Danny Kruger MP -has spoken if defence of children and womens rights

[happydappy2]

Won't link to Prick news article as appreciate many don't want to read what they say. Seems Danny has stated 'birth sex should be used to determine who can access which public single-sex spaces.'

The Tavistock NHS Clinic, where children are told they can be the sex they want to be and given puberty-blocking hormone treatments, is our Wonderland.

Another one finally speaking out-we need more but well done Danny

[Jeeeez]

Why is it only the Tories? [weep]

[wellbehavedwomen]

This is the article Danny Kruger wrote.

The distinction between the sexes is real. Preserving this distinction is to defend the grammar of our common life, and to uphold the essential point that our society and legal order are founded on the truth as we understand it. To concede the claims of the extreme trans lobby – that sex is not fixed in biology, but simply ‘assigned’ at birth – is to sell the pass. We will be in Wonderland, or in 1984, where truth is what the people in charge decide it is.

There's another article about this in Conservative Home, by two women. It is detailed, careful, scrupulously well-evidenced and extremely clear on the present situation, public opinion, and the implications of GRA reform as presently discussed.

My husband and I are lifelong Labour voters. We've been impressed by our local Tory MP, on SEN as well as women's rights. We have no interest in voting for Labour as they presently conduct themselves. At least the Conservative Party allow the conversation, without demonising and even expelling women, solely for asserting our human rights.

In the words of Susan B Anthony, "No self-respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her sex."

[WhereYouLeftIt]

Another MP (Crispin Blunt, Reigate, Conservative) has responded to Danny with :

Very sorry to see this piece from admirable danny_kruger.

It is wrong in law, wrong on the science of the WHO, the Endocrine Society, or NHS. Would remove U.K. from minimum UN agreements. It’s implications for trans people are so cruel in practice. Can’t we just be kind?

How about being kind to women, Crispin?

[Kit19]

We are so over beeeee kiiiiiiinnnnd crispin. We were kind and all that got us was trampled over by a herd of entitled TRA demanding we give up everything to them so be kind can fuck right off now

Also it’s worrying that as an MP he thinks Kruger is stating the law wrongly - he isn’t

[ChattyLion]

Welcome on board Danny Kruger MP!
Thanks for standing up for women.

[zanahoria]

Danny Kruger's article will sway many Tory MPs and maybe some in other parties, he makes a convincing case and I think many fence sitters will think this is not worth the effort as it will open a can of worms.

[ChattyLion]

I really like what Danny Kruger says but ultimately his strongest point: that biological sex is real, permanent and the business of the state, that that expressing your gender is a private matter of what stereotyped codes you want to adopt or not.. (but cruciall we’ll all defend each other’s right to express this freely)... it all leads to the fact that we don’t need a GRA, doesn’t it?.

If humans can’t change physical sex, and if telling children at the Tavi that they can do by taking off label drugs with permanent side effects or having risky surgery is a lie... then why is it ok to be telling adults that they can change sex via a GRC (as far as their legal status)? and more importantly why is it oK that GRA requires other people to take that GRC legal status as seriously as birth sex is taken. With some exceptions. Does all that not flounder a bit logically?

I feel like the question that needs exploration is whether the concept of GRA is needed. It was put in to resolve inequalities based in homophobia and sexism like lack of same sex marriage, lack of equal pension age. These things have been resolved. So the central question- particularly for the Tories to think about in these years while they have a massive majority- is whether and why we need to retain a legal process that offers people who want to live with a particular gender expression, to codify that expression in terms of the state providing them with a change of (legal) sex. Because if we all agree that biological sex is important, in changeable and is more than performing stereotyped activities or presenting as a set of codified stereotypes, then it is surely sexist for the state to require that adopting these markers means that legal sex can be changed and society has to recognise that ‘change of sex’. What am I missing here?

[SirSamuelVimesBlackboardMonito]

That's a great article.

I've said it before on here - I am now a single issue voter. Currently the Tories are the only ones looking like they recognise the reality of immutable biological sex, so the Tories will get my vote. Even though I'm a centre left Remainer.

[ChattyLion]

Typo: should say that biological sex is important and UNchangeable in my post above. Not ‘in changeable’

[Broomfondle]

Yes to all of the above. What it comes down to is everybody is entitled to their own opinion but nobody is entitled to their own facts.

[Broomfondle]

I think about the arguement that having your sex on official documents is 'outing' when you present as the opposite sex.
If this results in poor treatment/discrimination then there should be protections against and consequences for that.
The answer is not to have a legal fallacy to prevent it.
I think about most of the other protected characteristics which are 'outing' all the bloody time. Age, race, visible disabilities, sex, pregnancy. Most of the times these can't be hidden at a job interview for example.
I just can't agree with rights and protections based on what you are not rather than what you are. It does a disservice to the group you are 'hiding' and the one you are 'identifying' as.

