The latest fallouts in GC world

[Pluvia]

My terfing energy has been focussed elsewhere in recent months and I haven't been here or on TwiX or social media much. Now I've taken responsibility for tweeting/ comms on behalf of a small but potentially significant LGB group and I discover that there seems to be something going on — another schism — in GC world. Jane Clare Jones's name seems to be coming up a lot. Something seems to have gone on but I can't work out what.

If it was my own account I'd just ignore, but the followers of this account are bringing it up and seem to expect an opinion to be expressed or a side to be taken. Also I'm seeing a lot about 'ultras' and 'lites', which is new to me. Can anyone enlighten me? I need to tread carefully.

I try not to pay too much attention to the GC fallouts, but from what I see a typical fallout involves -

Someone plain-speaking making a clear, factual, statement based on the belief that no man is a woman, ever, in any way at all.

Someone in academia or otherwise with a more credible claim to be part of an "elite" than a housewife like KJK has, complaining that we need to be kinder towards men pretending to be women, in some way.

Whilst I am not saying that the academics and legal bods have no value - of course they have some value, and the TQ+ needs attacking on multiple fronts - their value is limited.

The GRA makes no sense. Men are not women. Women deserve rights. Obviously the PC of GR does not give opposite sex rights as if they did then sex makes no sense as a PC. Paraphilias should not be in public. People with appalling mental health should never be encouraged for even a second that their delusions are real. All of the obvious points in this debate rely on a bit of common sense and courage and straight talking. One might argue that those GCs in "elite" positions have more to lose (hence less courage) and are less likely to rely on common sense or straight talking (because their jobs involve deep thinking and clever words, neither of which are any use in answering the question "are some men women?").

We have "elites" whose skillset is actually must less applicable to the incredibly straightforward matter at hand than the skillset of a working class woman who left school at 16 and brought up six kids alone and had no time to deal with nonsense.

My perception is that these "elites" know this, and they are somewhat angry and jealous at those like KJK.

We have "elites" whose skillset is actually must less applicable to the incredibly straightforward matter at hand than the skillset of a working class woman who left school at 16 and brought up six kids alone and had no time to deal with nonsense.

This. Give me a working class woman for safeguarding children every single time. Been at the pointy end, draws clear boundaries as a result.

Which group was it that platformed Hayton, thus shitting upon transwidows and children of transitioners, and kids being gaslit in school by teachers undermining their safeguarding instincts?

KJK would never do that.

I think for me the difference between the two types of activism are:

• Many academic, legal and media bods say that it’s complicated and above all we must always be kind to men with genuine dysphoria even when demonstrating the harms they cause to women and children. They want to respect pronouns because it’s polite and they often know a 'TW Nigel' who wouldn’t hurt a fly.

• Grass roots groups like LWS, CoT, Trans Widows, and KPSS state plainly and factually that it’s actually not complicated: men aren’t women and society shouldn’t allow them to pretend they are. We should speak plainly and safeguard properly and we should be very wary of predators trying to game the system.

I do believe that some of the differences in attitude between these groups arises from class. My favourite essay on this discusses how women meet more perverts when they’re poor.

https://4w.pub/you-meet-more-perverts-when-poor/

ALL of that 👆

That crowd overlaps with the "Professional Lefty Sisters", the self-appointed "Natural Leaders of Women", their role rubber-stamped by the chalk and ink fingered "Real Feminists of Academia and Media".

They are equally pissed-off that anyone has the temerity to organise anything without it first being passed by the Standing Orders Committee of the Actual Gender Critical Left and put to a vote of The Great and The Good.

After they've checked the Party Line with Jeremy, or whoever else is content to leave them alone to do their Little Ladies Lefty Thing while the men get on with debating Clause 5(iii)(c)(VI)(B) of the Constitution, pending the Revolution.

They failed and they blame her for their failure.

Rather than reflect that you do not get women on board by lecturing them, not listening to them, expecting unconditional commitment and unquestioning obedience whilst bullying them and calling them racists for mispronouncing someone's name, braiding their daughter's hair the wrong way or some other esoteric infraction of the Real Feminist Rules.

The images below have been shared before but it say it all.

I could have chosen other images but TBH it is just quicker to find files with unusual names.

These women are indicative of the attitudes of the "Professional Leftie Sisters". They are certainly not the only ones who are more concerned with approval from the "Queer Left" and "fangirling" (is that the right word, Twotribesgonna) their favourite authors than with protecting and safeguarding children.

These are all screenshots from PUBLIC posts by the way. No sneaky sharing of screenshots from private conversations here.

Wow. I didn’t know about some of this.

