Janice Turner thanks the LibDems

[TimeLady]

Great column from Janice today:

"Jo Swinson chose wokeness over women’s rights"

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jo-swinson-chose-wokeness-over-womens-rights-jm26ldx35?shareToken=1bb1b5a3e627aa308f03953a99c59666

I might send Jo Swinson a bunch of flowers. My card will read: “Thank you for making reform of the Gender Recognition Act a flagship Liberal Democrat election policy, thus finally giving journalists permission to expose the consequences for women’s rights and safety.”

thanks for the share. fantastic writing from Janice as always

But that's a terrible political judgement, @BarbaraStrozzi

Mind you, I've long thought being a Lib Dem and female requires a large degree of internalised misogyny.

Good for Jean Hatchet and everyone delving into the background to these issues. Whether it is out and out buying influence, financial vested interests, threats and coercion from bullies, overreach by lobby groups or those with personal 'interests' that would warrant a deep dive into hard drives, in a democratic society we are entitled to ask questions.

How has this ideology been allowed to strip away the rights of women and the safeguarding of vulnerable children with no questions or challenges allowed?

@BarbaraStrozzi sorry that's not clear - I mean Swinson's political judgement is terrible on this.

I'm also sick and tired of the University cancellations. I thought it wasn't permitted to squash free speech at universities?

How has this ideology been allowed to strip away the rights of women and the safeguarding of vulnerable children with no questions or challenges allowed?

Stonewall agreeing to front a campaign previously led by Press for Change.

In another thread I mentioned that the W&E Select Committee was formed in July 2015. In October, they held their first major session re transgender equality and appointed Whittle (PfC) as their lead advisor.

There's no way the trans lobby hastily put that together over the summer

I agree Swindon's political judgement is terrible on this one (though I see it an extension of a general problem for the left/centre left, of thinking what your mates say in Twitter is indicative of the mood of the country as a whole).

That article about the University of Essex cancelling a meeting in criminal justice (and the huge string of universities which have done similarly) is chilling.

I’m still baffled as to how politicians of all parties got this SO wrong. It’s a basic numbers game ffs! Women are 51% of the population, Trans ppl estimated at around 500,000. Why would you risk alienating tens of millions of voters?

Asked if she’s concerned that self-ID will be abused by predatory men she said: “There will be, of course, a very tiny number of individuals who will seek to exploit this to behave as violent criminals towards women and you need a separate route for these people.”

This is so damned arrogant.

She acknowledges that the mechanism is exploitable, but then confidently states that it will be confined to a few people!

It's all predators. Every last one of them has access to exactly the same mechanism.

She acknowledges that the mechanism is exploitable, but then confidently states that it will be confined to a few people!

The other line they usually come out with is that a statutory declaration has to be true, otherwise they can be prosecuted for making a false declaration.

Do they really think that a rapist is going to worry about making a false declaration being added to their list of charges when it comes to sentencing?

And how do you prove that a declaration of someone's internal feelings of gender identity was falsely made anyway? By definition 'I believe this at this moment in time' can never be proven to be true or false.

None of them have thought this through.

It's all predators. Every last one of them has access to exactly the same mechanism.

Yes, exactly. And like Kit19 I don't understand why politicians have got it so wrong. We all know - don't we? - that sexual abusers will take any route they can to find victims. They become teachers, priests, boy scout leaders, sports coaches. Of course they're going to take advantage of self-ID. Why wouldn't they? Can't Swinson and co see the absolutely devastating consequences this could have for women and girls?

If self ID doesn't specify any criteria, what is there to lie about?

The current process at least has some criteria. But it's entirely subjective so irrelevant.

And nowhere does it say that you can't be a serial rapist, multiple serial killer, or open and rampant predator, and still be trans.

It's a fucking joke.
She might as well just say "yeah, letting males use female spaces will increase violent and sexual crimes to females but who gives a shit about those women eh?"

And how do you prove that a declaration of someone's internal feelings of gender identity was falsely made anyway? By definition 'I believe this at this moment in time' can never be proven to be true or false.

This is the absolutely central legal point, to my mind, OldCrone (and one I've been banging on about for years on this board, but you've encapsulated it beautifully succinctly).

