WPUK statement

[RapidOnsetGenderCritic]

What should people make of this?

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

I think it was the first to offer events around Britain. My perception, based a four-hour train ride away from London, was that until WPUK most events were London-centric. Which I understand, because of the population and Parliament, but I can't tell you how good it was to be able to attend a large-scale event organised by women who appeared to have a plan, just an hour away from home.

Panels where people are all coming from the same perspective generally suck. It can make for a much better discussion if there are some really different experiences/perspectives involved.

The whole point of a panel discussion with an audience is to explore differernt ways of thinking about a topic.

They weren't willing to do this. They cancelled KJK's invitation to speak when she tweeted something they didn't like. I think they cancelled the whole meeting to avoid letting her speak. They didn't seem interested in other perspectives.

If you think the males were there for balance, it would have been better to also have a trans widow speak at the meetings where they spoke to give the other side of the story. Or better still, someone like Hayton's wife instead of Hayton. These were supposed to be meetings for women, after all. Having men in womanface speak sort of went against what they said they stood for. Why not have other men speak as well?

I have to say that in 2018, when I was struggling to get my head round this, I found it a positive that Hayton and Harrison were invited to speak at WPUK meetings. At the time their presence helped persuade me that I wasn't turning into a raging bigot. I doubt I was the only one.

It wasn't until I saw Stephanie Hayton on the Stella O'Malley documentary that pennies started to drop.

But I'm less sympathetic if WPUK say they look back at it now and don't have any regrets.

JFC, I thought the "tribalism of everything/unicause" stuff was bad in the US but you absolutely love it, don't you? Any other Wrong Think buzzwords you want to throw out there, while you're dividing the world into Us and Them?

Horseshoe theory is real, alright!

If you think the males were there for balance, it would have been better to also have a trans widow speak at the meetings where they spoke to give the other side of the story.

It's not realistic to ask a female abuse survivor to speak as a counterpoint to a male perpetrator at a feminist meeting.

Yes, you're right. I don't know what they were thinking of having men like this speak at their meetings.

I - for reasons I can't remember - get blog posts from a TiM called 'Clare Flourish'. I got this news re WPUK from his blog. He was chortling that the transphobe TERFs had been defeated (note WPUK was one of the few organisations fighting GI that allowed transwomen to speak - something I found interesting as those speakers universally pointed out that they were male). I think we need to be sorry they have shut up shop because of the assumptions by TRAs like Flourish that they've won, but also because WPUK was a (now) rare voice from the Left. As a socialist myself I find it hard (but entirely explicable, the Left has always had misogynistic leanings) that those who support the sort of society I support do not support women in this existential fight.

As a socialist myself I find it hard (but entirely explicable, the Left has always had misogynistic leanings) that those who support the sort of society I support do not support women in this existential fight.

I think the fact that WPUK never addressed this was part of the problem. They deliberately ignored the fact that the socialist 'progressive' left with which they were aligned was a massive part of the problem we were facing. They insisted that socialist feminism was the solution, while refusing to acknowledge that it was the socialists in the Labour movement who were pushing GI/ Transactivism. I think there was a lot of cognitive dissonance involved.

Who gives a shit, frankly, about what a deluded man who calls himself Clare Flourish thinks? Particularly when what he says/ writes indicates that he has zero understanding of what's actually going on.

I think it was the first to offer events around Britain.

We Need to Talk (Venice Allan) was doing this at the same time. They went to Brighton, York and Bristol, early on, after the Speakers' Corner meeting.

I recall at the Liverpool meeting in 2018 ( when Debbie Hayton spoke)...as all of the women, and a few men, were sat awaiting the start of the meeting......a very conspicuously dressed TW entered the room....very tall in a PVC Mac, fishnet tights, stilettos, and carrying a handbag......couldn't have been any more incongruous had he tried.

Well look, I don't know because I didn't make those decisions, but what I'd guess is that it is precisely because they didn't want to be, or be seen to be, in an echo chamber.

Or to be misunderstanding the perspective of people like Hayton because they hadn't actually bothered to allow them to describe their views or experience. Not only because that makes it really easy for others to accuse you of straw manning, but because in a lot of cases, it does actually create a risk of creating a straw man type of scenario.

Back at that point one of the main complaints of GC women was that the mainstream media and institutions were not allowing them to speak their piece, and were creating these demonized, often quite weird versions of the GC position. Not even being willing to engage with simple questions.