I honestly believe that women from differing political backgrounds and views can work together on issues affecting women while continuing to disagree on other issues. I’m a lefty but I don’t consider people who work/campaign with people from the right of the political spectrum to be ‘traitors' or 'dog shit'.

Political purity means less to me than results. Effective activism means building coalitions.

i find all this confusing. What does it mean if I go to LWS events and also to Filia and I’m in the WRN and also hang out with women in SFN? Does everyone hate me?

I think it means you’re broad minded and not keen on cliques 😊

I can only speak for LWS, which is non-partisan - so women are welcome to go to whatever events they choose and hang out with whoever they like.

A bit like LWS events where there is no gatekeeping about who can speak and no vetting of what they want to talk about. ❤️💚❤️🤍❤️💜❤️

It means you need to carry on marching to the beat of your own drum.

It’s serving you well.

Having been an "academic feminist" at one point in my life (long gone), this is a very good and accurate portrait of said demographic. Very well observed.

Is KJK still arguing her case that it was a waste of time for For Women Scotland to get the meaning of "sex" in the Equality Act clarified, and that we should instead be devoting our energies to getting the 2004 Gender Recognition Act repealed?

Oh do you want to join the campaign to Repeal the GRA? You should consider joining the Party of Women.

Party of Women Matriquest Commitments
**
Justice
We believe in a justice system that serves the people—not political ideologies, activist agendas, or institutional cowardice.

Across the UK, ordinary citizens, campaigners, whistleblowers, and journalists are being dragged through the courts for speaking the truth. Women are criminalised for defending their boundaries. Journalists are imprisoned for exposing child sexual abuse. Protesters are arrested for holding a sign. This is lawfare—where process becomes punishment.

Our legal system has been captured. The language of law has been distorted. Biological reality is ignored. Dissent is punished, while public institutions evade scrutiny.

We are committed to restoring fairness, integrity, and reality in British law.

The Party of Women will:

• Defend freedom of speech, especially political, journalistic, and protest speech.

• End political prosecutions and expose the misuse of public institutions to silence opposition.

• Reform legal aid and defamation law to protect whistleblowers and those facing ideologically motivated legal harassment.

• Create real protections for citizen journalists and campaigners who expose abuse or corruption.

• Hold public officials accountable when they abuse the legal system to deflect from their own failures.

Justice must be rooted in truth—not ideology.
The law must protect women—not punish them.
We will stand for those who speak up, even when the state turns against them.

We Stand for Truthful Language

Clear, honest, and reality-based language is the foundation of a fair and functioning society. Without it, we cannot defend rights, protect the vulnerable, or make good law.

We will:

• Eradicate ideological and nonsensical language from all government departments, legislation, and public services.

• Ban the use of terms like “assigned at birth,” “cisgender,” “chestfeeding,” and other invented language that distorts biological truth.

• Require all public institutions to use plain, truthful language based on sex — not gender ideology.

• Restore the use of words such as woman, mother, girl, and female where they have been replaced or erased.

The public deserves clarity, not confusion. We will end the misuse of language that obscures reality and enables harm.

Repeal the Gender Recognition Act (GRA)

The Gender Recognition Act 2004 enables individuals to legally change the sex marker on their birth certificate. This legal fiction has been used to erase women’s boundaries, disrupt sex-based services, and confuse public policy.

We will:

• Repeal the Gender Recognition Act in full.

• End the legal recognition of “gender identity”.

• Ensure all laws and official records are based on biological sex only.

• Protect women’s rights to single-sex spaces, services, and opportunities — with no exceptions.

Repeal the Equality Act 2010

The Equality Act 2010 has been used to smuggle "gender ideology" into every corner of public life — from schools to healthcare to prisons. It has erased the meaning of sex, silenced women, and elevated identity over material reality.
We believe this Act does more harm than good. It is not fit for purpose.

We will:

• Fully repeal the Equality Act 2010.

• Remove “gender reassignment” and other ideological concepts from legal protection.

• Replace the Act with new legislation that defends sex-based rights, free speech, and material reality.

• Ensure that no law compels the public or professionals to lie about sex.

Withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

The ECHR has become a tool for imposing ideological interpretations of “rights” that conflict with national sovereignty and women’s protections.

We will:

• Withdraw the UK from the ECHR.

• End the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights over UK law.

• Introduce a British Bill of Rights that defends truth, free speech, and sex-based protections for women and children.

• Restore full democratic control over our laws, language, and public life.

Migration and the Safety of Women and Girls

Migration policy must be shaped by truth, transparency, and responsibility — and must never overlook the safety of women and girls.

We will:

• Ensure that all decisions around immigration and asylum take into account the impact on women’s safety, particularly in housing, services, and public spaces.

