Janice Turner thanks the LibDems

Asked if she’s concerned that self-ID will be abused by predatory men she said: “There will be, of course, a very tiny number of individuals who will seek to exploit this to behave as violent criminals towards women and you need a separate route for these people.”

Not only what Datun said but um... what is this alternative route?

Sending these violent individuals to prison and treating them with anti-androgens so that half of them decide to become "women"?

Why would you risk alienating tens of millions of voters?

Kit, that’s an excellent question and something I have been struggling to comprehend. This is my conclusion. I reckon the Lib Dems and Labour have such a grotesque sense of entitlement to women’s votes, particularly feminist women that they aren’t worried about alienating them. Also, this lobby has tried to criminalize the language used to express dissent, whilst using ‘hate speech’ as a bludgeon. These craven politicos have capitulated to this intimidation because When you stand for nothing, you fall for anything

Never been a fan of him but the Nick Robinson question was great, we need more of this, cuts straight through the bullshit.

TimeLady, thank you for the share token on this superb article.

Voters tuning in for the first time to the gender wars may wonder how such radical policies, which would change the very definition of men and women, have entered a party’s manifesto. They might be more surprised to find such principles are already deeply embedded in our institutions entirely against public opinion

I hope brave journalists like Janice Turner continue to expose the existential threat to freedom and democracy posed by this sinister lobby group. The fact that opportunistic politicians are pandering to their agenda is pathetic. But calling yourself a feminist while aiming a battering ram at sex segregated spaces? That really is beyond contempt

And how do you prove that a declaration of someone's internal feelings of gender identity was falsely made anyway? By definition 'I believe this at this moment in time' can never be proven to be true or false.

This is the absolutely central legal point, to my mind, OldCrone (and one I've been banging on about for years on this board, but you've encapsulated it beautifully succinctly).

Any sort of legal construction (nationality, money, corporations as "persons") requires legally definable and falsifiable criteria to enable you, the judge, the jury, the government, to tell the difference between circumstances where that construction is in play, and circumstances when it is not (and circumstances where it's being invoked fraudulently). Gender self ID relies entirely on what people say about the contents of their own minds - it's unverifiable, unfalsifiable. It's a legal nonsense.

If Karen White says "I feel like a woman" his assertion is no more, nor less, valid than, I dunno, nice Karen in accounts who has just quietly got on with life, turning up to work in a twinset and pearls rather than a suit, for the last 20 years and leading a blameless life. Self ID and "acceptance without exception" do exactly what they say on the tin: once a man has uttered the magic words "I feel like a woman", he is teflon. There is, in principle, no evidence that could be adduced to show that he is in fact a lying predatory bastard.

The current GRA, coupled with the exemptions in the Equalities Act, however imperfect a compromise it is (and I think it is pretty dreadful, and was deliberately "sneaked in under the radar"), does at least attempt some sort of meaningful social contract, namely "we will collectively as a society engage in a polite game of 'let's pretend', so long as you put yourself through some process of gate-keeping where a couple of third parties get to interview you and see if they think you're genuine, and what's more, we reserve a range of circumstances where biological sex trumps the game of 'let's pretend'."

It's a fucking joke.
She might as well just say "yeah, letting males use female spaces will increase violent and sexual crimes to females but who gives a shit about those women eh?"

If self ID doesn't specify any criteria, what is there to lie about?

The current process at least has some criteria. But it's entirely subjective so irrelevant.

And nowhere does it say that you can't be a serial rapist, multiple serial killer, or open and rampant predator, and still be trans.

It's all predators. Every last one of them has access to exactly the same mechanism.

Yes, exactly. And like Kit19 I don't understand why politicians have got it so wrong. We all know - don't we? - that sexual abusers will take any route they can to find victims. They become teachers, priests, boy scout leaders, sports coaches. Of course they're going to take advantage of self-ID. Why wouldn't they? Can't Swinson and co see the absolutely devastating consequences this could have for women and girls?

She acknowledges that the mechanism is exploitable, but then confidently states that it will be confined to a few people!

The other line they usually come out with is that a statutory declaration has to be true, otherwise they can be prosecuted for making a false declaration.

Do they really think that a rapist is going to worry about making a false declaration being added to their list of charges when it comes to sentencing?

And how do you prove that a declaration of someone's internal feelings of gender identity was falsely made anyway? By definition 'I believe this at this moment in time' can never be proven to be true or false.

None of them have thought this through.

Asked if she’s concerned that self-ID will be abused by predatory men she said: “There will be, of course, a very tiny number of individuals who will seek to exploit this to behave as violent criminals towards women and you need a separate route for these people.”

This is so damned arrogant.

She acknowledges that the mechanism is exploitable, but then confidently states that it will be confined to a few people!

It's all predators. Every last one of them has access to exactly the same mechanism.

I’m still baffled as to how politicians of all parties got this SO wrong. It’s a basic numbers game ffs! Women are 51% of the population, Trans ppl estimated at around 500,000. Why would you risk alienating tens of millions of voters?

I agree Swindon's political judgement is terrible on this one (though I see it an extension of a general problem for the left/centre left, of thinking what your mates say in Twitter is indicative of the mood of the country as a whole).

That article about the University of Essex cancelling a meeting in criminal justice (and the huge string of universities which have done similarly) is chilling.

@BarbaraStrozzi sorry that's not clear - I mean Swinson's political judgement is terrible on this.

I'm also sick and tired of the University cancellations. I thought it wasn't permitted to squash free speech at universities?

Good for Jean Hatchet and everyone delving into the background to these issues. Whether it is out and out buying influence, financial vested interests, threats and coercion from bullies, overreach by lobby groups or those with personal 'interests' that would warrant a deep dive into hard drives, in a democratic society we are entitled to ask questions.

How has this ideology been allowed to strip away the rights of women and the safeguarding of vulnerable children with no questions or challenges allowed?

But that's a terrible political judgement, @BarbaraStrozzi

Mind you, I've long thought being a Lib Dem and female requires a large degree of internalised misogyny.

thanks for the share. fantastic writing from Janice as always

That's a really clear and succinct article - great writing yet again from Janice.

And the Times have covered yet another University being bullied into cancelling a conference about prisons - that's 3 events this month been cancelled. Share token:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trans-rights-activists-halt-gender-debate-at-essex-university-qf9sh5r3q?shareToken=f15862d79f549144ecb84976a6b22015

Janice is so right once again. The majority of the public / electorate would not be in favour of self ID. Best to pretend it doesn’t exist.

It's likely Brexit related due to EU staff.

That makes sense.

The large donations to the Lib Dems over the last five years or so by a pharmaceutical company which makes hormone blockers is interesting though.

Excellent point TimeLady
And the Science and Technology, Education and the Health and Social Care Select Committees

Excellent article- I used to be a Guardian reader but gave up on them due to the misogyny. Janice is the reason I changed to the times

NotBad

Though I don't think it's that she can't understand, I think it underlines the sheer cynicism of her naked political opportunism. She obviously does understand from first hand experience, she just doesn't care, because she has selfishly decided her political career will be advanced more by woke brownie points than from siding with women.

I love that Janice is now sufficiently emboldened to type "cis" in inverted commas and the sub ed is perfectly happy with that! Little things please me!

Lib Dems do not believe biological sex exists, let alone that it matters in data collection, crime statistics, the safety of girls, the housing of sex offenders or any other governmental matter.

Succinct, correct and orders of magnitude more misogynist than the bloody Tories, FFS. Well done, Jo. You're a danger to women shero!