Gillian Keegan: I'll stop saying Transwomen are women

How do you know a majority are not "pro-trans"? In my experience most people have a live and let live attitude, though I have seen no data on these questions.

Sadly, and I do blame the media as much as individuals, not everyone is good at joining up the dots or even has the time to.

If say the BBC (ha ha) did an in depth documentary or ITV a docu drama about how queer politics spread out from universities in the 80s and onwards, that showed how queer politics has impacted life in 21st century.

ie not only has it under mined gay rights (see thread about a Pride march for lesbians) but hijacked the real issue of gender dysphoria to make it a touchstone issue of individual rights disrupting society (or what ever their analysis is) more people would maybe join the links between men in women's prisons, men in women's sports and the complete madness of having an EA where the word sex (in past centuries has always meant biological) was qualifies by the inclusion of gender identity.

Not forgetting that queer politics is concocted and practiced as all politics are based on men's rights.

When it comes down to it, all these political and social movements are about men reasserting their rights over women.

It just takes a different form in suceeding generations.

In fact Women's Liberation is the only recent social / political movement that within a decade there was an orchestrated backlash against it.

Interesting. Is that why Humza's Hate Act couldn't be used against JKR for all those tweets? And, even if they'd tried, that's where it would have failed?

I share this perspective.

Posters have discerned new dawns, turning tides etc. many hundreds of times on FWR.

I have no reason to be more optimistic than my earlier comment in this thread. The people governed by this ideology are still in post and ready to remove people with GC beliefs from their professions and organisations.

I would be delighted for all those who feel every bit of the dissonance of preference falsification and the threads of discontent with this ideology to coalesce and find each other, leading to what would seem like an overnight fall of this ideology. That time doesn't feel like now, especially not in the teeth of an election and facing a new government.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5061755-gillian-keegan-ill-stop-saying-transwomen-are-women?reply=134794474&

There is definitely a momentum building up. While I would agree that we are a long way off full understanding/interest in the public discourse, it's getting closer all the time. The final piece of the puzzle will be public understanding of how autogynophiles operate and why it's dangerous to women and children.

Isla Bryson's case created a chink in the public consciousness. Women's sports had already got some momentum in public discussion by this point, albeit in a fringe way but the combination of the two opened up talking points. When I was speaking to people (decision makers, friends) IRL about the impact on children, my opener wasn't the Interim Cass Report, although I did go there pretty quickly, it was a combination of Isla and sports, followed by a principle that I still hold today: everyone should be free to believe in whatever they believe in (that "we all have a gender identity", in god, in Allah, in ghosts, in reincarnation etc), but noone should ever force their belief as a truth on anyone else. Many people cite the right to the protected "gender critical" belief as the big win from the Maya Forstater case. Whilst it's obviously significant, for me the bigger win is that she also secured the right not to believe that everyone has a gender identity. See screenshot. Although her win only applies to everything covered by the Equality Act, it has a much broader application in conversations about the difference between sex (fact) and gender identity (belief).

My understanding is that in law, there is no such thing as a scientific truth/fact. So "gender critical belief" has legal parity with the belief that the earth is round. The biggest difference between the two is that there is only a niche group of people who believe that the earth is flat and they have no traction on getting policies and books etc amended to accommodate flat earth as a truth. If they did, I would imagine that a court would uphold the same right to a) believe that the earth was a globe and b) not believe that it is flat.

The Cass Report has opened up another gap for more conversations to take place. This is more than a chink because it's much easier for the public to grasp the full harm (and horror 😢) of what is happening as the news continues to unfold the details of what has been happening.

Lots and lots more dots will continue to be joined up. There is only one way this is going. I have no doubt that the EA will be amended at some point (probably not under a Labour government but it depends how hard the Tories push in opposition, or how much they use this as a wedge issue to stay in government.. they have very little else to use to secure more votes).

I was reading about John Seddon, the New Zealand Prime Minister who was in office when New Zealand gave women the vote in 1893. Apparently it was well-known that he hated women but he was won over by the fact that supporting this Bill kept him in power. I have no idea how much truth there is to this but I do like the idea that even reluctant politicians can concede that it's something that matters to people when it comes to politics. Obviously the ones who actually believe it are more impressive, but politics has sadly never only been about integrity.

You're very pessimistic, @IwantToRetire. I think you're also underestimating the Isla Bryson effect and the Scottish GRA furore.

I'm pretty sure it's being considered / planned, bearing in mind it was in The Telegraph last month. Whether there's enough parliament time to get it done before an election (July having not been discounted as the date), is something else, or if it will be a manifesto pledge.

And again as said up thread very few people apart from those of us on FWR and campaigning groups will link the Cass Report and children to the issue of why sex in the EA should mean biological sex.

To the population as a whole they will think of health malpractice.

They wont be thinking about grown men in women's toilets or rape crisis centres.

There just isn't that awareness.

Yes, but the debate was before Pandora's box was opened on all this nonsense.

