a woman so she gets seen as inconsistent - when in fact she was trying to juggle a bunch of stuff and keep true to her values. She screwed up a lot, sure, but being a woman politician is thankless anyway. We are better off with her on side than without her.

I think that's a fair point about her resigning from the shadow cabinet. Can she really be said to have come out though when even in that interview she openly says she can mean different things when she's talking about women?

I still haven't quite get used to being cast as an extremist because I believe public figures should use clear, unambiguous language when they're speaking on record. But here I am it seems.

I have divided politicians into two categories: the Signposts and the Weathercocks. The Signpost says: 'This is the way we should go.' And you don't have to follow them but if you come back in ten years time the Signpost is still there. The Weathercock hasn’t got an opinion until they've looked at the polls, talked to the focus groups, discussed it with the spin doctors. - tony benn

Jess isn't a signpost. But its positive that a weathercock feels brave enough to say women should have single sex refuges. It means that its safe for her to say that within the labour party.

She's not changed her opinion as far as I can see

I don't think this is having her cake and eating it. This is just being a socially liberal moderate. I agree with all her comments

Its all a bit vague, though.

Women need single sex services, GRA needs modernising and we'll call men women if they want us to.

But how does that actual achieve single sex services, and which services are included and which are excluded? Is jess going to support legislation that create joint services for women and men with gender? Or separate services?

In what way does eroding women's rights count as liberal? I see her kind of language as the opposite of liberal so you must be interpreting it very differently to me.

That's it. Her 'brand' if you will, WAS that she was the straight talking takes no shit, honest woman who fought hard for the most vulnerable in society and understood them more than anyone else because she'd worked in the sector. And that's how she pitched herself.

The reality is more like a wet lettuce and that's where the issue is.

The gap between the sales pitch and delivery of the goods. She's held to this standard, not because she's not GC enough, but because she pretended to be something more than she's been in practice.

See my point about Orwell and how he was socially liberal. Being socially liberal means you understand the problem with misuse of language and language creep and you understand failure to acknowledge reality in full and falling back into conformity is the fuel to allow Authoritarianism in.

Orwell wasn't extreme. He was observant and measured and most importantly understood the nature of the issue of being forced to uphold a fantasy so you don't stick out or be singled out.

Yes. And that maybe if we admire the integrity and intelligence of one, it may be that the other isn't so lacking, such a bogeyman, as we imagine. A lot of that is really projecting on the part of the public.

I think there needs to be some clarity about language is public contexts, but it's very difficult to do so because people tend to take one extreme or the other. Either you need to observe self-identity no matter what, or conversely saying people shouldn't be allowed to make their own judgments in their private interactions.

It would be nice if she'd expand on what contexts she sees as important and how they should be managed, but I suppose the question wasn't asked, and because no one really talks about it, it may not be something she's thought about much. It needs to come into the public discourse, because not everyone is going to agree, so we need some specific defining of when biologically accurate uses need to be enforced as normative.

That interview comes across as someone who has/had principles and is/was standing by them hoping for higher office in their career. In other words, someone who holds decent principles but not strongly enough to build their political platform on them. The strong and dependable stick too their convictions. The weaker cave in to the current fashion to some extent.

I think there needs to be some clarity about language is public contexts, but it's very difficult to do so because people tend to take one extreme or the other. Either you need to observe self-identity no matter what, or conversely saying people shouldn't be allowed to make their own judgments in their private interactions.

I think the difference with public discourse - and especially if you're a public servant - is that it's no longer just about your own feelings or those of the individual concerned. You're imparting information that will be on public record and so I think you have a responsibility to the wider public (especially if you're a public servant) to use clear, unambiguous language. Otherwise you're not doing your job properly.

There's the archetype of the impassioned politician of the people which often seems to be cultivated. May be true in some cases.

Swear a bit, get shouty in debates, cultivate an accent.

It matters if she wants to make sense

Well there is now a refuge for trans

www.thepinknews.com/2024/02/22/domestic-violence-refuge-trans-uk/

She's saying that there stil needs to be "some" single sex spaces - but along with the rest of Labour she never specifically mentions toilets; whereas toilets is where the greatest number of women and girls are going to be affected.

I think single sex toilet provision is fundamental - not an unnecessary or minor issue. Labour thinks saying "some single sex spaces" gives them a let out clause from having address the deeper issues within trans ideology.

This is all a recipe for a monumental fudge which will create more problems than it solves. How can you have( legal and procedural) clarity when you avoid facing most of the underlying issues?

The difference between biological sex and 'gender identity' needs to be made clear in legislation, for a start. Has Labour said anything about this? I don't think so.

You make it sound as if the issue is just a matter of a political identity ( "I identify as a socially minded liberal") rather than one of clarity and well made law. Law (and single sex protections) has to be made on a foundation of having considered all under-lying issues, addressing them and then drafting legislation which does as you want/intend/need for it to do.

As far as " holding two different ideas in my head" - that is all well and good and perfectly standard if the two ideas you are talking about, are not each contradicting the other, or creating cognitive dissonance.In embracing the idea that some men are women, then then being a woman becomes just an idea rather than a manifest reality.

How can this make for clear law which protects the dignity of actual biological women?

"In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance is the perception of contradictory information and the mental toll of it. Relevant items of information include a person's actions, feelings, ideas, beliefs, values, and things in the environment.. Cognitive dissonance is typically experienced as psychological stress when persons participate in an action that goes against one or more of those things. According to this theory, when an action or idea is psychologically inconsistent with the other, people do all in their power to change either so that they become consistent. The discomfort is triggered by the person's belief clashing with new information perceived, wherein the individual tries to find a way to resolve the contradiction to reduce their discomfort... "

Cognitive Dissonance does not work in law.

It just makes for bad law and making people's lives a misery either from the threat of legal proceedings (I refer to the above where issues have been civil matters but could now become in theory criminal matters due to poor law writing) or from actual legal proceedings.

With good law, everyone knows where they stand and what they can and can't do.

It really is like 2 + 2 = 5, isn't it?

No it's more like guess the number I thinking of.

Is it odd or even. If it's odd you win, if it's even you lose and I might take you to jail.

Whilst simultaneously saying it's a completely fair and reasonable game to be playing with other peoples lives.

I was thinking of Orwell's 1984 - whereby people had to accept whatever they were told was true, even if it went against their own knowledege of what was true....to the extent that nothing has any fixed meaning at all, and you just have to believe whatever Big Brother tells you is true in any given moment. Thought and critical thinking is ceded to the authorities.

One of ways that cognitive dissonance can be resolved is to just believe whatever you want to believe in any given moment - which, of course, perfectly aligns with the post modernistic idea that there is no objective reality.