[arista]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

This.

Complex it
why don't you.

[Oliver_W]

I wonder how people who are okay with this feel about the Secretaries of Education and Health having no relevant background.

[bots]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

Why is that hilarious? This thread is about somebody's job role and people don't seem to want to discuss what the actual role will involve and what education and training and experience Lily might have in relation to that. Yes 19 seems really young, and someone who isn't biologically a woman taking on a womans role of course sounds bizarre on the face of it. But can we not look at it any deeper that? People are bringing up things like menstruation/womens rights and issues/things that can only affect a biological female and stating that the person in this role needs to have first hand experience of these things, but I haven't seen anything that relates to womens rights and womens personal issues in the actual role description, and surely that should be the center of what this debate is about? I find it bizarre that that is being ignored and replaced with issues that from what I've read don't seem to factor into the role, and that people who want to actually consider and discuss those things should be mocked for it? That when discussing someone's job role the idea that they might be competent at it is something that shouldn't even be considered because on the surface it seems unusual, and that because it hasn't happened before it's something that should never happen.

Quoting from the article:

Congratulating the teenager on her election, Teresa Murray, Medway councillor and vice-chairwoman of the executive committee of Rochester and Strood CLP, acknowledged that “Lily will have to work very hard to convince other people that her very presence there is not going to undermine them”.

The Labour councillor said that “lived experience as a woman” should be considered an advantage — but not a prerequisite — for the role of women’s officer. She added: “Someone who is an accountant would probably make a better treasurer initially, but that doesn’t mean we should only give the role to an accountant.”

Does that strike you as someone chosen because they are the best person for the role? Or does it more imply a complete mismatch that may work if the wind blows in the correct direction. That quote comes from one of those responsible for the decision.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

Why is that hilarious? This thread is about somebody's job role and people don't seem to want to discuss what the actual role will involve and what education and training and experience Lily might have in relation to that. Yes 19 seems really young, and someone who isn't biologically a woman taking on a womans role of course sounds bizarre on the face of it. But can we not look at it any deeper that? People are bringing up things like menstruation/womens rights and issues/things that can only affect a biological female and stating that the person in this role needs to have first hand experience of these things, but I haven't seen anything that relates to womens rights and womens personal issues in the actual role description, and surely that should be the center of what this debate is about? I find it bizarre that that is being ignored and replaced with issues that from what I've read don't seem to factor into the role, and that people who want to actually consider and discuss those things should be mocked for it? That when discussing someone's job role the idea that they might be competent at it is something that shouldn't even be considered because on the surface it seems unusual, and that because it hasn't happened before it's something that should never happen.

No I don't need to look any deeper, Jamie. I'm speaking as a woman who has been in the workplace for a few years now, unlike this boy who has only just done his bloody A levels! Like TS said, even if he wasn't male, even if he was a female, at 19 years old he just doesn't have the life skills or the experience needed for a job like this.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Livia

No I don't need to look any deeper, Jamie. I'm speaking as a woman who has been in the workplace for a few years now, unlike this boy who has only just done his bloody A levels! Like TS said, even if he wasn't male, even if he was a female, at 19 years old he just doesn't have the life skills or the experience needed for a job like this.

Exactly. I find it abit insulting actually. I do wonder what men would think also if it were a female to male 19 year old transgendered person who got a job strictly to do with mens issues how they would feel about it? It makes no sense at all except for if they are trying to prove how "progressive" they are by doing it........whilst being regressive towards women at the same time

[arista]

Originally Posted by Livia

No I don't need to look any deeper, Jamie. I'm speaking as a woman who has been in the workplace for a few years now, unlike this boy who has only just done his bloody A levels! Like TS said, even if he wasn't male, even if he was a female, at 19 years old he just doesn't have the life skills or the experience needed for a job like this.

Very True Livia.

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

I wonder how people who are okay with this feel about the Secretaries of Education and Health having no relevant background.

I feel like I keep repeating myself lol but again for me it's about competence in the role, and based on the actual description of what the role will involve I can't see how Lily's sex will automatically make her incompetent. Here's the link again which as far as I'm aware is what the role involves...

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.ne...pdf?1445544799

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

Quoting from the article:

Congratulating the teenager on her election, Teresa Murray, Medway councillor and vice-chairwoman of the executive committee of Rochester and Strood CLP, acknowledged that “Lily will have to work very hard to convince other people that her very presence there is not going to undermine them”.

