Jess Phillips appointed a minister to focus on tackling violence against women and girls and domestic violence.

[IwantToRetire]

Jess Phillips has been appointed to the Labour government as a minister, focusing on tackling violence against women and girls and domestic violence.

The Labour MP has been a vocal campaigner on the subject, and has become known for reading out a list of all the women killed by men in the UK every year on International Women's Day in parliament.

Ms Phillips had the role of shadow domestic violence and safeguarding minister from 2020 to 2023 under Sir Keir Starmer but resigned over the party's stance on the Middle East conflict in November.

She was one of 56 Labour MPs - including eight frontbenchers - to vote in favour of an SNP motion calling for an immediate ceasefire in the Middle East.

This defied the Labour whip, and so Ms Phillips had to step aside.

More ... https://news.sky.com/story/jess-phillips-made-minister-following-frontbench-resignation-over-middle-east-13175726

Remember. Domestic abuse INCLUDES not only physical abuse but also emotional abuse.

Is it not emotional abuse to do this in a family situation?

This is about power dynamics as much as identity.

A woman is not permitted to define herself. She must defer to the definitions imposed on her whilst men are not held to the same standards.

You can see it on this thread where women are told they shouldn't argue about it, but everyone knows automatically what a man as default as an equal and opposite.

Except it clearly isn't.

It does matter, it is emotional abuse. Questioning someone's reality, indicating them speaking about their experiences is wrong, denying someone's lived experience and perceptions and expecting them to lie, these are characteristics of coercive control.

This is what I was saying.

Also, if we looked at the profile of those being told all their lived experience is wrong and they have to lie, we'd find it was disproportionately female people and children being told this. Not men.

Even the toilets thing.

Women say we don't want males in the same toilets as us because male violence they get told to shut up.
Male identifying as a woman says they don't want to use the mens because of male violence and that's just fine.

How do women tell the difference? Why is male violence relevant to one group but not the other?

If it's not about violence and it's about validation, why does that trump religious considerations and safety?

Never mind privacy and dignity and all the laws we have relating to voyeurism which suddenly just evaporate at the mere sniff of Self ID.

If you can't define red, does it stop your favourite toothbrush being red? 🤔

#disappearsintonavel

Yes. She is great. I'm a fan.

Yes that makes perfect sense.

As usual you don't pick up on the actual point, you make a totally irrelevant straw man argument because hell, that equates to law making.

Good o.

Enjoy your argument.

And does any of this stop Lord PlinkyPlonk sentencing the violent person in court? Does any of it stop the justice system being updated to more effectively protect victims of sexual and domestic violence?

I don't think it makes much difference at all. Ironically because I'm a GC feminist. The words we use don't affect the reality which is men-as-a-class are the vast majority of domestic and sexual abuse offenders and women-as-a-class are the victims.

So as safeguarding for women and girls will she be ensuring that there are single sex loos available for school girls in all schools?

Given there is data showing a horrifying level of rapes and sexual assaults on school premises, at a basic level, girls should be able to go to the toilet without fear of a boy being next door or in the room.

As I say. Enjoy your argument in missing the point.

If you struggle with the concept of law and the importance of definitions in ensuring fairness and justice in lawmaking I'm sorry I can't help you.

You inability to do this, doesn't stop us arguing the case with people who can and those responsible for law making.

If you struggle with the concept of law and the importance of definitions in ensuring fairness and justice in lawmaking I'm sorry I can't help you.

You inability to do this, doesn't stop us arguing the case with people who can and those responsible for law making.

Yup.

It is my actual point.
Doesn't matter if women are called non-men, snargles, cis-women or even just people. The reality is they are disproportionately victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence, men are disproportionately offenders.

Take action against the crimes and women will be protected and male offenders will be prosecuted. Regardless of what we call them.

I prefer to focus on the outcome over the method. Wanging on about "what a woman is" in the case of VAWG is pedantry that doesn't contribute to the outcome.

Not the case in other issues affecting women (such as single sex spaces) but I guess that's why Labpur have split the role. Annaliese Dodds/Bridget Phillipson get to do the "what a woman is" and safeguarding bit. Jess Phillips gets to do the reducing VAWG bit.

Very sensible.

Help yourself. Shouting about meanie lefties on Mumsnet is definitely going to influence lawmakers 😂

As an exercise in missing the entire point you score 10/10.

Congrats.

“That person stole my favourite toothbrush “
”Can you describe it”
”It’s red”
”All the toothbrushes in that person’s possession are purple. Nothing we can do”

Obviously yes.
If a TW beats the shit out of their partner, then hopefully Labour's Domestic Violence strategy will mean its more likely to be dealt with effectively.

Even if they’re categorised as women? How does that work?

You are missing my point.
If the police decided to reduce toothbrush theft, knowing red toothbrushes were way more likely to be stolen, then your favourite toothbrush would be less likely to be stolen. Even though the thief pretended it was purple.

Look I'm not arguing that we shouldn't define women. I'm arguing that in the case of reducing VAWG it's important not necessary. And giving politicians a hard time for "not knowing what a woman is" is a hindrance rather than a help.

Because its still domestic violence? Way more likely to be committed by men??

Unless you think the legal system is somehow biased to be more forgiving of women DV offenders. I don't believe that,but I know certain people do.

Don't forget Labour want to add misogyny as an aggravating factor in law. This means it would carry a stronger sentence. But being unable to define whether someone was a woman or not, would have an impact on this. As would defining a male as a woman. Thus leading to differences in sentencing and a feeling of injustice.

We are already seeing cases where transwomen are not being treated equally to men for similar crimes where the victim is a woman.

This really isn't ok.

No she's not. She's got your point. Your point is you are deliberately missing the point and are trying to argue your way out of that from that starting point.

Whatever. Are we going to flex the expert line in a minute?

I am allowed a different opinion to you without it being "missing the point". Ideological purity tests for whether a politician can do their job do my head in, especially when 1) its not relevant to the job and 2) it's always aimed at women.

When is it ok to refer to 'her penis' in a court of law?

When the defendant is in the dock or only after when found guilty of rape?

Is the victim relevant or aren't they worthy of care? Is only the defendant relevant because they are yet to be found guilty and therefore their feelings are more important than a potentially traumatised individual?

Does sex hierarchy play into this?

Anyway, can't be arsed arguing with people who cannot tolerate any opinion that isn't their own. Good luck to JP and thank fuck for a Labour government who are going to do something about VAWG.