WPUK statement

[RapidOnsetGenderCritic]

What should people make of this?

https://x.com/womans_place_uk/status/1862105940176060787?s=61

Oh, gosh: that exchange with Julie Bindel...

I know!

Yes, this is another issue GC people have struggled against, the idea that if they engage with people, or "share a platform" or anything they are therefore "aligned."

It's possible to do all of these things and not be aligned, or actually even be "opposed". Though that's a pretty reduced set of categories!

He's obviously a master manipulator to have a 10+ year relationship with an "avowed" lesbian.

Being an avowed lesbian seems like it might involve a lot of heavy lifting compared to being just a regular lesbian. Maybe she was happy to have some sort of practical compromise?

No they don't regret it. They've told me they don't.

What was the purpose of having Harrison and Hayton on their panels?

If they were debating the pros and cons of self id, I'd understand. Or if they were clear that these men were representing TRA as opposed to womens rights. But these men were supposedly against self id, so weren't even a counter view of WPUK.

As far as i can see, their only purpose was to advertise the acceptable 'transwomen' to the audience.

For me the reaction of certain WPUK people to the Hamas attacks
and the lack of support for women - who are massively oppressed in Gaza by Hamas
was when I realised that they were more left right tribal
than purely pro women.

What was the purpose of having Harrison and Hayton on their panels?

They thought they were using Hayton to give them a rebuttal to accusations of transphobia (it didn't work). In fact they were being used by Hayton to give him respectability, to advance his arguments against self ID and in favour of the reasonable transexual: AGP (which has always been his aim) to start his progress towards a second career in journalism, and to probably give him a sexual frisson about being accepted by feminists

It's occurred to me that given I've been accused of lying all week on Twitter, I should provide receipts for my assertion that WPUK didn't regret platforming Hayton etc: see this conversation-

x.com/transwidows/status/1501123860296617989?s=46&t=PSGltfjrMyZmBtYq2-AVIQ

I also was told similar by another WPUK leader in a private FB group.

I (and others I knew) talked about it because we were confused by WPUK headlining men and came to the conclusion that Debbie Hayton and Kristina Harrison were being used as human shields against allegations of transphobia. But it took quite a lot of thought and self-reflection for us to stop feeling mean that we didn't like DH and KH and didn't think they were appropriate for a women's organisation to be promoting.

I think DH in particular held the movement up for quite a time. When I gathered a few GC woman with the plan of starting a regional group to target decision-makers in our neck of the woods, there was at least one woman who thought we ought to have a man who said he was a woman on board so that we could say we weren't transphobic. A number of women I had thought of as GC stalwarts thought that was a great idea. I walked away and found the WRN.

Julie Bindel's fawning response to Harrison has been lurking in my mind all day. It troubles me that she/ WPUK can have been so wrong. Not sure why it bothers me so much, but it does.

Sorry it might work better to link the convo from here:

x.com/tybilalper/status/1501137056457801737?s=46&t=PSGltfjrMyZmBtYq2-AVIQ

If it was to avoid accusations of transphobia, why use a man who self ids? Wouldnt it be more obvious to use women with GRC not a man without one?

I can't see how they were ever serious about fighting self id when they recognise men without GRC as women.

Interesting. However, given the number of supporters of self-ID who declined asynchronous or remote interviews on (say) Woman's Hour with someone who doesn't subscribe to gender ideology, I can't think how that would have happened.

I'm thinking of Woman's Hour when TRAs affected to be so intimidated that they wouldn't participate in a live discussion because of fears for their safety. The various participants were in outside broadcast different studios and included terrifying figures such as professors of human rights and law.
They would only accord to recorded pieces. Alex Sharpe likened "exclusive feminism" to "bubonic plague". NB: Alex Sharpe is/was a barrister with Garden Court Chambers (re: Allison Bailey's tribunal).
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3434210-Womens-Hour-features-interviews-with-Professor-Alex-Sharpe-and-Professor-Rosa-Freedman-as-part-of-Sex-Gender-series-Thread-title-edited-at-OPs-request?

Grace Lavery agreed to a live discussion (in-person) with Helen Joyce, only to withdraw:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4485421-Grace-Lavery-Helen-Joyce-debate-1-4-2022-It-is-real?page=2&reply=115301349

You are talking about men and their unwillingness to speak with anyone opposed to them. Thats not a problem for any womens group to solve.

A womans group who supported the GRA but not self id would surely platform women who benefit from GRA. That would be relevant to the audience and their cause, wouldnt it?

What does the audience learn from a man who says he's against self id, but has a successful career promoting himself as a self id 'woman'? Its just a man saying 'do as i say, not what i do' at meetings about how bad self id is for women.

They never challenged him, only listened to him.

You are talking about men and their unwillingness to speak with anyone opposed to them. Thats not a problem for any womens group to solve.

My intention was to explore the suggestion about a panel with someone with a GRC and extending it to supporter of the ideology.

NB: Sharpe is female. Example of a supporter of self-ID and gender ideology who was unwilling to engage in discussion with a peer academic, lawyer etc.

https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3416075-Shocked-by-sexual-offences-lecture-sex-by-deception-and-bigoted-women

You're missing my point.

The wpuk meetings weren't debating TRA vs feminism, they were about fighting self id. They didnt need to prove that they weren't transphobic to the audience, or promote a man without a grc as a woman.

At best, these men just confused their message.

If they wanted to show that GRA is no danger to women, but self id is, what does hayton bring to the party?

I'm pretty sure Alex Sharpe is male.

If I remember correctly and it is the same one, I think you are right.

https://www.keele.ac.uk/research/ourresearch/law/alexsharpe/

😮

Alex Sharpe is definitely a trans-identified male.

WPUK was the first
but it did not move with the times
on AGPs (and please note that not all transexual males are AGP)
and leftist antisemitism condoning grooming gangs and Hamas

Re: Alex Sharpe. My mistake although a better example than I thought about unwillingness to engage with peers. (I did look up previous threads 🙁 i) I forgot ii) moderation then means that posts in that period aren't wholly accurate.)

I don't think WPUK was the first anything, was it?