The Labour councillor said that “lived experience as a woman” should be considered an advantage — but not a prerequisite — for the role of women’s officer. She added: “Someone who is an accountant would probably make a better treasurer initially, but that doesn’t mean we should only give the role to an accountant.”

Does that strike you as someone chosen because they are the best person for the role? Or does it more imply a complete mismatch that may work if the wind blows in the correct direction. That quote comes from one of those responsible for the decision.

That statement seems to me to be more about Lily needing to defy the preconceptions and assumptions that some will have based on her age and sex, rather than it being about her competance.

Originally Posted by Livia

No I don't need to look any deeper, Jamie. I'm speaking as a woman who has been in the workplace for a few years now, unlike this boy who has only just done his bloody A levels! Like TS said, even if he wasn't male, even if he was a female, at 19 years old he just doesn't have the life skills or the experience needed for a job like this.

Do we really know enough about her qualifications/knowledge/training/competence to be able to say that for certain without even considering the possibility she might do a good job? Do we know if lily has actually done anything in the role that shows her to be incompetent? Do we know if the women she's dealt with have been happy with her? It all seems to be assumptions to me based on things that fall outside of what the actual role description is and it seems odd to me that those things should be ignored is all.

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Exactly. I find it abit insulting actually. I do wonder what men would think also if it were a female to male 19 year old transgendered person who got a job strictly to do with mens issues how they would feel about it? It makes no sense at all except for if they are trying to prove how "progressive" they are by doing it........whilst being regressive towards women at the same time

Which issues? Which parts of the job role are we talking about here?

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Livia

No I don't need to look any deeper, Jamie. I'm speaking as a woman who has been in the workplace for a few years now, unlike this boy who has only just done his bloody A levels! Like TS said, even if he wasn't male, even if he was a female, at 19 years old he just doesn't have the life skills or the experience needed for a job like this.

actually I said that before TS and he copied me

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

I feel like I keep repeating myself lol but again for me it's about competence in the role, and based on the actual description of what the role will involve I can't see how Lily's sex will automatically make her incompetent. Here's the link again which as far as I'm aware is what the role involves...

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.ne...pdf?1445544799



That statement seems to me to be more about Lily needing to defy the preconceptions and assumptions that some will have based on her age and sex, rather than it being about her competance.



Do we really know enough about her qualifications/knowledge/training/competence to be able to say that for certain without even considering the possibility she might do a good job? Do we know if lily has actually done anything in the role that shows her to be incompetent? Do we know if the women she's dealt with have been happy with her? It all seems to be assumptions to me based on things that fall outside of what the actual role description is and it seems odd to me that those things should be ignored is all.



Which issues? Which parts of the job role are we talking about here?

This being the main criteria I think :

The women’s officer
must be a woman.

I would think that a woman who has a womans life experiences is best suited to this part also :

Ensure that the priorities of the constituency reflect the views and concerns of women
members and women in the wider community.

Wouldn't you think it was ridiculous and insulting to black people for example, if a white man was chosen to represent the black community and put forward their concerns?

Job Description
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.ne...pdf?1445544799

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

This being the main criteria I think :

The women’s officer
must be a woman.

Yes that kind of sticks out but I don't see that as being part of what the actual role involves so I don't know why that would be the main thing? And it's something that they've clearly altered their view on. I don't see why that in itself is wrong.

I would think that a woman who has a womans life experiences is best suited to this part also :

Ensure that the priorities of the constituency reflect the views and concerns of women
members and women in the wider community.

Wouldn't you think it was ridiculous and insulting to black people for example, if a white man was chosen to represent the black community and put forward their concerns?

Job Description
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.ne...pdf?1445544799

The views and concerns will be coming directly from the women of the community, not Lily. Lily will be responsible for putting those views and concerns forward. If she was solely responsible for deciding what those concerns would be, or if she failed to put forward those concerns then fair enough and she'd be accountable for that but I don't think that's the case?* I'd apply that to issues of race and sexuality as well.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

Do we really know enough about her qualifications/knowledge/training/competence to be able to say that for certain without even considering the possibility she might do a good job? Do we know if lily has actually done anything in the role that shows her to be incompetent? Do we know if the women she's dealt with have been happy with her? It all seems to be assumptions to me based on things that fall outside of what the actual role description is and it seems odd to me that those things should be ignored is all.

