Yvette cooper - bio sex & gender v separate

I also don't think speculating about cooper’s home life and family is very helpful here.

She’s a professional woman being asked questions in the context of her work. She’s shadow Home Secretary. She should be able to give a clearer and more definitive answer about how crime statistics are recorded and why it’s important.

Instead her response was just a lot of waffle about there being a difference between sex and gender that went nowhere useful.

As soon a politicians start with the ‘of course it is right that…’ I just know they’re dissembling but trying to sound righteous as they do so.

I want nothing to do with 'outing' any MP's family - that's off limits as far as I'm concerned. Cooper is entitled to a private life.

Her actions and words are the issue for me and that was a nothing statement which I don't think adds anything enlightening to what Labour have said already. My guess is that's deliberate and that Labour have calculated they can get away with not saying anything further.

I think I read that their manifesto would be ready end of February/early March. I'll see if that sheds any further light but I'm no longer hopeful.

Definitely recording sex and gender for criminals separately is really important to see in what ways being male, committing crime, and having a gender identity may intersect.
Also sick of men’s crimes being recorded as women’s crimes, these are not our crimes.

The GRA legal sex change should be repealed but for governments that want to retain it, GRA should be amended immediately and with retrospective effect to make it crystal clear that if GRC holders commit crimes they must be recorded as their birth sex. And records will note fact of their GRC possession, in addition to the perpetrator’s stated gender identity, if they give any, which is a subjective and not fixed category.

She has an adult male child who is a (very active) transactivist. I can imagine he'd make her home life quite difficult.

That whole answer was just word salad, she's scared to be clear, despite her obviously knowing this situation is a huge problem for any sensibly-minded person, whose votes she wants, but she's squirming because until today she's been one of the MPs whose been supportive of gender ideology and people like her age the reason is been able to get this far, because when women were raising concerns, she joined in with the chorus against us and completely lost all the respect I previously had for her.

She's a coward.

I think it would be very difficult for a whole cabinet to speak out about trans ideology if a respect colleague has a trans identifying child.

Of course it would.

It's real for other MPs. For example Stephen Kinnock is quite open about having a trans child. I can't imagine him ever speaking out against the ideology. It's a problem.

She doesn't have a trans child.
Why is there so much insistence on discussing a scenario that isn't real? It's weird.

There is a massive difference between doing it on this board and doing it publicly and putting your own child in the media spot light in the process.

If you DID believe that there a problem with gender ideology and felt that it was often vulnerable autistic young people who were being sucked into it, you might also be well aware that they'd be ill equipped to deal with that level of attention.

If that happened to be your child, you might well be professional but youd also be damned careful too because, if you have been in politics a long time like Yvette Cooper, you'd know the repercussions pretty well.

I wouldn't assume to know what Yvette Cooper truly believes from these comments to day.

She might have 'skin in the game' as some put it, but she might also feel her hands are tied and it's a massive conflict of interests which endangers her child regardless.

That's the reality. You might think it's an awful shit show, but it's still someone you care about and no matter how any of this is ultimately handled potentially is a disaster for them regardless.

It also maybe needs a few sensitive remarks from someone 'trusted' to nudge the point that biological sex is different to legal sex and to stop pretending differently - which many are trying to do.

I have much more time for a hedged bet politicians answer from Cooper, compared to Phillips for this reason; it's more complicated for her to be fully on Gender Critical.

I just thought it was a strange question and prefer not to speculate as I think its extremely distasteful to bring politicians children into this.
Like I said, Yvette Cooper doesn't have a trans child, pp got it wrong, so its an irrelevance anyway.

This is another example of how obeisance to the trans ideology turns articulate and once sensible politicians into an incoherent mess. What Cooper said was meaningless drivel and she wouldn't have uttered it about any other issue. She's smart and intelligent but as always sounds like a fool about this.

This is your post that I was referring to when I said you didn't seem to have read or understood the post you were replying to.

I'm sure they could get legal advice if they don't understand the law @AdamRyan

Of course I did. I just don't want to get into endless rounds of questions, so as to avoid criticisms of dominating the thread.
Anyway, since you are insisting, I can see a scenario where a journalist may believe para (c) applies to them:
(3)A person acquires protected information in an official capacity if the person acquires it—
(c)in the course of or otherwise in connection with, the conduct of business or the supply of professional services

Lots of orgs are quite risk averse when it comes to the law. That's not as an exciting an explanation as "institutional capture" of course.

She wouldn't answer the question and she burbled a lot of stuff without really saying anything.

Vote Labour and wave bye bye to your rights and hello to utter insanity.

You don't seem to have read or understood my post @AdamRyan.

No surprise, of course.

Well who knows. I wouldn't want to speculate about other people's family circumstances

It's hardly rude to describe you as uninformed. Even when information is given to you with links, you seem to be unable to access it, read it and understand it.

What I meant (which should have been obvious from the context) was
Don't you think it would be very difficult, or even impossible, for an MP with a trans-identifying child to speak out publicly against transgender ideology? Do we have MPs with trans identifying children speaking out on here in their own name against this? I don’t think so.

What possible reason could the court have for forbidding the disclosure? That's a bizarre bit of speculation on your part (expected from you, but still absurd).

If you had bothered to click on the link that I helpfully provided for you, you would know that what is meant by the acquisition of protected information in an official capacity is specified in the GRA and does not apply to just hearing it in court. I've done a c&p for you since you seem to find clicking on links too arduous.

(3)A person acquires protected information in an official capacity if the person acquires it—

(a)in connection with the person’s functions as a member of the civil service, a constable or the holder of any other public office or in connection with the functions of a local or public authority or of a voluntary organisation,

(b)as an employer, or prospective employer, of the person to whom the information relates or as a person employed by such an employer or prospective employer, or

(c)in the course of, or otherwise in connection with, the conduct of business or the supply of professional services.

Lots of parents with trans children do. We have some on the board. Anyway it's a moot point since pp was incorrect

Oh ok, so they just took the opportunity to ask her about Blake. Based on this and the other thread I thought it was a planned piece.
There was no need for the rudeness.

Maybe the court did forbid it?
Maybe some media sources decided that hearing it in court was "acquiring knowledge in a professional capacity"?
It's a real hornets nest and not one that's entirely the fault of the media

I always thought of Yvette Cooper as the best PM the UK never had.

Don't you think it would be very difficult, or even impossible, for someone with a trans-identifying child to speak out against transgender ideology?