Braverman says some schools are encouraging gender dysphoria by an “unquestioning approach”.

Makes GC people look like heartless unhinged reactionaries if we are aligning with Braverman.

Our words were literal violence long before anyone was bold enough to publicly say transwomen were men. The misogynists driving the trans movement hate us, there is no way to soften the blow of truth about biological reality or appease them so we need to stop caring about what they say. She has clearly and unambiguously set out the rights and protections afforded women and girls in the EA she has not made a case for discriminating against trans people. The law was written to protect our interests, we should not be concerned about seeming nasty by asking for it to be used to do just that.

I can only imagine the abuse Suella Braverman receives, her heritage, politics and sex will all be used by vile trolls and yet here she is speaking up anyway, perhaps we could worry less about what others think and admire her courage.

I agree with others about the remarks on uniforms, I don't think it's helpful or relevant.

If men want to do so in their own home then that's fine, but teachers shouldn't be encouraging it in schools.

I want to live in a world where men and boys can wear skirts (just as women and girls can wear trousers) because they want to, for whatever reason, without anyone pretending it makes them a woman. But it is a minor point.

What is Welby saying?

That a women is anyone who identifies as one? But we can't get away from the science?

Make that work?

Makes GC people look like heartless unhinged reactionaries if we are aligning with Braverman.

Braverman is only following what has been said in the interim Cass review. Any government not doing so will be complicit in child abuse.

The thing I most appreciate about Suella Braverman is that she has not prevaricated. You can agree or disagree with her but she has made her position crystal clear which feels both brave and refreshing.

There are certain people you don't necessarily want on your side. Braverman is one. I don't think this helps tbh. Makes GC people look like heartless unhinged reactionaries if we are aligning with Braverman.

The guardian has it too. I imagine even now they are commissioning anguished articles from “trans kids” and their parents
The Guardian

Woke up to see it as the headline in the Times and did a cartoon head shake and blink to make sure it was true! This is so helpful for me; I've been digging my heels in about single sex spaces at work and this is great timing.

Then she accuses Jon Pike of talking ‘gobbledegook’. She is unbelievable, isn’t she? Privileged, silly individual.

Its a shame nobody tells kids what trans hormones do to your body, what surgery does to your body. What you are left with.

‘I am someone who would say a transwoman is an adult human female,’ she says.

🤡

Stella Creasy and her bunions are idiots.

I've read a comment somewhere else to the effect that GC women and far right conservatives overlap in respect of believing that sex is immutable and differences in sex are important. But what follows from that premise is where the big differences are.

For some on the far right, reinforcing biological sex is used to try to cement the link between sex and gender, and thus maintain gender stereotypes in a way that promotes existing patriarchal norms.

By contrast GC arguments are intended to sever the link between biological sex and gender stereotypes, so as to liberate people from those stereotypes and gender roles, and ultimately dissolve the patriarchal norms that rely on those stereotypes.

But they both rely on the same starting premise that biological sex is real and immutable, so that is where there is an overlap of consensus.

And that makes sense in relation to differences of opinions about uniforms, which is what reminded me of that just now

I think broadly Suella is saying the right things of course but why oh why does she need to bring in UNIFORMS? Absolutely she's right that single sex spaces should be protected. Unquestionably. But gatekeeping which sex is allowed to wear what clothes is, imo, part of the reason we are in this mess.

I don't think she's saying the PC of Gender Reassignment doesn't apply to under 18s. She's saying that if you're under 18, you can't get a GRA, so your legal sex cannot differ from your birth sex. Consequently, if we were testing to see whether you had been discriminated against on the basis of Gender Reassignment, the relevant comparator is someone who shares all the same PCs apart from Gender Reassignment, ie someone of your birth sex, not the sex you identify as. So if the school says a 15 year old boy can't use a particular changing room, it's not discrimination if a 15 year old transgirl can't either.

But IANAL either.

Back to Braverman, any thoughts on her invoking the GRA to (apparently) argue that the PC of Gender Reassignment doesn't apply to under 18s? I know this comes up quite often on these boards in relation to school policies, and I thought the correct answer was that the GRA is irrelevant, as it's not mentioned in the very vague EA definition of Gender Reassignment, and its main intended purpose was to enable privacy rather than to confer rights. We know that you can exclude regardless of GRC, and that can include despite lack of GRC. With Suella Braverman being Attorney General, I'd hope she would know what she was talking about, but I'm not convinced...however, IANAL.

I'm a bit annoyed that the Telegraph has written "the need for two doctors to decide whether someone is a woman or not". They do no such thing - they decide whether someone has gender dysphoria or not.

Fuck me, I'm agreeing with Suella Braverman. Off for a quick sanity check.