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

If anyone is wondering whether misogyny is a thing of the past-just have a look at the comments on Twitter under the Home Office announcement of Jess's appointment.

The constant faux naivety of the 'we should stop wasting time and energy on nit picking about definitions' is achingly frustrating.

As other posters have eloquently demonstrated, it's the key to good law making.

To those arguing that it's a distraction - have you ever been involved in drafting legislation? Because I have, and I have seen first hand how precise definitions are key to workable legislation. It takes weeks/ months of 'nit picking' as you put it to ensure that the set of instructions does what it's intended to do.

Legislation is just like computer programming. Everything has to be defined exactly. It's no good telling the computer 'oh well you know what I meant' if there's a logical failure in the instructions you've given it.

Law is the same. It needs absolute clarity and no flexibility in interpretation.

It would be like setting up a charity to help save the rainforest, without bothering to define what a rainforest is.

Cue wasting resources on issues that are without the scope of the aims of the charity.

Is this copse in a rainy area a rainforest? What about this clump of trees that's a bit damp? Where do you draw the line?

If you don't draw the line clearly your impact will be diluted by wasting resources on things that were not your primary aim.

(Disclaimer for our favourite derailers: NB this is an analogy to illustrate my previous point. I realise we aren't talking about charities/rainforest).

Also (forgive me, I'm on a roll) if you don't agree, that's fine.

But perhaps those of us who do think clarity is important might be permitted to say so and discuss it without constant derailing of 'youre wrong because I don't agree'.

Defining women in law as "females of any age" and defining "female" as having its biology textbook meaning doesn't stop TW from being protected from discrimination and harassment. The Equality Act 2010 doesn't just protect people who have a protected characteristic, but also those who are perceived to have it. A derailer asked about the "passing" TW who gets discriminated against when applying for a job because he's perceived as being able to become pregnant. He would be able to claim discrimination on the basis of having been perceived as female. TW who don't pass would still be protected on the basis of gender reassignment because clarifying the definition of sex has no impact on the definition of gender reassignment.

So I don't understand why the derailers have a bee in their bonnet about making "sex" mean "biological" for EA purposes. It has no impact on TWs, a beneficial effect on TM as it ensures that they have the right to access female services like cervical and breast screening, and benefits women.

Yes! It's such a cliché. The previous government knew what a woman was and systematically set about making them, poorer, sicker and removing their rights.

I am absolutely loving the appointments this government is making. People who actually know and care about the work their department needs to do. Baffling that that's something new.

The ultimate fantasy of a 40/50 something AGP male : being mistaken for a young lass who would therefore need the protections afforded to females of childbearing age

You're not wrong, but I met a younger (late 20s) transitioner a few years back who you'd struggle to spot until he spoke, and he might need those protections. Also, when your CV says "Alice" and your graduation date is five years ago, the recruiter can't see you to see your actual sex and will make assumptions based on name and inferred approximate age.

My point isn't that TW pass, most of them don't, but that in cases where they are perceived as female, they would be protected on the basis of perceived sex, so clarifying "sex" as biological in law does not affect their legal protections.

By defining biological sex, were in danger of making woman a subset of female, and therefore changing the definition of female. Similar to saying there are two types of women - cis and trans, there will be two types of female - biological and legal (?).

The GRA is a document to give someone a gender, and be treated as if they are the opposite sex in certain situations, not that they are the opposite sex. Clarify the GRA to say when men should be treated as if they are female, but we dont need to change the definition of sex to do that.

To have a legal clarity that sex means biological sex it means that other types of sex exist. Which they don't.

Doing this would be weaponised and the more we keep trying to put laws in to redefine reality against unreality the more the unreality will get used to make more bad law.

The only solution is to Repeal the GRA.

I've found it!

The source of the story about Jess Phillips being made a Minister is ... Jess Phillips!

So it turns out not only could Starmer not be bothered to talk to her, but she had to make do with a casual phone call from Sue Gray.

Added to which the .gov.uk web site does not include this info in the page about her post at the Home Office, and the page listing all the ministerial appointments does not mention this.

So both Jess Phillips and women are being insulted or at best sidelined.

How many people are going to track down a short article from an interview on Coast fm?

https://www.coastfm.co.uk/news/uk/jess-phillips-on-being-made-a-minister

Glad to hear Jess has this appointment, she's been consistently speaking up on this issue more than anyone else in govt or opposition for years.

I wonder if she regrets resigning her shadow role over Gaza after being targeted by a violent and threatening pro-Palestinian campaign throughout this election period?

Female is a matter of biology. You've got it all backwards.

In what situations should a man be treated like he's a woman?

I think the point was that we are in danger of suggesting that there are two types of woman. Use of the term 'biological woman' must be resisted; it is the latest in the long line of linguistic manipulations which have been created to suggest that males can be women too.

So what about infertile women. What about women who have had a hysterectomy. Are they still women? Do they still experience discrimination based on still looking like they could get pregnant.

Of course they’re women, otherwise they wouldn’t have a female condition rendering them infertile. Ditto hysterectomy. You can’t have a hysterectomy unless you’re a woman. Women experience all sorts of discrimination, and older women experience the particular kind that sees them as old and no longer capable of getting pregnant (or “fuckable”, as it’s often crudely expressed).

It’s astonishing that people still trot out these ridiculous, disingenuous arguments.

Female is a matter of biology. You've got it all backwards.

Thats why we shouldn't allow a definition of sex that isn't based on something other than biology. Sex is reproductive potential, not an aquired gender.

The EqA doesnt need sex clarifying because sex doesnt have multiple meanings.

In what situations should a man be treated like he's a woman?

I don't think we should, but the GRA says its possible. Its up to the government to clarify when and why.

"Being treated as if he were a woman".

What can this possibly mean, except for permitting him to use women's facilities,; to enter women's events; and to use women's services?

i don't think it means 'get paid less'; 'do the bulk of the housework'; 'cry at weddings'; 'discuss curtain material during lunch-break'...although I'm sure a few men might like to role play the above now and then, to suit.

The problem is 'the concept of 'legal sex' - which suggests that sex can be biological, or sex can be 'legal'.

Women's protections are not predicated on how a woman looks, though...they are predicated on the fact of being a woman...an adult human female.

Being a woman or a man is not just about superficial surface appearances.

I'm sure trans identifying men can be protected under the category of gender re-assignment........nothing to do with women's rights and protections.

When so many people conflate “sex” and “gender”, including individuals and organisations that should know better, when the precise meaning of “sex” is unclear in existing legislation, and when there exists a fiction that a woman can be a legal entity, rather than a biological one, yes, the meaning of “sex” must be more clearly defined in biological terms.

Yes,the whole thing is beyond ridiculous.

The GRA is a document to give someone a gender, and be treated as if they are the opposite sex in certain situations, not that they are the opposite sex.

The GRA does say that the person becomes the opposite sex.

Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman).

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/9

In other words, the problem is the GRA. It should be repealed.

"I understand why some posters are so hell bent on prioritising "defining woman" over reducing violence."

What violence are we talking about then. General violence? Violence against who and by whom exactly? Who knows? Who cares!

"MRAs must be loving it. Feminist infighting stopping progress being made."

Trans Rights Activists are Men's Rights Activists. Maybe MRAs should just be on the pride flag now.