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

You don't need to "define a woman"

You just did in your comment.

While ironically, being used to shut female posters up

Not at all.

"Let them speak" is another one of our favourite mottos.

Regardless of what poster here think, they're going to have to have definitions, have baseline figures and case studies to have a hope of solving anything let alone proving that they have.

Female sexual and serious violent offending is so rare that TW being logged as women is already distorting the recorded offending rates.

Also, i wonder if violence against young women and girls identifying as nonbinary and trans are going to be missing from the figures.

Exactly.

If the government decided to deal with domestic violence, and only ever referred to victims and offenders, we all know which sex would predominantly be in which category.

Nit picking about gender ideology is a massive distraction in the specific case of reducing VAWG. I don't understand why some posters are so hell bent on prioritising "defining woman" over reducing violence.

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

Snigger.

If a man identifies as a woman, then is it still male violence?

Cos this kinnnnndddaaaa matters!

Legal definitions are not a fuzzy thing you can pretend don't matter.

You can't base law and government policy on assumptions and generalisations. You have to be clear about definitions. Clarity requires an ability to think critically; to be able to analyse content, which in itself requires an ability to differentiate between one type of thing and another.

"What is purple?"

"Purple is a concept that isn't defined. My favourite colour is red."

"So how do you know red isn't purple if purple is a concept that's not defined?"

"Red is one of the other colours. Why are you being so stupid?"

"...."

Yes and for Jess Phillips she's specifically said she sees the trans issue as separate from her work in helping vulnerable women:

"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."

"The idea that I am meant to parrot 'transwomen are women' as a slogan is fucking meaningless."

"It should not be beyond the wit of man to protect women's biological sex spaces and provide different spaces for trans people."

This is from an interview earlier this year. I don't see anything to worry about in her appointment to this role. She gets it.

Lord Justice Plickyplonk is making a legal judgement about male violence. But Lord Justice Plickyplonk, can't clarify whether the feeling of the victim makes them a woman by law or whether the perp is a woman by law or not.

Lord Justice Plickyplonk then cant rule whether it's a hate crime under the New anti Misgynogy laws or not. Because Lord Justice Plickyplonk requires legal definitions. Defendant gets a fine and a mild telling off. The victim fears leaving the house.

Meanwhile Lord Justice Oink seems that anyone who says they are a woman is a woman. Therefore the 6'8" womanly perp can't be done under the New Misgynogy laws for hitting the 5'0" bloke. Defendant walks free.

And Lord Justice Squeaky defines men and women on the basis is sex alone because New Law is so wooly and the victim in this case can afford a bloody good solicitor to make the case that the perp is a lying twat. Lord Justice Speaky throws the book at the defendant.

So 'justice' in a world of fudge and lack of definition is just great and completely fair and equal.

Sounds bloody great.

Do transwomen commit male violence?

I agree wholeheartedly and wish so-called "liberal feminists" would let us get on with the important work of fighting for female people's rights.

Yes they do.
Their offending patterns and rates are the same as those of men who do not identify as trans. In fact, recent data suggests that their offending rates are higher and they are OVER represented in prison.
The types of crimes they commit are also the same.

In fact, it's almost as if they are, and remain, men despite wearing dresses.

I know. That was the point. It’s a nonsense to say ‘you don’t need to define a woman, you need to deal with male violence’, as though the two are entirely unrelated

If only we had a word for female people. How about wummin? Maybe Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud? Anyone?

"Feminist infighting"

Like boring on and on and on about why KJK is a rotter and how sadly she's doing it wrong and did you know she got in trouble on the mumsnets ages ago? That kind of thing?

Quite.

I've said it before but it bears repeating.

Either you believe that "women" means "female people".

Or you believe that "women" means "most female people, including those who identify as female or do not believe they have a gender identity, but excluding those who identify as something other than female, plus some male people who identify as female".

If you believe the latter, I have two questions for you.

1. What is the word for "female people"?
2. What is the purpose of the latter category?

Because I cannot think of a single situation in which I would ever need to talk about that group of people.

Why does the equality act state protected characteristics of sex AND then a separate one for gender reassignment including those who have a GRC or are in the process of getting one as DIFFERENT if they are one and the same?

Why does the Equality act allow explicitly for exclusion in certain situations relating to sex if these are the same thing?

And why are we being told by Stonewall and Labour that the wording of the equality act means what they say it does not what others think it does because they have different understandings of the law.

And why is self ID needed if you can already say well I'm going through transition even though I have no intention of getting a GRC but I deserve the same rights to those who go through the process despite the law.

I mean it's almost as if people are deliberately trying not to see the cluster fuck this has become because it's a bit inconvenient to their political views. And to hell with fairness.

Also, why is self ID needed if getting a GRC is already not necessary for the purposes of accessing single sex spaces for the opposite sex, and you can't be asked to produce yours or even be asked if you have one?

Schroedingers GRC innit.

And why are we being told by Stonewall and Labour that the wording of the equality act means what they say it does not what others think it does because they have different understandings of the law.

My understanding of Labour's position is that it says the Equality Act 2010* *means what it says it means, i.e. that sex is binary, either male or female - hence the fact that they don't believe it is necessary to amend it, because it makes it perfectly clear that they are different. It very deliberately separates out gender reassignment as another protected class because the sex of trans people does not change. Certainly Starmer was saying that in the debates in the run-up to the election.

'Your understanding'
What about 'Bobs understanding'
Or Felicity's.

Why are we having conversations discussing how there isn't a clearly recognised universal concept so no one can argue the toss and there's no confusion?

I mean I doubt we'd have had an argument about this 10 years ago.

Perhaps the middle ground would be to bring in self ID but also strengthen the Equality Act to clarify that sex means biological sex and make the single sex exemptions mandatory rather than optional in certain circumstances.

Erm. No.

Where does this leave wives? Where does this leave children?

Have we had a study on the physiological impact on close relatives told their existence is a lie and their memories and their own identity formation doesn't matter because someone else says so, and if they get It wrong they are a hateful bigot?

Identity formation is not purely individual. It is also shared particularly amongst close family members. It is about how we relate to others too.

A girl who has grown up with a brother has those lived experiences - and is rightly or wrongly shaped by that. To suddenly say that her life experience is invalid and she must now tell everyone she had a sister doesn't work. She lacks that lived experience and ability to relate to other girls who have sisters.

This stuff actually does matter.

@RedToothBrush Fair points.