He only joined the Labour party ****ing 6 months ago. This appointment is clearly to show how 'progressive' they are. And I don't think its 'progressive' at all to claim men are women tbh, which is what this is doing. The role specifically state that it needs to be a woman. Also this person is a member of Momentum, and Momentum seem so have controlled the votes on this to huge degree..not just this person but the other appointments that were made, most of them were also Momentum members.

Its just a ****ing pisstake. The age is problematic but honestly..the age does not bother me THAT much. People said Mhari Black was too young at 21 to do her job but she is amazing at it. Its the fact that this person does not believe female is an actualy category that excludes males, has put himelf foward for a role specifically for women, and been voted in by a bunch of idiots who do not care about women at all obviously and care more about being 'progressive' when its anything but. Its actually very regressive, the view that 'woman' is something in someones head.

[Vicky.]

Also sorry for very harsh posts on here last night, I was pretty drunk. Just been reading back over it all and I was more sharp than usual in a few places. But this issue seriously bothers me at the moment, as a female, I am not a female because I like wearing dresses and wearing makeup (neither of which I actually do). I find the insinuation that a man can be a woman just becuse he says so seriously mysoginistic. I am a woman as I am an adult human female. I don't beleve in 'gender identity' (which is akin to a religion really) as I do not even have one (I don't 'feel' like a woman, I simply feel like me) so to follow the idology that makes me neiter female nor male. Bonkers.

[AnnieK]

Originally Posted by Cherie

actually I said that before TS and he copied me

If we are being pedantic, I said it way back on page 3....

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

The views and concerns will be coming directly from the women of the community, not Lily. Lily will be responsible for putting those views and concerns forward. If she was solely responsible for deciding what those concerns would be, or if she failed to put forward those concerns then fair enough and she'd be accountable for that but I don't think that's the case?* I'd apply that to issues of race and sexuality as well.

'She' has already been banging on about the needs of 'transwomen' in this role that is meant to be about women. Do you really think 'she' is going to be bothered about issues that don't affect 'her'? Its now going to be all about the needs of men.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

If we are being pedantic, I said it way back on page 3....

sorry Annie

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

'She' has already been banging on about the needs of 'transwomen' in this role that is meant to be about women. Do you really think 'she' is going to be bothered about issues that don't affect 'her'? Its now going to be all about the needs of men.

That is a good point actually

[Vicky.]

Lily was also part of a bullying campaign that lead to a 52 year old woman being ousted from this very role. That shows they are not the right person too. His youtube videos basically show a immature young boy who thinks 'woman' is something you can become by being 'pretty'. Its pathetic.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/l...1c343ae147a9a9

One of his youtube videos, moaning about not being able to go to the female toilets. Actively mysoginistic. Anti-womens rights (I would say ANYONE who says men should be in female sex segregated spaces is anti-womes rights actually, clearly does not understand or care about the risk to women).. Immature. And does not believe woman is a category that excludes men. Terrible choice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6N_bv3BMgA&app=desktop

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Also sorry for very harsh posts on here last night, I was pretty drunk. Just been reading back over it all and I was more sharp than usual in a few places. But this issue seriously bothers me at the moment, as a female, I am not a female because I like wearing dresses and wearing makeup (neither of which I actually do). I find the insinuation that a man can be a woman just becuse he says so seriously mysoginistic. I am a woman as I am an adult human female. I don't beleve in 'gender identity' (which is akin to a religion really) as I do not even have one (I don't 'feel' like a woman, I simply feel like me) so to follow the idology that makes me neiter female nor male. Bonkers.

I get all of this I just don't see it as being anything to do with this case, of whether someone is able to carry out their role.

Originally Posted by Vicky.

'She' has already been banging on about the needs of 'transwomen' in this role that is meant to be about women. Do you really think 'she' is going to be bothered about issues that don't affect 'her'? Its now going to be all about the needs of men.

I don't know, I'm just saying I'd keep an open mind about it because I don't know, rather than assume she can't possibly do well in the role. I could be proved wrong and yes she may fail to represent her constituents just as any other politician might who are unable to fully understand the lives of those they represent (and I don't think many politicians really do understand that), but I'd still give her the chance to prove herself. The most important thing for me would be how her female constituents feel about how they are being represented by her and I suppose time will tell that, but I don't think it's something that can be judged straight off the bat however unusual the appointment might seem.

