Robert Jenrick on women's rights

One of the 320,000 is me, I think. I still get party junk but I don't support much of what Keir Starmer says. Honestly, it's more interesting watching a coffee machine descale than listen to him.

I said the Civil Service is captured, not that all civil servants are captured. No, it's not ridiculous. Captured means that there are genderists in strategic positions, influencing policy and organisational culture.

And presumably you accept that KB was not "pushing a line" that civil servants are "the enemy of The People" as you claimed? If you've read the relevant part of the transcript, of course.

Lots of organisations are "captured" - mostly in the sense that they are full of people who don't want to carry on being part of the problem that gay and lesbian people have been dealing with for decades, and they've over-corrected. But can you genuinely not see how ridiculous it is to announce that civil servants are captured when loads of them have formed SEEN?

@RayonSunrise

She's not pushing the line that the Civil Service are the enemy of the people.
If you read the transcript, she defends it.
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womensrights/5196161-mumsnet-zoomchat-with-kemi-badenoch
Second or third post down.

And I think that the very fact that the SEEN network has had to be formed and many of its members wish to remain anonymous lends support to my assertion that the Civil Service is captured.

As SEEN demonstrates, there is a variety of thought in the civil service. But I am utterly unsurprised to see Kemi pushing the "civil servants are the enemies of The People," line.

Heh! I thought earlier, did Jim Hacker die in vain? 😀

Definitely Arabella, Kemi doesn’t strike me as a Jim Hacker politician.

The Civil Service are captured. However, IIRC, KB said in a previous interview several months ago that her staff told her not to meet with Keira Bell...but she did anyway. And she's obviously read the source material - the law, the guidance, the cases - and not just relied on briefings or digests. She looked at the evidence and made up her own mind. Anyone can do that if they are so inclined.

I suspect he pronounces it, at least internally, with very little pause between "Trans" and "man", like it's referring to some kind of superhero.

"Dinner dinner dinner dinner dinner dinner dinner dinner TRANSMAN!!!"
"Is it a man, is it a woman? No, it's TRANSMAN!!!"
"This is Clark Kent, an ordinary reporter on the Daily Planet. He needs to find a telephone box so he can change into a pretty dress with a big 'T' on the front and become TRANSMAN!!!"

Yes, it's a huge problem.

WRT politicians having been briefed before an appearance, it's the civil service who brief them, and the civil service is totally TWAW. See employment tribunals where civil servants are suing other civil servants for saying 'only women menstruate'.

This is how it becomes embedded into policy that is then rolled out across the entire public sector. The various SEENs, especially in the civil service, challenge the language in all the policies they have access to, but it's a real fight all the time.

Thank you

Voting completed by 31 oct, the announcement a couple of days later.

Does anyone know when the vote is?

It’s clear what he means. “Trans man” for a man who is transgender makes much more sense. “Trans woman” to describe a man is ideological language forced on us all. Also many people are confused by the language because it is counterintuitive. I even saw Eddie Izzard refer to himself as a “trans guy” in an interview once.

Of course, I got that wrong, Told you it messes with my brain!

I fear that Jenrick's confusion is a general one, i.e. that 'transman' is a TiM and 'transwoman' is a TiF. If this is the case it explains a great deal. But he wants sex segregated spaces for women, including excluding transwomen from women's sports. Pity he did not fix it earlier.

There is a dilemma though by barring any man from from women's spaces. It follows that transmen must use men's spaces, which wouldn't be popular.

I really don't want to derail the thread by turning it into yet another rehash of other sex/gender threads ....
But I'll take this opportunity to say that thank goodness the EA2010 already covers transmen in women's spaces.
If there are proportionate means/legitimate reasons to exclude a transman on the basis of their perceived maleness then they can be legally excluded. Think in terms of women's sports and a woman on T that should never be allowed. In a women only maternity ward where a bearded person shows up. No one has the time for "actually I am a woman I've just taken testosterone for 10 years" sorts of conversations. It's a flat out no. Which is fine.
Likewise transwomen too. When it comes to women's spaces, they are exclusionary by definition.

I agree, UtopiaPlanitia

I’ve finished watching and I think Jenrick was a poor show compared to Badenoch: he didn’t seem as much across his brief as she did, he gave pat answers that were light on details whereas she gave lots of details with explanations of her thinking.

Badenoch comes across as a person who is in politics and Jenrick comes across as a politician - based on the MN interviews, I prefer Badenoch.

Just started watching and off the bat he’s described Mumsnetters as Justine’s ‘followers’ - I”m not thinking this is going to go well; it looks like the usual politician who doesn’t think Mumsnetters are a serious bunch and platitudes will do to placate the weemin.