Plus, they'll whip if they think they have to. Why do you think they wouldn't?

All moot if the Tories commit to doing it though

As I said earlier on this thread, given the numbers and the tone of the resulting MPs debate, it doesn't look an easy win.

And they will think they have enough problems getting policies through Parliament, even with a (dwindling) majority, they would risk a defeat on this issue. Nor would they make it a whipped vote.

All moot if the Tories commit to doing it though.

109,462 Update the Equality Act to make clear the characteristic “sex” is biological sex

138,886 Commit to not amending the Equality Act's definition of sex

ie nearly 30,000 more said they did NOT want the EA amended.

I think taken in context with the rest of the post it could be understood.

Ok understood. I was wanting to be clear not meaning to be pedantic.

Yes. That's what was said, albeit with a typo (double 'be' instead of 'not').

in terms of public statement and number of signatories those saying the EA should be be ammended were in the majority.

Those saying the EA should be be ammended were not in the majority

I would imagine it's gaining momentum post-Cass too

The dumbed down personality politics of the main stream media reporting means that very few people will make the link between the Cass report and women's sex based rights.

I do think on both issues there has been some progress in terms of raising awareness, but for most people this will be a fringe issue.

And even if Sunak was committed to it, he has so many rats wanting to leave the sinking ship, that he probably doesn't want to give them a gang plank to a "respectable" retreat of saying Suank has lost his way and if focusing on minority interests / the woke war rather than bread and butter issues.

Too fucking late Keegan. Women WITH morals have said for years, 'this won't age well'. It hasn't. It might help to hear you exclaim in Parliament that JKR was right and Trans identifying males are in fact MEN. The courtesy that women used to extend to these males, in female toilets, even changing rooms, saying Debbie not Derek and she not he has gone. Huge damage has been done.

It was mentioned in the press as recently as last month as potentially being in the Tories' manifesto. And we all know that Tories leak policy ideas before announcing them. So it's clearly something they're still considering.

I would imagine it's gaining momentum post-Cass too (despite Cass being in relation to a different issue, it's blown the doors off the entire GI narrative).

Abso-fucking-lutely. I'm wondering why they aren't taking the opportunity, frankly. Unless it's a matter of timing and it'll be done just before they announce the GE, so it's fresh in voters' minds?

Its becausse as said up thread when the discussion was had in response to the 2 opposing petitions re the EA, in terms of public statement and number of signatories those saying the EA should be be ammended were in the majority.

And even if the Tories are majority GC in terms of their total agenda this issue is way down the list.

Sort of surprised this is still being discussed.

Unless of course anyone has evidence that those who were behind not changing the EA and / or spoke up for this in the debate have all suddenly publicly said, we've seen the light of course the word sex should be clarified.

Keegan saying I was mislead by those who briefged me is virtually irrelevant.

The only reason this would go back up the Tory agenda for the last few months they are in office, if suddengly all the TWAW signed a joint letter saying we were in the wrong. And so that this never happens again lets amend the EA.

Rightly or wrongly, I will be unimpressed if the government makes this a general election issue given that they still have an extremely comfortable majority and when they're not shying away from tabling other divisive legislation.

I'm not a potential Conservative voter so maybe they don't think they need to take account of views such as mine, but I'm afraid I'm likely to see it as a deeply cynical move.

Yes. I'd prefer an amendment to the statute rather than case law.

We need one of Kemi's constituents to email her and question it (as they don't have to respond to non-constituents).

Edited to add: I can't see the FWS hearing going ahead before a GE has to be called as I doubt there's much judicial availability.

Forgot to say that a SI would be better than case law, however authoritative.

It is possible that they are waiting on the FWS appeal.

I am told statutory instruments aren't any easier/quicker to sort out than new primary legislation, but there must be a reason why they exist and since Truss's amendment seems to be dead and the puberty blockers issue is covered by Cass, I wish Kemi Badeenoch would get on with issuing the government's own amendment using the Sex Matters wording instead.
It's essentially the same as Truss's but more elegant - Truss's amendment tried to define bio sex, but the Sex Matters one says simply that the GRA doesn't apply to the EA. Which is neater.

This is the wording from the SM website:
What could an amendment look like?
(X) In this Act, references to female persons and women:
(a) also refer to a person who was born female and has acquired the male sex under the GRA 2004
(b) do not refer to a person who was born male and has acquired the female sex under that Act.
(X) In this Act, references to male persons and men:
(a) also refer to a person who was born male and has acquired the female sex under the GRA 2004
(b) do not refer to a person who was born female and has acquired the male sex under that Act.

Edited for accuracy.

Or maybe there's more division about it within the party than we think and the leadership are wary of making it public?

That's all pure speculation but I do find it strange, especially, as I've already said, given its potential for exposing the opposition.

OR they/their lawyers are waiting for the outcome of the FWS appeal to the Supreme Court.

Hopefully there's a hearing date soon as it's over a month since papers were filed and served.