I don't know the details of what she's talked about regarding trans-womens needs and how that affects womens needs but I'll have a look at that later, I'd guess/hope that she could be trying to be inclusive of both rather than trying to demean or ignore women? I don't know exactly what's happened with that though.
I'll watch the video later too, although as part of her role she'd have to put aside her personal feelings to an extent if they conflict with the wants of the women she's representing and I'd probably reserve judgement until I saw that she wasn't doing that.

[Jack_]

I don't think this has been mentioned, and it certainly won't change any of your debates - but it's worth pointing out that she's been elected as the women's officer for the Rochester and Strood CLP - not as Labour's women's officer. The national shadow ministerial post for women's rights is held by Dawn Butler.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

I don't know the details of what she's talked about regarding trans-womens needs and how that affects womens needs but I'll have a look at that later, I'd guess/hope that she could be trying to be inclusive of both rather than trying to demean or ignore women? I don't know exactly what's happened with that though.
I'll watch the video later too, although as part of her role she'd have to put aside her personal feelings to an extent if they conflict with the wants of the women she's representing and I'd probably reserve judgement until I saw that she wasn't doing that.

Including men in a role about women is wrong. Transwomen are not women. This role is about women and their needs. It should not include the needs of men. Again, Lily would have been much better suited to LGBT officer, where she could focus on the rights of transwomen as much as 'she' pleased. Pretty much like how stonewall now actively ignore LGB and focus on the T. Ruth Hunt is a ****ing disgrace recently and its sad that such a good organisation has gone so backwards. Ruth swallows the 'sex is irrelevant' line hook line and sinker. She refuses to answer questions about the rights of lesbians...its just all so stupid and backwards. Everything has to centre 'transwomen' these days. And a job about women, should not have enything to do with 'transwomen' as they are not women. So being 'inclusive' (meaning being about the rights of males instead of the females its meant to be about), in this post, is completely wrong.

Saying a role specifically about the needs of women should include the needs of men, is exactly the same as saying a role about the needs of black people should include the needs of white people.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Cherie

actually I said that before TS and he copied me

Originally Posted by AnnieK

If we are being pedantic, I said it way back on page 3....

Sorry Cherie and Annie! Obviously all the smart women were thinking it... My theory is that TS's wife told him to post it.

[Kizzy]

The misconception is that being a woman is purely biological it isn't, being female is... to be a woman you need a lifetime of social conditioning.
Germaine Greer was almost burned at the stake for saying similar... I 100% agreed with her, which at the time didn't go down too well on here.

This is not progressive, women for years have fought against their not perceived but actual disadvantage, it's not unreasonable to highlight that trans-gendered females have not cultured their womanhood from birth.

I'm not a 'TERF' which like 'PC' is a nonsensical term invented to mock those who wish to further the dialogue from what is being pushed as the preferred view of the majority.

The appointment was in my opinion a major error, you cannot push the rights of one marginalised group by denying the another.

[Niamh.]

What I've noticed in this thread which could be telling is that it's only men that seem to be thinking that it's absolutely "fine" for this to happen. (Not all the men obviously but I don't think a single woman in here agreed with it)

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

What I've noticed in this thread which could be telling is that it's only men that seem to be thinking that it's absolutely "fine" for this to happen. (Not all the men obviously but I don't think a single woman in here agreed with it)

I think Joey considered it to be wrong, and I got that impression from Oliver too, Cherie seemed more bothered about the age thing and not too bothered about gender i think? Sorry if I'm misrepresenting anyone lol. Me and Withano seem to be the strongest/(only?) defenders of it but although we're both men it's still only 2 people so I don't think we're a substantial sample really. And in the article the person defending the appointment is a woman.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

I think Joey considered it to be wrong, and I got that impression from Oliver too, Cherie seemed more bothered about the age thing and not too bothered about gender i think? Sorry if I'm misrepresenting anyone lol. Me and Withano seem to be the strongest/(only?) defenders of it but although we're both men it's still only 2 people so I don't think we're a substantial sample really. And in the article the person defending the appointment is a woman.

I did say not all the men in the thread