Kemi Badenoch appointed new Minister for Women and Equalities

I suppose my position is incredibly simple in that I just cannot see the problem with saying that a long term unemployed former miner simultaneously has white privilege whislt being deeply underprivileged overall due to his income, wealth, where he was born and lives, his health issues from breathing in coal dust etc etc.

I don't think it's actually possible to pick all of these things apart. I don't really think that you can abstract concepts like blackness or whiteness. They exist in terms of how they are experienced by actual individuals.

Members of what might be called the white underclass do not suffer disadvantage separate from their whiteness. Non-white elites, let's go whole hog and say some member of an aristocracy in Africa, are not advantaged seperatly from being black, being black is part of who they are and that is what makes them elites too.

All kinds of people can suffer from ethnic or racial aggression, across class. They can suffer classism and actually that can be against upper class people as well - there can be a very powerful class hatred in that direction.

I'd also just point out that there are black people who don't feel racism has been that significant in their lives, or that their race has advantaged them. John McWhorter has said a few times that black university students are often given advantages in that system, he feels that he was himself. If we wanted to take the language around privilege seriously, shouldn't it capture that?

All this is really to say, it's just a wholly incoherent framework. Models tend to simplify, of course, but make it too simple and all you have is garbage.

No, it's to the content. People who point out the issue with it are really objecting to the implications inherent in saying it.

However I think when people like Joe Biden say things like that, there is some way in which they actually miss those implications, even though they should be obvious.

I am coming to a position where I think it's because they have really absorbed this idea that identity groups are more about the identity rather than just a group of varied people with some point in common. It creates a weird short circuit in their thinking.

It's almost exactly the kind of stereotyping that used to be considered problematic, where people apply generalizations about groups (which might or might not be true of the group) to individuals. And then assume that if individuals fall outside of those stereotypes somehow they don't fit into that identity.

It happens to black conservatives a lot, also gay conservatives, women conservatives.

This! And please read the relevant section of the Equality Act - I posted the link for you earlier in this thread.

You’re making this up as you go along!

Find one mention of ‘transwoman’
or ‘trans woman’ in UK equalities legislation, just one!

Where in the GRA and EA2010 does it say that men who want to be women should have access to all women only spaces?

Do you understand that repeating a lie doesn't make it true?

Dadjoke please define exactly what a transwoman is, what sex is and what is a man or woman. The legal definitions please.

I'll read your clear and concise answers in the morning.

It is gaslighting to be told someone who voted consistently against equality is in fact a beacon of equality.

Asking questions isn’t gaslighting. And the important question is - in what way has Badenoch voted consistently against equality? Votes are public record and the bills / amendments the votes relate to are public record as well. If you can find any, please post them. I’ve certainly posted my own reservations regarding her role in government. But I couldn’t find evidence that she actually voted against equality.

Women on this board expect intellectual rigour, so posters are generally expected to be forthcoming with evidence to support their views. I’ve yet to see any actual evidence (rather than name-calling or conjecture) which supports the premise that Badenoch will be bad at her job as Women and Equality Minister. I don’t agree with all of her views, and would personally prefer a Labour government (because I think that class is the biggest divide in this country). But in the meantime, I can be pleased that Badenoch is the best choice (out of Tory MPs) for this particular role.

@RedToothBrush they do have that right under the law, which is why Badenoch is proposing changing the law. You have misunderstood the EA2010 and the GRA.

Trans women can and do use women’s loos perfectly legally. You want that to stop, yes?

Here's the thing.

Just because males have been using provisions, which under the EA are supposed to be single sex under the exemption clause, 'for years', doesn't mean that they ever should have been there or weren't violating women's rights to privacy and dignity. It isn't a right they had, so it's not a roll back.

Stonewall has demonstrated this trend of 'running ahead of the law'. It doesn't mean we should play along with this until the law 'catches up'. No we are well within our rights to stand up for our rights and to start to enforce them, precisely because of this creep by males to override the law by for cable means and outright intimidation and emotional blackmail.