• End the practice of housing single men with women and children in asylum or migrant accommodation.

• Require full sex-disaggregated data on migrants and asylum seekers.

• Prioritise female-centred safeguarding in all public policy related to migration and border control.

A country that cannot protect its women is failing. We will make women’s safety a central consideration in every immigration decision.

Justice for Grooming Gang Victims

For decades, organised grooming gangs have operated across the UK, preying on vulnerable girls — while authorities looked the other way. The Party of Women demands full justice for every survivor and full accountability for every perpetrator and enabler.

• We will advocate for full criminal investigations into every individual involved in these crimes — from the rapists themselves to those who enabled or covered up their actions.

• This includes accomplices, police officers, councillors, social workers, care workers, and teachers who failed to act or protected perpetrators.

• We will seek the prosecution of those who betrayed their public duty and left children to suffer in silence.

• We will campaign for a statutory inquiry with powers to compel evidence and testimony.

• We will ensure victim support and protection is placed at the heart of policy, not political correctness.

Justice must be done — and seen to be done. No more silence. No more excuses.

Support for Mothers and Young Children

The Party of Women believes that women should have a genuine choice to raise their young children at home without being economically penalised or socially pressured.

Children deserve stability. Mothers deserve dignity. We will build a society that supports both.

Many women today feel forced to return to work when their children are still very young — not because they want to, but because they cannot afford not to. This is a profound social failure.

The Party of Women believes that families should be supported to make the right decisions for their children — including the ability for mothers to stay at home during the early years if they choose to.

• We will seek a long-term *resolution to the economic pressures* that force women back into work during their babies' formative years.

• We will explore *tax reforms, family allowances, and maternity support* models that empower parental choice.

• We will work to *shift cultural and policy attitudes* to recognise motherhood as socially and economically vital.

• We will ensure that no woman has to choose between bonding with her baby and financial survival.

A truly compassionate society supports mothers — not just in words, but in policy and practice.

Our Vision

• A society that respects truth and speaks plainly.

• Women and girls protected by law — not redefined out of existence.

• Public services that are honest, functional, and free from ideology.

• A country that governs itself, protects its own, and tells the truth.

Party of Women — Dare to Be Honest
We are the only political party that will say what everyone knows to be true:
Men cannot become women. Words have meaning. Biology is not bigotry.
We will repeal harmful legislation, restore legal and linguistic clarity, and put women’s rights, safety, and language back at the heart of British law and life.

https://www.partyofwomen.org/about-us

The PoW is a disaster. We’ve had an election and the results were terrible. Kjk got about fifty votes. She managed things really badly and, as per usual, caused in fighting

I have already explained the purpose of POW fielding candidates in the General Election. Were you not paying attention?

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5228315-the-latest-fallouts-in-gc-world?page=10&reply=145669063

You do not seem to understand much about UK politics and the campaigning strategies and aims of small, single-issue Parties.

KJK managed things very well and there was no infighting. For a start, there was no time for any infighting even if there had been any cause for it.

Tell me what you agree with in the POW Manifesto. There must be something surely? What with you being a big feminist.

You’ve explained @POWNewcastleEastWallsend but I don’t agree with your explanation. I get the impression you don’t handle disagreement very well. I bet you often find that you are frustrated because people don’t accept your explanations.
To reiterate, I don’t think the PoW has been a good move. In fact I think it was a terrible move. The whole lot of you looked like extremist cranks. The For Women Scotland case is a good example of intelligent politics- it was a good strategic move. Kjk doesn’t understand strategy and it shows.

And there was loads of infighting. Lots of people backed out. The stewards for LWS were fired. The WhatsApp conversations were all deleted. It was a big fat divisive mess with kjk in the middle of it, blaming everyone else as usual

Twotribesgonna just as a matter of interest, do you agree with the manifesto written out by POWNewcastleEastWallsend above?

criticism of KJK aside.

What/who is this about? https://x.com/dnalerinrehtron/status/1944872266094858705

Jenny has complained to the Charity Commission about LGBA which is obviously completely normal and sane behaviour.

Thank you for explaining that you do not agree with my explanation.

I get the impression that you like to try to wind people up, eg. by making false allegations.

You are, of course, very welcome to your opinion about POW. What was it about my explanation that you disagreed with?

"Extremist cranks" you say? I am guessing you have something like the Monster Raving Loony Party in mind?

They don't have too bad a record of turning out to be right all along, and not extremist at all, when you consider their manifesto commitments over time.

This is called "political campaigning" and "widening the Overton window". This is the raison d'être of small political parties.

