Kemi Badenoch to face Women & Equalities Committee’s questions on equalities issues - 13 December 2023

I suggest that those who want to ignore the guidance should bring court cases. Bring it on.

Although, it may be a pointless exercise considering there likely will be a new government by the time the case was heard and who knows if they will keep the guidance.

Lawyers jumping on the gravy train as per.

I still don"t follow the argument that not allowing social transition in school is a breach of the EA2010. A person with the PC of gender reassignment cannot be treated less favourably than someone of the same sex without that PC but how does that translate into schools having to use new names, pronouns, toilets etc? Particularly in light of Cass 'not a neutral act' statement.

I see that the Guardian has a front page article, claiming that it's "Probably Unlawful" to follow the new advice. There's nothing to actually explain why, or how that would be, but there's a link to another article, where a teacher says that it has increased transphobic bullying in her school and that she has a transgender "daughter."

It smacks of TROSH desperation, to me.

Women have to choose between being seen as competent or likeable, not both. I suspect that this will apply even more to Kemi as she is Black as well as female.

I'm not surprised that she has chosen to be seen as competent. I've done the same.

And her father a doctor and mother a professor of physiology apparently (according to Wikipedia) so fully aware of biology.

If Badenoch thinks such “soft” skills are irrelevant, she may find out the hard way that they still matter

But actually in that meeting she did demonstrate an ability to be charming with that one sensible woman who clearly shared KBs views on being concerned about GI and young people. She too seemed better informed and they shared a moment. Author of the piece must have been one of those fools.

Thanks for the link 👍

🙄🤦‍♀️ Even people who agree with GC women can’t stop themselves from admonishing the woman to 'be nice, be kind', so frustrating 🤬

Considering that TRAs have deliberately “queered” language by unilaterally redefining words such as “woman”, I am tempted to give them a taste of their own medicine by redefining “trans woman” to mean “a woman who wishes she was a man” and so on. At least that would provide a bit of amusement as the likes of India Willoughby get upset at being called trans men.

DrBlackbird I didn’t know she was an engineer. That explains her ability to cut through to the root of the problem and address it head on. (Yes, I used to be an engineer and fully admit my bias.)

It must help that she’s got a law degree (on top of a MSc in Engineering).

Yes, the silence in has just made all that fury become pent-up. It hasn't made it disappear.

Excellent point.

The clarity and commitment to the legal principles of the Equality Act as being for everyone is so refreshing.

Indeed. There was that interview she did earlier in the year that really nailed it. She said too many people see the equality act as a sword with which you can attack others when really it is a shield with which you can defend yourself.

EmpressaurusOfCats · Today 08:56

Stonewall tried so hard to destroy Allison Bailey. But they just made themselves look like idiots.

They didn't make themselves look like idiots, they exposed themselves as idiots. Dangerous, nasty idiots.

I agree, people are only becoming aware now - in general, not those of us who'd already become aware of the situation - because of cases like Maya Forstater, Jo Phoenix et al.

5 or 6 years ago, I thought a transw was a woman who wanted to be a man, for example.

Their vicious attacks on anyone and everyone who said, "Hang on a minute..." and having them silenced and sacked has led to people being afraid to voice legitimate concerns and emboldened the headbanger zealots. That said, I am actually optimistic that the tide will turn, as more of their bonkers ideology is exposed to the light.

Personally, I think the most important thing is for Badenoch to get through to people that it is completely acceptable to exclude TW from women-only spaces. There's been so much nonsense spoken and the general public are still only just becoming properly aware. If she wins the battle to separate TW from W in order to protect women in one area it becomes so much more straight forward to do it in other areas.

Essentially, what she is doing is indicating not only that transwomen are not women, she's also reiterating the EA position that transwomen should not be treated like women in some circumstances. That is such a massive step forward compared to where we were even just 2 years ago.

Completely agree. The clarity and commitment to the legal principles of the Equality Act as being for everyone is so refreshing.

Labour over here are disconnected from working class people and take their votes for granted, hence why so much of the Red Wall turned blue last GE.

Yet they don't learn.

See Mandelson's openly expressed beliefs in the 'post democratic era' that New Labour saw as their desired future. Where the superior would make the unwashed do what was good for them and not be hindered by democracy or representation.

The absolute snobbery of the left has become a sad joke.

It’s such arrogance on the left to take for granted that women and minorities will vote for them. In the past, labour and the democrats in the US used to have policies that were beneficial for women and minorities. But now they are so disconnected from those groups it’s ridiculous.
In the US, black and Hispanic voters tend to be more religious and socially conservative but the Dems haven’t figured this out. The culture war and Identity politics drives people who used to be left wing voters away.

“It is simply a fact that, in recent history, rejection of the Western Rationalistic Tradition has gone hand in hand with the proposals for politically motivated changes in the curriculum. So, what is the connection? I think the relationships are very complex, and I do not know of any simple answer to the question. But underlying all the complexity there is, I believe, this simple structure: those who want to use the universities, especially the humanities, for leftist political transformation correctly perceive that the Western Rationalistic Tradition is an obstacle in their path. In spite of their variety, most of the challengers to the traditional conception of education correctly perceive that if they are forced to conduct academic life according to a set of rules determined by constraints of truth, objectivity, clarity, rationality, logic, and the brute existence of the real world, their task is made more difficult, perhaps impossible.”:

https://open.substack.com/pub/wokaldistance/p/ideological-capture?r=clsg2&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

As always, I'm struck by the paucity of the arguments on the trans-activist side. A constant appeal to feelings, inflammatory rhetoric about section 28 and false accusations of bigotry against the other side. No attempt to use evidence or rational argument. It's the sort of thing you expect from teenagers, not from educated adults, let alone ones whose job is to employ their critical faculties to weigh up arguments and evidence.

I can only assume that, in their hearts, these people know that the belief system they are backing is entirely irrational. They're simply frightened of being thought prejudiced or bigoted.

Does the left acknowledge ‘identity politics’? Or is that what everyone else calls it as a slur?

They say that anyone saying anything about it other than praise is a bigot engaged in a culture war.

"Culture war" is a powerful term at the moment. Say it to the right crowd and they automatically shut down their own critical thinking.

For those who believe in GI or at least believe in the teaming of the t with the lgb, it’s all about feelings (as exemplified by KO here and that male MP in the commons), however misplaced and illogical. It’s not about facts for them.

Plus, no one, including Noakes, seems to like an intelligent and plain speaking woman. As they are both Tory, one can only assume that Noakes dislikes KB because of their different perspective on this one issue. Either that or Noakes just doesn’t like an intelligent woman in the room showing her up.

Up until now, most politicians obfuscate and bluff on the GI issue, which is why we are in the mess we are with the whole GI vs biological reality issue across sports, healthcare and education. Afraid of offending the T community (but okay with offending women in sports and jails and mixed sex wards etc).

Then along comes KB listening to experts, meeting people who have been permanently harmed, and answering to questions with actual intelligent thoughts based on the facts and everyone explodes. Tells us something about the state of our politics. I have come to the conclusion that losing KB from politics will be a real loss.

Tribalism has a lot to answer for. I don’t get it. I don’t have a tribe.

Does the left acknowledge ‘identity politics’? Or is that what everyone else calls it as a slur?