Go on, Nadine, you’ve nearly got it

It’s going to be a lot like dealing with toddlers. The first time you say no and mean it they scream and scream and scream. It’s the same with with trans movement. We need the government to be the adults in the room - I’m not entirely hopeful.
However there are some in government who support womens rights and I presume that the government might also see it as a politically astute move as it is a space neither Labour or thr Lib Dems seem to want to be in

And as you see daily, in the press, on tv and radio, on social media and right here in threads: this political lobby has a strategy of looking you right in the eye and swearing to you that up is down, that no is yes, that things they don't like or want to hear about don't exist, and what they want to be the truth is the absolute, evidenced truth - even when you're holding the evidence right in front of them that proves it a lie.

Again the actual politics involved aside, this approach is copying Trump's legacy and strategy just as he showed it: personality disorder meets democracy, with the hope that democracy just won't know what to do with that flat, outrageous manipulation, and so it will get away with whatever it wants. Cutted up pear in spades.

Come on Westminster, get your act together. This should have been spotted and dealt with years ago, when it would have been a lot less established and a lot less messy to start saying 'no' to.

Is it finally dawning on Westminster that they've been funding a political lobby group who have re written the actual law to what they want, and then trained organisations to believe their version and act in the belief that it's real?

Well gosh. That took them long enough.

Come on Nadine, get the information. It's past time Westminster got a hand on this and undid the harm, and took action to prevent this being able to happen. Not least because it makes a total mockery of democracy and MPs and carefully debated, worded laws if a group of extremists can just write their own law and convince/scare lazy, gullible organisations into enacting their agenda believing that trainers always speak the truth. The aim of this lobby was always to be 'ahead of the law' - to make what they wanted so fixed and seen as 'normal practice' that there would be nothing to do but change the law to match the practice.

Regardless of what the ageda/group is that has done this, this is a major, major safeguarding fail and should lead to loopholes being permanently closed so no other political group can ever do this again.

Interesting article in the daily mail -it has definitely got someone hunting these stories out. Nadine’s view of the sports meeting - as we guessed, sports bodies are so frightened of being sued that they have rolled over - perhaps they all believe the spin that gender is a protected characteristic

“She told officials afterwards that she believed that many sports organisations had become 'captured by a minority world view', adding: 'That was shocking, they were all over the place. I want a paper within days letting me know what levers I have and how these organisations are funded.'

A Whitehall source said: 'The organisations think that inclusion should trump fairness. They've been listening to their own echo chamber for too long and are terrified of litigation under the Equality Act, despite that legislation enshrining fairness.

'Nadine found it incomprehensible that the ECB would not allow Ben Stokes to play in a 2nd XI in order to protect the safety of other players due to his bowling, running speed and sheer physicality – however, they would allow someone who had been born male and had been through puberty to play in a women's team.'”

I hadn’t really thought about it much before this whole debate but of course the purpose of categories - age (junior/veteran etc), sex, weight - has always been to promote inclusion and the chances of winning for all. It’s been so well established that we had truly forgotten how much campaigning that took to get there and it’s all being tossed away.

Yes. All Nadine needs to do is enforce S195 of the 2010 Equality Act, which clearly states male can be excluded from female sporting categories.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/195

Why was @Ereshkigalangcleg ‘s post deleted ? In what manner did it break the TOS ? I’m really not seeing how it could have been interpreted as in any out of line.

Yes, total nonsense. Maybe if the parents hadn’t been so obviously fixated on gender roles, the daughter wouldn’t feel the need to label herself as “not a girl”. And the bullshit about the younger brother now finally looking up to his sister because she claims not to be a girl.

Meanwhile, in the Daily Fail today, an 'article' using basic psychology to normalise transitioning.

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-10965797/How-feels-princess-loving-daughter-tells-doesnt-want-girl-more.html

The article that doesn't allow comments, interesting and unusual for the Fail. This wouldn't be a paid for article ad, would it?

@Nadine 👏🙌👏🙏👏

It's clearly only been deleted this morning as Honest replied to it 45 mins ago.

I hope they give you an explanation of that deletion! I think I saw the post before deletion, and I’m almost impressed that someone managed to be offended by it.