Policy lessons from the Official Monster Raving Loony party
Oct 27 2023 Financial Times - Tim Harford

Not long ago, I heard a Tory grandee giving a speech in support of a political rookie. As the occasion demanded, he offered some advice. Life in politics would be hard, he warned, but success was possible: just look at Screaming Lord Sutch and the Official Monster Raving Loony party.

You might think that the Conservative veteran was being sarcastic in invoking Lord Sutch’s name, as Sutch (who was not a Lord) holds the record for the largest number of parliamentary elections or by-elections contested, and he lost all 39 of them.

Screaming Lord Sutch, argued the grandee, was a singularly successful politician.

When the young Sutch first stood for election in the 1960s, his platform included promises

• ✅ to lower the voting age from 21 to 18,
• ✅ to introduce commercial radio and
• ✅ to pedestrianise Carnaby Street.

All of these policies were introduced within a decade of Sutch championing them, followed shortly afterwards by the

• ✅ abolition of the national 11-plus exam that sorted pupils into or away from selective grammar schools, for which he had also campaigned.

Sutch also pushed for regulatory reforms:

• ✅ the introduction of all-day opening for pubs, followed by 24-hour licences;
• ✅ the abolition of dog licences;
• ✅ and the introduction of pet passports.

All became policy, despite Sutch never having a sniff of being elected.

We already know that you can lose a string of British parliamentary elections while seeing your policies embraced by the political mainstream; Nigel Farage taught us that. But Sutch’s triumphs suggest something further: that policies which seem daft to one generation can seem essential to the next.

https://www.ft.com/content/0a98b74c-b0ff-4361-b983-3b85cfc7a6ed

Unless by "extremist cranks" you mean the current Green Party?

😱

No, POW comes nowhere near that level of lunacy.

For Women Scotland are marvellous women, KJK has praised them personally and applauded the persistence which led to their success. You are aware, I assume, of the close connection between KJK and FWS?

However, FWS is not a registered political party and, as far as I am aware, does not intend to progress its aims by standing candidates for Holyrood.

In the same way, POW does not aim to be some sort of "For Women England", emulating FWS south of the border.

I hope you understand the difference now?

• ✅ POW: a political Party.
• ❌ FWS: not a political Party.

and the similarities:

• ✅ FWS: takes on the Scottish Government in the court and wins.
• ✅ POW: campaigns to raise awareness, to challenge mainstream politicians and widen the Overton window - and achieved its aims in the General Election by getting the message into every house where candidates stood and by garnering publicity locally and nationally.

Sigh!

"And there was loads of infighting."

No there wasn't. You would have to be on the inside to know if there was any infighting. You weren't and there wasn't.

"Lots of people backed out."

Sadly, and worryingly for a Parliamentary Democracy, at least one woman decided that it was too dangerous for her to stand because of the high proportion of violent trans activists in her area.

However, 16 women did register as candidates and none of them dropped out.

Do you have as much difficulty counting as you do with telling the truth?

"The stewards for LWS were fired."

Whether they were fired, fêted or fondled by fruit bats is irrelevant. You are talking about FWS. POW did not and does not have "stewards".

"The WhatsApp conversations were all deleted."

No WhatsApp conversations have been deleted. Are you confusing POW with just about every other UK political party?

"It was a big fat divisive mess with kjk in the middle of it, blaming everyone else as usual"

You wish.

-

ps.@BoiledBeetle have you ever been fondled by a fruit bat?

I think you were all incredibly brave and what you did was admirable.

I think anyone who can minimise what you did and what you risked as being the work of “extremist cranks” has a very different view of feminism and bravery to me.

She’s an odd duck. I never know when to take her seriously or not because she says so many conflicting things.

ps.@BoiledBeetle have you ever been fondled by a fruit bat?

Erm...

On the advice of my solicitor I will not be answering that.

<wanders off back a few pages wondering what the hell I missed?>

The way TwoTribesGonna talks about women doesn’t make her sound like a feminist at all.

I can’t listen to KJK’s livestreams, I don’t have the patience. She’s much too brash and plain spoken for me to be comfortable hanging out with her- I’m a terminal people pleaser, and painfully polite with it. I’d get a sour stomach.

Despite that I can see her massive achievements and am grateful for her reframing of the issues. When most of us were mumbling anxiously ‘that’s not right, steady on!’, she stood up and clarion called ‘that’s a man!’. I may not be a vet but I know what a dog is. Woman- adult human female.

I judge people on their behaviour and how they talk about others. The way people denigrate KJK has helped me work out that those people are not the kind of feminist I align with. It’s ok to criticise people- we aren’t always going to agree or approve- but spiteful nitpicking shows you up, not your target.