And that "trans" issues should not just be what trans people think because they also affect women, so they need to brought into the discussion.

If anyone is going to make that kind of complaint they tend to be very aware that the same complaint could easily be made about them - a bunch of women talking about things related to trans rights without even asking such people to give their experiences.

Things have moved on a lot now in the public discussion on this, but back then I think there was a lot more sense that one voice had tried to dominate not only discussion by women, but also perhaps among trans people, and it was important to get it straight what that group was thinking in order to have the material to discuss things properly. Early parts of a complex discussion involve a lot of gathering information, some of which may later be discarded, seen as irrelevant, etc.

I think the fact that WPUK never addressed this was part of the problem. They deliberately ignored the fact that the socialist 'progressive' left with which they were aligned was a massive part of the problem we were facing. They insisted that socialist feminism was the solution, while refusing to acknowledge that it was the socialists in the Labour movement who were pushing GI/ Transactivism. I think there was a lot of cognitive dissonance involved.

Yes, and they're still dancing around the issue in that statement. For example they very pointedly state that it was the Conservative government who proposed reforming the GRA in 2016/17, which is of course correct, but then they dodge the fact that it was also the Conservatives who were first to announce that they were pulling back from self ID, and who also blocked the Scottish Government when they tried to introduce it.

And not a word of reproach to the Trade Union movement. Is there a single union that's come out in support of women over this because I can't think of one? And yet you'd never know from that statement.

If you can't / won't even name the problem, I don't see how you're ever going to be able to tackle it.

Hard agree with you. I lost patience with WPUK over its blind loyalty to the unions, which have done everything they can to spread and cement GI throughout society: education, NHS, civil service. There was a man who identified as a woman working as Women's Officer for Unite (I think) in my area back in 2008. And not a word of criticism from WPUK.

If anyone can shed any light on the current Michael Foran 'professionalism' argument going on on TwiX, I'd be grateful. What's that all about? And what do terfs mean when they call someone an Ultra? I can't keep up.

I lost patience with WPUK over its blind loyalty to the unions, which have done everything they can to spread and cement GI throughout society: education, NHS, civil service.

Here are some WPUK statements criticising the unions:

https://womansplaceuk.org/2023/05/18/response-to-the-tucs-letter/

https://womansplaceuk.org/2022/06/23/unison-conference-votes-to-silence-womens-voices/

https://womansplaceuk.org/2020/09/16/there-was-no-debate-tuc-2020/

https://womansplaceuk.org/2020/03/10/you-ignore-us-at-your-peril-kiri-tunks/

You'd never have known any of that from the WPUK meetings I attended. I think LWD has been more effective at naming the issue publicly and taking women's issues to conference.

Well, I don't. But that was where I got the info and he obv was pleased. So I think it's a great shame WPUK are closing down (it's where I got my first info on this shit) because it leaves a gap. But I totally get that the dissonance between their political stance and the stance of the Left/Labour is soul-wearying and one would want to stop. Left/Labour doesn't listen to left-wing women any more than they listen to any others, anyway.

I have read the thread so, going back to the OP's question, I do not know quite what to make of what WPUK is saying.

I get the part about all the other groups continuing the fight but the bit about the "original demands" has me puzzled.

Woman’s Place UK: The Right Side of History
28th November 2024

https://womansplaceuk.org/2024/11/28/a-womans-place-uk-the-right-side-of-history/

"After seven years we are ending our campaign, knowing that we have largely achieved our original demands."

"Our original demands" links to:

https://womansplaceuk.org/about/

Our original 5 Demands

1. Respectful and evidence-based discussion about the impact of the proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act and for women’s voices to be heard.
2. The principle of women-only spaces to be upheld – and where necessary extended.
3. A review of how the exceptions in the Equality Act which allow for the provision of single-sex services and spaces are being applied in practice.
4. Government to consult with women’s organisations on how sex self-declaration would impact on women-only services and spaces.
5. Government to consult on how self-declaration will impact upon data gathering – such as crime, employment, pay and health statistics – and monitoring of sex-based discrimination such as the gender pay gap.

========

Those are the "original demands" that "we" (WPUK?) have "largely achieved".

Is this about right or have I been too generous or too mean?

✅ 1. "Respectful and evidence-based discussion about the impact of the proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act and for women’s voices to be heard."
Not always "respectful and evidence-based discussion" but the proposed changes to the GRA are (currently) off the table and women's voices were heard.

