Briefing against women ministers in Westminster

It is really quite weird that there is that level of sexism from within his own party. It is like something from the victorian age.

Let's not forget what Burnham actually said at the meeting:

“Culture really does matter and we need to change that culture.

“I want to make it clear that if anyone in my team was found to have done that [negative briefing] they would be out of the door. Their feet wouldn’t touch the floor.

“And I want to put on record that I never have and never will describe myself as the first female Labour PM.”

Labour has never elected a female leader and Labour MPs were irritated at the description by a senior Labour figure quoted in the Spectator, who said Burnham could be the “first woman prime minister” because he cared about an “unashamedly female agenda” including health, education and family finances, rather than “budgets and bombs”.

So he actually said if anyone in his team was found to be negatively briefing against another, of whatever sex he would not tolerate that.

I don't have a problem with what he said and neither can I see there is a problem in what he actually said. Plus he took a stand against The Spectator article description head on- good on him I say.

Indeed. We can all read the thread and post our views.

Wyllow3

None. We are not that threatened, imo, simply put, by a tiny minority of people and now have adequate boundaries in place.

Like I said, all of us are in need of being aware of attacks on Womens rights in the broadest sense. going on and on about a tiny group imo help no one.

So I shall be going go to my Womens Interfaith group tomorrow afternoon to actually build bridges between the variety of cultures and enjoy those experiences not carp.

Enjoy your Women's Interfaith group today- building bridges instead of division makes the world a happier place and a better place to live 😊

Wyllow3

Sigh.

As regards trans women my POV is that everyone is different, with different POV,

and how many times have we said - as regards racism for example that not all Muslims or Jewish people or whomever are "the same" is tarred with the same brush.

So one takes people as they come:

but as regards the backward steps on womens' progress forwards, there are really significant issues we cannot afford to ignore.

I agree and also aim to take people as they come Willow3.

You are well able to post and represent your views..

We are allowed to have different beliefs and each allowed to post our views.

Yes I know, we have all read the thread. I know what happened.
I could write a post about beliefs that you don't hold, ascribe them to you and then call them extreme, reactionary, etc. I am not sure what purpose it would serve but it seems to be a new trend on here.

You then reported me for some reason.

I saw that post, which was about the ridiculousness of a man holding a position meant for women. You then began to talk about the appointment in general of transgender people, and described my 'imagined' beliefs as extreme and reactionary.

Galaxy then posted:

'Yes we aren't allowed to mention when the labour party ( and many others) pretended that men were women. We should be quiet about that because it makes them look foolish"
.
Well I thought Galaxy is free to post whatever she wants and responded:

Mention that political parties and many organisations elected, appointed and employed transgender, non binary and gender diverse people as often as you like. It doesn't change the fact as Wyllow3 highlights that there has been social, political and legislative change in recent years. Some have accepted this and moved on. You think these organisations were foolish. Sueinkent goes further and claims this is/was an organisation capable of misogyny.

You may believe that the LP, Conservative Party, Lib dems and other parties are capable of any type of misogyny for electing, appointing and employing transgender, non binary and gender diverse people like sueinkent somewhat extreme and reactionary but so be it.

You may or may not as a result of your views decide to vote or decline to avail yourself of their services, including the NHS. Again your personal choice.

Then eazybee posted:

It is not the appointment of people who to wish to pretend they have changed sex; they may believe whatever they wish as long as the acceptance of their belief is imposed on others. It is the people who pretend to support their mistaken beliefs, that a person can actually change sex that brings ridicule, as in the obfuscation of 'does a woman have a penis.?"

I responded; I agree eazybee that it's not the appointment of transgender people that's a problem. Also I believe people in organisations should be able to elect who they think is the best person for the role where there is a democratic vote- even if that is a transgender person. The democratic majority vote elects the person c chosen by the majority as a result.

My earlier post was in response to:

Sueinkent: Any party that can appoint a transitioned male as Women’s Officer as Labour did is capable of any type of misogyny

My response was: "Historically, going back to 2017, Lily Madigan was elected as a women's officer for Labour Students.

However since then the LP ruling body has since updated rules such that when something refers to a woman, including a woman's role, it must be interpreted on the basis of biological sex. Think the Girls Guides, WI and many other organisations have similar updated their rules?

More recently Katie Wells (formerly Jamie Wells) transitioned in 2022 and came out as a transgender Conservative MP for Bridgend in Wales. Abriel Jerram serves for the Lib Dems.

The phrase 'transitioned' refers to anyone transgender, non binary and gender diverse. Maybe you are just transgender, non binary and gender diverse critical for all the political parties.

Nobody that puts themselves up for a democratic vote selection is imposing their beliefs on anyone I would have thought. I would have thought the electorate are able to choose for themselves to whom they offer their vote....."

