Stella Creasy

There is a kind of personality that just cannot accept being wrong and will never apologise. A kind of narcissistic hubris. To admit being wrong would invoke an unbearable psychic insult to the self.

AI is an overconfident sixth-form debater who will tell you all sorts of slightly (but crucially) incorrect things with utter confidence, polish and footnotes that don't say what they think they say.

To be fair, so is the average TRA.

I'm still not understanding - are you typing out these AI quotes instead of copying and pasting?

It has to be this ⬆️ along with a deeply entrenched belief that she is ‘progressive’ and that progressive people always support trans rights (whatever that means). It’s become her identity.

But she is also comes across as being either duplicitous and mean or obtuse when she starts that video conflating ’women’s rights’ with ‘trans rights’. For friends and colleagues I can understand (by way of explaining their position) that they just have not thought through all the implications for women and girls or looked into the impact of the gender movement on young people. However, for an MP who actively campaigns on this issue, you’d expect them to be better informed before opening their mouths.

The older I get, the more I’m recognising the lack of critical thinking skills in many many of our political leaders.

Still going?

I used 'secondary legislation' which is legislation instead legal authority which the AI bot correctly quoted.

Out of interest, had anyone ever heard Stella Creasy say, "I was wrong," about anything, ever, or is that antithetical to her on a fundamental level?

If so, it may explain a lot of the X posts where she says, "no, I wasn't referring to THIS, I was referring to THAT," despite her posts - very much referring to This - still being available in black and white for all to see.

It would be a lot more convincing if she said, "sorry, I mistyped and/or wasn't clear, but clearly what I meant was X." But that seems to be something she won't contemplate doing for some reason.

Even our AI friends have that much humility when an error is pointed out!

You didn't use the phrase "legislative authority" anywhere in your original posts so that cannot be the thing you are seeking to correct or a misstatement your are seeking to take responsibility for. Your responses to posters do not make full sense and don't engage with the substance of what they say.

I now think that this poster is either an AI bot themselves or literally posting everything into AI and simply posting the responses and have reported to Mumsnet accordingly.

As you were!

Err, as I already pointed out AI was correct on this issue it was my human error in 'misspeaking' just like you are doing now.

Maybe but surely the huge Muslim population in her east London’s seat might start to part ways with her?

That was my mistake not AI as It correctly stated 'legal authority'. 😂

This!!!!!

Exactly. Creasy was an MP when this passed. Why did she not argue against the inclusion of Gender Reassignment as a separate category if she wanted sex and gender to be conflated?

@Baileyonice

AI is an overconfident sixth-form debater who will tell you all sorts of slightly (but crucially) incorrect things with utter confidence, polish and footnotes that don't say what they think they say.

It doesn't actually know anything and it's not even an encyclopaedia; it's a tool that essentially runs on predicting what the answer-words might be based on all the words and the order of words fed into it so far.

It's no substitute for actual knowledge and a critically reasoning brain. Treating it as though it is will land you in a misleading pickle.

It's lucky some other posters know enough to spot the flaws in your AI copy-paste but if they didn't (here or in any other place) you would be confidently posting unchallenged misinformation. Please consider not doing that.

Apologies I meant 'legal authority" not 'legislative authority' as I already linked upthread:

"a statutory code can be issued under a statutory instrument, but it depends on whether the code itself is granted direct legal force or functions merely as formal guidance."

"Yes, the updated Code of Practice issued by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) for services, public functions, and associations is subject to formal legal enactment through a statutory instrument. 1, 2]

The guidelines were laid before Parliament by the Minister for Women and Equalities and are processed under the "negative procedure". This means that after being laid, Parliament has 40 days to review the code. Unless either the House of Commons or the House of Lords passes a motion to annul it within that timeframe, the equalities minister issues a statutory instrument to formally bring the code into full legal force. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

While the Code of Practice itself does not create new law, it is given statutory authority by Parliament. Once it is brought into force, it serves as the authoritative guide for complying with the Equality Act 2010 and can be used as evidence in court and tribunal proceedings. 1, 2, 3]"

In any case, the new code having legal authority still lends itself to scrutiny & debate given its consequences when enforcing the law.

Frustrating the implementation of the code might seem a good strategy from inside the bubble, but it's not a great strategy for Labour. Endless possibilities for Reform attack ads if they drag this out, and great for any party that wants to get rid of equality law.

Creasey hasn't suggested any alternatives and is just making the law and parliament look ridiculous.

Stella Creasy is still stuck where she was 8 years ago:

https://x.com/stellacreasy/status/975440621765873664

when she suggested that the solution to girls being exposed to sexual assault in female single-sex spaces was counselling after the event rather than acting to recognise and resolve breaches of safeguarding.

Thank you - his whole thread is worth reading.

Scott Wortley (Edinburgh University School of Law):

x.com/Scott_Wortley/status/2062264570232668563

Extract from his thread replying to Creasey

"The laying of the code before parliament does not make it law. It is not a statutory instrument. The procedure in the Equality Act 2006, s 14 mirrors the negative procedure for statutory instruments but it is not a statutory instrument. The code is guidance (as is made explicit in the 2006 Act). To suggest - as you do - that this is some form of making legislation is misleading. The code is explicitly narrated to be about facilitating compliance with the 2010 Act. Of itself it is not legally determinative."

It's never a good idea to rely on AI when you don't understand a subject...

She's one of the most insufferable, vacuous MPs around. My guess is she has a close friend or relative who is trans and is virtue signalling her support.

"a Statutory Code is considered secondary legislation (also known as delegated or subordinate legislation). 1]"

If you click on the 1 (copied from @Baileyonice's earlier post) it takes you to Wikipedia.

I think Bailey's whole post was just a c&p from AI without any checking of sources (or any checking for accuracy).

AI = Always Incorrect

Unfortunately, I think it could make a difference if these MP’s managed to slow down the process. The law wouldn’t change, but lots of organisations seem to be adopting a holding pattern, waiting for the guidance to be released. If the guidance is impeded this will just send a stronger signal that no one needs to worry about the law, at least not yet.

Of course they could be challenged legally, but we all know how long that takes, and (obviously) one court case isn’t enough to sway everyone. The penalties are not punitive (eg the OU seems to be prepared to face case after case) and often the public purse pays anyway.

This kind of piecemeal approach to interpreting the law means it would be years before women retrieved their single-sex rights. This would buy time to work towards a change in the law (if that is their aim).

They are presenting as stupid, but the strategy might not be