❌ 2. "The principle of women-only spaces to be upheld – and where necessary extended".
I assume that they must have their fingers firmly crossed that the Supreme Court ruling in the case of FWS vs ScotGov will uphold the principle of women-only spaces?

❌ 3. "A review of how the exceptions in the Equality Act which allow for the provision of single-sex services and spaces are being applied in practice."
Not since the EHRC published "Separate and single-sex service providers: a guide on the Equality Act sex and gender reassignment provisions" on 4 April 2022

✅ 4. "Government to consult with women’s organisations on how sex self-declaration would impact on women-only services and spaces."
Part of the GRA Reform consultations.

❓ 5. "Government to consult on how self-declaration will impact upon data gathering – such as crime, employment, pay and health statistics – and monitoring of sex-based discrimination such as the gender pay gap."
To be fair, WPUK were talking about "self-declaration" in relation to the proposed reforms to the GRA rather than continuing de facto "self-declaration" throughout government depts.

=======

It is fine that WPUK has recognised that they are now operating in a crowded space of (non-partisan) organisations fighting the good fight and have handed the left-wing baton of battling with the Labour Party to LWD.

WPUK has continued to publish relevant articles and make thoughtful, well-researched submissions to consultations. However, it seems a long time since they have been the "go to" organisation for anything other than divisive hit pieces on other women and other women's rights organisations.

They also say:

"From the start, this has been a grassroots, volunteer-led campaign.

We have never wished to become a permanent, professionalised organisation or NGO. There are other brilliant women’s sector organisations and policy specialists doing this important work. Ours has always been a different but complementary project."

Mmmm . . . Feb 2022, Ruth Serwotka and other members of the "Actual Gender Critical Left" bemoaned the fact that they (AGCL? WPUK?) had failed in their ambition to establish the "new women's movement" that they had set their hearts on.

I suspect everyone here can guess who they scapegoated for that failure.

R Serwotka: "She has derailed the birth of a new women's movement with the most toxic right wing shit. And it's been fully conscious."

J Egerton: "Ruth that's the truth. It breaks my heart tbh."

R Serwotka: "Jayne Egerton Mine to."

C Davies: "Ruth Serwotka Mine too. Actually, what breaks my heart even more is that women who follow her will not hear anything against her even when the evidence is before their eyes."

K Acosta: "Clare Davies I so agree..."

Maybe making a big show of throwing another woman to the wolves, and then vilifying other women as "domesticated zombies" when they wouldn't play along, was not such a winning formula for establishing a "new women's movement" after all?

WPUK's defamatory statements are easy to find and they show no sign of reconsidering whether they acted wisely or proportionately in 2018, choosing instead to alienate and put at risk even more women with a further statement in 2022.

This 2018 statement in response to WPUK's actions is not so easy to find, however:

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20181023150313/www.theposieparker.com/statement-about-tweets-and-wpuk" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://web.archive.org/web/20181023150313/www.theposieparker.com/statement-about-tweets-and-wpuk

We all have a lot to thank WPUK for, for all the work they did in 2017-2019 to mobilise, inspire and inform women, for all their research, submissions and online resources.

Unfortunately, they were also elitist, divisive, vicious in their attacks on several key women and compromised by prioritising men and socialism over women and women's rights.

Even their parting shot, that they were "on the right side of history", is a "lefty", male-centred in-joke. Who is that aimed at, after all, but Owen Jones?

Whether WPUK is destined to be a headline or a footnote "on the right side of history" will depend, I suspect, on the politics (and sex?) of the historian.

EDIT: Infuriating how Mumsnet messes up archive urls. Maybe this will work better?

https://shorturl.at/ikXJh

When you set it out like that...

This is a very stark reminder of how the public face of an organisation can be badly undermined when its members make unguarded comments on SM.

Who gives a shit, frankly, about what a deluded man who calls himself Clare Flourish thinks? Particularly when what he says/ writes indicates that he has zero understanding of what's actually going on

He's another one who wrote a whole blog post about how much he hates me.

Even their parting shot, that they were "on the right side of history", is a "lefty", male-centred in-joke. Who is that aimed at, after all, but Owen Jones?

That's ludicrous. They're poking fun at Owen Jones. Who on this board could possibly object to that, when it's something that has been done here dozens of times?

It's endless, isn't it? Sympathies.