That’s ridiculous! @mnhq what are you doing? That post was absolutely not offensive.

Why did my post get deleted, is someone offended that I said a company wasn't a legal person in every way?

What a poorly written, under-researched article.
World Rugby conducted a very thorough review, and has the journalist never heard of Ross Tucker, the sports scientist?
And what skin in the game does www.theguardian.com/profile/jonathan-liew have? Apart from being male so knowing full well he can score work points whilst this having no impact on him whatsoever a

although strictly speaking, for legal purposes, the company is the owner of the buildings, the buildings are not the company. If you smashed the windows of a house belonging to a human being, you’d also be charged with criminal damage rather than assault.

It’s probably more akin to adoption. The woman who gives birth to the child is the legal mother but adoption severs that legal tie and vests it in someone else and the legal effect is that the child is no longer related to the birth mother. There are also (very minor) circumstances where biological reality overrides the law, eg it would still be incest if close relatives had a relationship, even if one of them had been adopted and legally wasn’t related to the other anymore.

Legal pretence aligns with NT’s argument of legal deceit

There were a couple of mentions of fiction but somebody else.
….
Lord Tebbit - The noble Lord is quite right. The deceit to which I referred was the deceit that is at the base of the Bill; the deceit that we can change a person's sex. Law Lords may believe that they are very powerful and that the law can change people's sex, but that quite clearly is arrant nonsense. I stand by what I said about deceit in the Bill
.….

I do think that wording indicates that a move to repeal, or heftily amend, the GRA (now lots of unintended consequences are upon us) is at least being considered.

api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/grand-committee-report/2004/jan/13/official-report-of-the-grand-committee#S5LV0657P0_20040113_GCR_18

Legal pretence rings a bell. Was it Norman Tebbitt who called the essence of the original bill “a legal fiction” and warned of unintended consequences ? It must have been in the Lords, not when he was an MP.

It just rings a massive bell and my gut feeling is it is meant to reflect something similar said in opposition to the original bill.

Who's the Labour Shadow Minister for Nadine's brief, and why haven't they ever brought this up?

This is what happens when the opposition isn't doing their job. You make people like Nadine look good.

We all have an agenda. Most of us in this thread agree with the OP's agenda, to ensure we remain unashamedly gender critical, so that women are recognised as biological females in language, policy and law.

Labour appears to be doing a very shitty job of that, so far, so I'll take Nadine for the moment, Ta!

And calling someone "scum" is extremely dehumanising and doesn't add anything to your point (that is if you even had one in the first place).

@Artichokeleaves For what it's worth, I do think the Equality Act isn't that bad, the only thing I would have done differently is tighten the language around the "Sex" Characteristic to indicate the difference between biological Sex and Legal Sex, GIVEN the Equality Act was written after the 2004 GRA.

Perhaps I'm a bit more complacent, because I had the misfortune to read the American Equality Act, which makes zero attempt to separate "Gender Identity" from Sex, and is going to have huge and horrible implications for female sport with Biden rewriting Title IX.

I dread to think what the Equality Act would look like if it was written today, because it seems so many institutions are hopelessly captured.

The Equality Act has its own problems, not least that this mess has demonstrated trying to shoehorn all the protected characteristics in one brief doesn't work. Several now have conflicting needs and trying to represent them as a forced team has become vulnerable to politics, political capture and to a hierarchy. Stonewall has tried very hard to convince the world there is only one characteristic in it, and inclusion only means TQ+, and that an equality impact assessment only looks at TQ+ need. It has also pushed the idea that the other characteristics don't really matter, to the point that sexism, homophobia, ageism and racism is now rife in the politics involved. Disability etc barely gets a look in now - where are the flags, the training days, the awareness days, the days of remembrance, the month of events everywhere? Or even basic following of access regulations?

It needs separating back out into individual briefs and legal protections under different mininsters, who then represent the interests and needs and the detailed understanding of that one brief. And gender and sex need completely separating, much as Dorries said today. Sex based rights cannot be removed or subordinated to gender politics, and third ways to provide new resources needed without removing current resources in place are going to have to be found.