Galaxy

The only person who has brought up the election of transgender people as being a problem is lemonjam unless I have missed a post. The problem people have highlighted is appointing a man as a womsns officer.

Incorrect. Sueinkent posted:

Any party that can appoint a transitioned male as Women’s Officer as Labour did is capable of any type of misogyny

I responded to her post that the person in question was not appointed but was elected to the Labour student body that is chosen by by a majority vote.

We won't agree, Galaxy. I think we will both take the political route we personally find most helpful to women broadly.

Sigh. We are threatened by the misogyny of those who thought it was ok to place vulnerable women in prisons with rapists. Those people had much more access to power than the andrew tates of this world.
We also don't want to fight misogyny alongside those who will misrepresent our views. It is thanks but no thanks.

Sigh.

As regards trans women my POV is that everyone is different, with different POV,

and how many times have we said - as regards racism for example that not all Muslims or Jewish people or whomever are "the same" is tarred with the same brush.

So one takes people as they come:

but as regards the backward steps on womens' progress forwards, there are really significant issues we cannot afford to ignore.

None. We are not that threatened, imo, simply put, by a tiny minority of people and now have adequate boundaries in place.

Like I said, all of us are in need of being aware of attacks on Womens rights in the broadest sense. going on and on about a tiny group imo help no one.

So I shall be going go to my Womens Interfaith group tomorrow afternoon to actually build bridges between the variety of cultures and enjoy those experiences not carp.

If the representation of women in parliament was achieved by men who declare they’re really women then that representation would be invalid. I thought the mantra of ‘transwomen are women no debate’ was over, has it now been amended to just don’t mention the issue at all?
What sense of proportion ignores any diminishing of the female sex/women as a unique class?

I will respond when people represent my views in that way, there is quite a weird thing on here at the moment where we are just expected to take this kind of behaviour. It appears to me to be the exact opposite of treating women or anyone fairly.

Just look at where we are ending up - "you started this or that".

Look, if it turns into everyone wanting yet another thread only on transgender issues, then I'm OK with it for those who want to take part.

But I think the issue of Womens right's, and Women's safety in a era of the rise of the Far Right and the misogyny within it, and the dangerous effects of the worst sort of SM threaten to turn the clocks back on us Women as a whole and our girl grandchildren. Essentially, the O/P was around

"is the clock turning backwards" for women in one significant context

and my goodness when did that stop being important?

I am afraid I will talk about anything I like, and the way my views have been misrepresented on here demonstrates my sense of proportion and my mistrust is absolutely spot on.

It is going backwards as far as I am concerned to get stuck on trans issues again and letting it take over a discussion on representation of Women in parliament and in our wider communities and significant institutions

And the pressing needs of women and children who have suffered abuse of all kinds.

We are facing a fight back by misogynists just look at US leaders and look at the likes of Andrew Tate. Can we get a sense of proportion please?

The only person who has brought up the election of transgender people as being a problem is lemonjam unless I have missed a post. The problem people have highlighted is appointing a man as a womsns officer.

Just noticed my omission.
.^It is not the appointment of people who to wish to pretend they have changed sex; they may believe whatever they wish as long as the acceptance of their belief is NOT imposed on others^
As in 'transgender women are women.(Harriet Harman.)

Nobody that puts themselves up for a democratic vote selection is imposing their beliefs on anyone I would have thought. I would have thought the electorate are able to choose for themselves to whom they offer their vote.....

eazybee

It is not the appointment of people who to wish to pretend they have changed sex; they may believe whatever they wish as long as the acceptance of their belief is imposed on others. It is the people who pretend to support their mistaken beliefs, that a person can actually change sex that brings ridicule, as in the obfuscation of 'does a woman have a penis.?

I agree eazybee that it's not the appointment of transgender people that's a problem. Also I believe people in organisations should be able to elect who they think is the best person for the role where there is a democratic vote- even if that is a transgender person. The democratic majority vote elects the person c chosen by the majority as a result.

My earlier post was in response to:

Sueinkent: Any party that can appoint a transitioned male as Women’s Officer as Labour did is capable of any type of misogyny

My response was: "Historically, going back to 2017, Lily Madigan was elected as a women's officer for Labour Students.

However since then the LP ruling body has since updated rules such that when something refers to a woman, including a woman's role, it must be interpreted on the basis of biological sex. Think the Girls Guides, WI and many other organisations have similar updated their rules?

More recently Katie Wells (formerly Jamie Wells) transitioned in 2022 and came out as a transgender Conservative MP for Bridgend in Wales. Abriel Jerram serves for the Lib Dems.

The phrase 'transitioned' refers to anyone transgender, non binary and gender diverse. Maybe you are just transgender, non binary and gender diverse critical for all the political parties.