Even asking the question about That GC people want to stop them using women's loos? Is a deliberate and very cynical attempt at intimidation and emotional blackmail to force the idea that transwomen have always had a right that has never existed in law, and 'aren't you being mean' for challenging males for 'just wanting to pee'. Of course it's not about peeing safety at all. It's about validation and in some ways a deliberate colonisation by a wider group of males for more nefarious reasons. Neither of which are about safety.

The issue is and has been the proper enforcement of women's rights hasn't been done in the first place when it should have been. Leading to their actual erosion in practice and attempts to follow this through in law. Woman in being socialised to be amenable to others have really just sat there and been walked all over because of their well intentioned, biting of lip.

In reality the EA actually gives males the right to use single sex provision without discrimination. So in other words males shouldn't discriminate other males on the basis of their appearance when it comes to access to toilets.

In short TW should be using male toilets without fear because its about safeguarding not validating feelings.

Which toilets males use should not be a problem for women. It's not a female issue. It's a male one.
Trans people should have the right to feel safe using single sex provision - but that doesn't mean they should automatically get access to the provisions of the opposite sex to which they were born. Their provision remains the sex they were born.

This isnt hard to understand

By a single-sex toilet for women, do you mean a toilet which excludes trans women?

All male people, yes. That would be because it wouldn't be single sex otherwise.

God how fucking boring. You're not challenging anyone. You're just screaming abuse in people's faces.

Ive seen this poster do this on more than one thread. They are certainly an angry ranty person. It's quite successful in terms of derailing threads though.

🤣 perfect answer!

Gosh, that tweet is a corker!

Either you believe IDPOL has some merit, in which case a British politician of Indian heritage becoming PM of the country that once colonised his ancestors is definitely a win for ‘Asian representation’, even if he is mega rich.

OR

Social class and economic status are the main qualifiers for effective political representation for working people in which case, stand by your critique of race-based IDPOL and don’t attempt to excuse the sneery statement you’ve been forced to delete by highlighting your own IDPOL category.

@TheClogLady I don’t think this is done in good faith TBH. It is gaslighting to be told someone who voted consistently against equality is in fact a beacon of equality. If you think those votes are rubbish, up to you. It’s all we’ve got. Same goes for anti same sex marriage etc.

Lannistunat yesterday
Many in the parliamentary party find her views extreme -that is why she got so few nominations. She is of the right.

She was only eliminated at the fourth ballot. So she was more popular than
Jeremy Hunt, Suella Braverman, Tom Tugendhat, and Nadim Zahawi. She did not get ‘so few nominations’.

The article goes on about how NW is also British Asian and doesn’t intend to apologise. If she’s not sorry an apology is pointless. I think this attitude is probably rife within Labour.

Seeking more in depth information than is shown in a single screenshot is not ‘gaslighting’ the person who posted the screenshot.

No one doubts the veracity of your supplied image but context is always a consideration, especially when talking about equalities (as there are always clashes of rights between differing groups that have to be balanced. It’s part of a healthy multicultural society to acknowledge and discuss those clashes).

Or maybe it's just hypocrisy. Either way it doesn't add to the conversation.

Self justification fallacy is when one thinks it's fine to, say, insult other people, but not okay for them to disagree with you or talk back.

@beastlyslumber I’m not going back to it. You haven’t been effective then.

That's not how the discussion went at all.

I hope she apologises to him.

@beastlyslumber It was whether she was in place for some of the votes or whether her absence was justified or was the same as an abstention. Then someone said it was maybe a protest vote. Just patronising bullshit and gaslighting. Perhaps you don’t see it so. And you started with the insults BTW. Then a few others piled on. I’m off to watch TV now.

Just seen Nadia Whittome has been ordered to delete a tweet about Rishi Sunak not being “a win for Asian representation”. Seems relevant to our discussion.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-63405307