[Musto]

There's another article about this in Conservative Home, by two women. It is detailed, careful, scrupulously well-evidenced and extremely clear on the present situation, public opinion, and the implications of GRA reform as presently discussed.

This article is excellent. The link is up thread in wellbehavedwoman's post.

[Campervan69]

Crispin Blunt is good mates with this person who is acting chair of the Conservative Women's Organisation oop North.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3163747/Master-Hunt-woman-age-54-marks-day-man-going-bowling-enjoying-burger-sons.html

Who I think wrote this together and might be responsible for the delay in responding to the consultation

www.conservativehome.com/platform/2020/07/crispin-blunt-and-sue-pascoe-its-time-to-correct-the-stoking-of-alarm-and-spreading-of-misinformation-about-trans-people.html

[PelicanDeuce]

Danny Kruger is, of course, Prue Leith’s son. I knew him vaguely at university in the 90s. He’s very posh, but clever. Nice one, Danny. Thank you.

[PelicanDeuce]

Well, yes. What if you want to lie about your age? Shall we let people amend their birth certificates to give them Tinder creds?

[MeanMrMustardSeed]

It’s brilliant to see such a well written piece by someone in politics. Danny used to be a speech writer and journalist and is very thoughtful and super bright. Hoping for more of this sort of thing and seeing the tide turn.
Crispin Blunt is so simple. As if an adequate riposte to Danny’s considered article is ‘be kind’. Hope some of his constituents put him straight. I’ll be looking out for my own MPs response.

[TedsFederationRep]

As well as becoming Conservative MP for Devizes in December 2019, Danny Kruger also took up post as Boris's political secretary at the same time. He's right there in No. 10 and has the ear of the PM.

These are Danny Kruger's sincere views but I'm pleased he's chosen to express them so clearly at this crucial time. I do hope it's a good sign.

[SirSamuelVimesBlackboardMonito]

Danny Kruger also took up post as Boris's political secretary at the same time. He's right there in No. 10 and has the ear of the PM.

This is good. Hopefully this is the prevailing opinion within number 10.

[MeanMrMustardSeed]

Not sure he’s a political secretary anymore - he was until he became an MP. He undoubtably has the connections with #10 though, and I would think has a very high chance of rising through the ranks of the party quickly (not least with the lack of a lot of other discernible talent). Definitely one to watch.

[ChattyLion]

Broomfondle I agree with everything you’ve said.
Our physical bodies absolutely signal different attributes which are then read by others with social meaning added on. This is especially easy to read in person, rather than in photos. I think it’s probably innate, we all do it. I scan for whether the approaching person on the pavement is male or female. I can feel uncomfortable in all-male groups. Walking past an all-male group.

The social attitudes towards those various attributes will include discrimination in some cases. So that’s why it’s great that we have the Equality Act. Also why as we already have hate crimes legislation that these provisions should be extended to cover all the protected characteristics including sex. (Which the Law commission will soon be considering..)

We do need MPs to debate how the UK law should respond to individuals’ fear of being ‘outed’ and the pursuit of ‘passing’ and what the drivers are for those motivations and what we can do about those drivers. I don’t think leaving the GRC in place as is, is the answer.

The fear of outing and the pursuit of passing do seem to contribute to some of the external pressure on young people to have invasive and permanent physical interventions, although oddly, this kind of pressure appears not to be upon the male later life transitioners. So what is going on there and how should the law respond?

And in my experience individuals presenting in signifiers typically associated with the opposite sex: via their clothes, hair, etc are often not ‘passing’ at all, but are read by others with awareness of the biological reality being signalled to them, as with any other human being. ‘Passing’ is often a social convention, a matter of good manners and ‘doIng as you would be done by’. So in these instances, the relevant individuals are rightly met with empathy, politeness and thoughtfulness as to their feelings, as a matter of goodwill.

Some campaigners seem to use these drivers as levers for a male sexual entitlement agenda, by arguing that women should have to abandon social and legal protectIons and boundaries in order to validate other groups. This, despite the evidenced risks to women of mixed sex spaces, is sometimes argued because we can have no idea of the physical sex of others.

Then, because of course everyone knows deep down really, that most people can really tell physical sex of other humans, the TRA lobby and their political supporters, gaslight us by telling that biological sex is a social construct (rather than saying that gender- the meaning we place on sex- is a social construct). Then any women who question that are branded political wrongthinkers liable for punishment ie T*RF. So trying to win the argument through silencing and threats as a last resort.
Men who question don’t get the same abuse so it is all as sexist and in democratic as it sounds. So more MPs should be speaking up against the ‘debate’ tactics and seeing this for the culture war that it is.

So I think Kruger is right to emphasise that sex and ensuring non discrimination (except where recognising sex is justified, ie single-sex spaces etc) is the concern of the state. Just wish he/the Tories would take the next logical step into asking whether validating gendered presentation in law (and calling it a change of legal sex) is what the state should be doing, if gender is not the state’s business.