Indeed. They got pushed to one side but the door wasn't closed...

https://twitter.com/Jonnywsbell/status/1748484179430404292?t=urDV-aGEnR1YW1EFQVt9dA&s=19

It's why safeguarding needs to evolve as the threats themselves evolve.

I think they do understand. They choose not to. Not dissimilar to PIE. Hardly difficult to understand, as the language is instructive.

This is actually worse because politicians feel they’ve resolved it so women can finally stop bugging them

Labour still haven’t said where GRCs grant access. We’re a year or so on from asking where

They are incapable of understanding, they cannot grapple with the implications of their absolutely shit laws

Cowardly and dishonest

Did PIE ever really go away? I'm unconvinced. Just look at the amount of completely unsuitable RSE materials. And the adults inveigling themselves with sex education and/or charities going on about being your authentic self. Seems like it just shapeshifted.

My five-year-old niece could have told you that, Anas.

I assume that if enough politicians can be encouraged to state that men have penises and women have vaginas, the journalists will move on to the next logical questions as and when Bills crop up that don't make logical sense.

Hopefully we're getting to a point similar to when PIE was toppled and politicians recognised the need for laws to protect children. I have no idea what was the tipping point but presumably somewhere along this journey, politicians were prepared to say on record that adults should not be having sex or sexual relationships with children.

It's obviously no accident (thanks Dentons 👍) that we're back at the point where all of this is open to corruption again.
The Cass Report has opened the door to put safeguarding children in to the centre of the conversation. A critical part of this safeguarding is to have a clear understanding of the difference between sex and gender identity in law.

The "queering" of the boundaries will be shut down again. Unfortunately it's clear that not enough politicians are interested in doing it from the angle of protecting women... yet. As more women (and men) get angrier about what's happening to children, more will join the dots and see how the whole lot is underpinned by the boundary pushing needs of paraphilic men. There will be a critical mass of women (and the men who support them) to demand attention from MPs, just like there was when the Suffragettes and Suffragists were finally heard.

At this point I feel like politicians are so desperate to get the reforms through they’ll say anything to appease women… “Only women have a cervix and of course we promise to protect your safe spaces but we won’t tell you how we’re going to do that because as soon as we’ve made it dead easy for men to lie on their identity documents we’ll renege on that other stuff we said and there’ll be nothing you can do about it”

I can’t believe we’re still stuck at this point

Why is there not the next question? Journalists and politicians don’t understand what they’re saying?

How are they this dim at this point. Someone from FWR could do better

Surely his two statements are contradictory? @CheeseSandwichRiskAssessment

That interview is concerning because it’s so garbled
And WHY does the next basic question not happen? Where does a GRC grant access
@EasternStandard

Exactly. Once it's clear that sex means biological sex and there is an acknowledgement that there is good reason for this, the value of "legal sex" is meaningless.
It's a certificate that states someone has officially got a "gender identity". The equivalent would be having a certificate that states someone has been christened.
Same-sex marriage is now legal and the PC of gender reassignment already provides protection against discrimination without a GRC, so unless there are plans to tighten this up and have the PC only apply when someone has a GRC (this would be an option to "modernise" the GRA if there isn't an appetite to repeal it) what's the point?
I assume birth certificates, passports and driving licences etc will use sex not "legal sex", otherwise it would be impossible to protect single sex spaces like hospital wards because there would be no comeback if someone demanded access and cited their "legal sex". Where would the record of their sex actually be held?

They are going to have to decide which voices to listen to, and make a choice whether to actually protect single sex spaces or to issue pieces of paper that allow anyone in to them.

I really want an explanation from anyone who says the process should be simpler but also that single sex spaces should be protected how on earth they're going to do that. Are they going to make it so you can ask if someone has a GRC?
@miri1985

Indeed.

No this is terrible. The reason he can’t answer coherently is because women are all up in his level of politics, actually higher level since he cannot make sense

That interview is concerning because it’s so garbled

And WHY does the next basic question not happen? Where does a GRC grant access

He’s a weasel and the conversation is pretty meaningless given he ends on GRC and no question happens after about which spaces they grant access to

So which ones?

I hope it’s not!

Tjis is the sort of bollocks KS loves. Pretending to protect women with single sex spaces whilst making it easier for men to legally have the same sex as women!

What we need is to get rid of the pretense that men can be women, not make it easier.

AS has been terrible since the Cass Review, pretending the SNP lied to him about the GRA to trick him into voting for it ( pathetic AS, just pathetic), and now openly showing that, after all this time, he is still too thick to have understood the issue.

😂 that's the voice I heard/read it in!

I don't trust him as far as I can throw him but wow wow wow has the conversation changed.

The GRC thing never makes any bloody sense, why does no politician ever want to make getting a disability benefits or access easier?
How much easier should it be to put a lie into legal paperwork. If we're all suppose to pretend it's nothing medical & don't want doctors involved why are prescriptions made on its basis.
Why the hell can't we get the genie back in the bloody bottle & agree people can name themselves & dress themselves however they like, but as they can't bloody change sex the law should no longer pretend that they can.

Why is there never any similar impetus to do away with the paperwork or assessments required for entry into another protected class like being registered as having a disability? They've already taken away the cost of registering for a GRC, I don't think that its beyond the bounds that someone has to demonstrate their seriousness and that it shouldn't be a check box exercise.

I really want an explanation from anyone who says the process should be simpler but also that single sex spaces should be protected how on earth they're going to do that. Are they going to make it so you can ask if someone has a GRC? If they're expecting people to self police out of single sex spaces if they have transitioned then they're incredibly naive and haven't been following this issue at all

This is extraordinary, given the capturedness of Scotland.

I hope it's a kite-fly that Starmer will pay attention to.

Surely his two statements are contradictory?

It's funny how suddenly it's all very simple for these politicians when it comes to correctly sexing a human isn't it! It's as if they've never tried to persuade anyone that a man can be a woman with a penis.

I give thanks once again for the mighty Hilary Cass!

"the idea that we get into that level of politics is part of the reason why I think people move so distant away from politics"

No no no. The reason we all got interested in stopping the onward march to dismantle safeguarding is because this is the "level of politics" being done in secret. We moved towards it, to stop it. Regardless of ordinary political allegiances.

They would have gotten away with it, if it weren't for those pesky wims (and the noble peers who Dentons didn't reckon on!)