Any sort of legal construction (nationality, money, corporations as "persons") requires legally definable and falsifiable criteria to enable you, the judge, the jury, the government, to tell the difference between circumstances where that construction is in play, and circumstances when it is not (and circumstances where it's being invoked fraudulently). Gender self ID relies entirely on what people say about the contents of their own minds - it's unverifiable, unfalsifiable. It's a legal nonsense.

If Karen White says "I feel like a woman" his assertion is no more, nor less, valid than, I dunno, nice Karen in accounts who has just quietly got on with life, turning up to work in a twinset and pearls rather than a suit, for the last 20 years and leading a blameless life. Self ID and "acceptance without exception" do exactly what they say on the tin: once a man has uttered the magic words "I feel like a woman", he is teflon. There is, in principle, no evidence that could be adduced to show that he is in fact a lying predatory bastard.

The current GRA, coupled with the exemptions in the Equalities Act, however imperfect a compromise it is (and I think it is pretty dreadful, and was deliberately "sneaked in under the radar"), does at least attempt some sort of meaningful social contract, namely "we will collectively as a society engage in a polite game of 'let's pretend', so long as you put yourself through some process of gate-keeping where a couple of third parties get to interview you and see if they think you're genuine, and what's more, we reserve a range of circumstances where biological sex trumps the game of 'let's pretend'."

TimeLady, thank you for the share token on this superb article.

Voters tuning in for the first time to the gender wars may wonder how such radical policies, which would change the very definition of men and women, have entered a party’s manifesto. They might be more surprised to find such principles are already deeply embedded in our institutions entirely against public opinion

I hope brave journalists like Janice Turner continue to expose the existential threat to freedom and democracy posed by this sinister lobby group. The fact that opportunistic politicians are pandering to their agenda is pathetic. But calling yourself a feminist while aiming a battering ram at sex segregated spaces? That really is beyond contempt

Never been a fan of him but the Nick Robinson question was great, we need more of this, cuts straight through the bullshit.

Why would you risk alienating tens of millions of voters?

Kit, that’s an excellent question and something I have been struggling to comprehend. This is my conclusion. I reckon the Lib Dems and Labour have such a grotesque sense of entitlement to women’s votes, particularly feminist women that they aren’t worried about alienating them. Also, this lobby has tried to criminalize the language used to express dissent, whilst using ‘hate speech’ as a bludgeon. These craven politicos have capitulated to this intimidation because When you stand for nothing, you fall for anything

Asked if she’s concerned that self-ID will be abused by predatory men she said: “There will be, of course, a very tiny number of individuals who will seek to exploit this to behave as violent criminals towards women and you need a separate route for these people.”

Not only what Datun said but um... what is this alternative route?

Sending these violent individuals to prison and treating them with anti-androgens so that half of them decide to become "women"?

I reckon the Lib Dems and Labour have such a grotesque sense of entitlement to women’s votes, particularly feminist women that they aren’t worried about alienating them.

You see it all the time on this board : they know the "I can't vote Tory..." scenario means those votes are non-Conservative ones, whether cast in despair or ballots spoilt.

That's all that matters. Job done, thank you very much.

How does she know it’s a tiny number ?

Has she got magic powers ?

The argument seems to be that if it's only a tiny number of women and girls that get harmed as a result of self ID, that that's ok.

You see it all the time on this board : they know the "I can't vote Tory..." scenario means those votes are non-Conservative ones, whether cast in despair or ballots spoilt.

I think they might be in for a nasty surprise come next Friday - I reckon for every disillusioned Labour/Lib Dem voter saying this on social media, there's one who in the privacy of the ballot box might well think "sod it" and vote Tory.

(I know I'm damn close myself, because I think free speech and not being shat on by authoritarians who think they can school you in right-think is massively important to me politically - I am holding off, just, due to the fact that I fear the Tories will shaft the poor and vulnerable even more badly than they have managed to do so far... but it is coming close to a straight choice between "five years of the poor being shafted versus a fundamental shift in our political process away from freedom of speech and democracy which may last a lifetime or more.")

Tracey Loughran, a historian and dean in the Essex University humanities department said: “This speaker is part of the anti-trans platform. Free speech is one thing, but trans rights are human rights and we shouldn’t be debating human rights."

uh why shouldn't we debating human rights? Its an important issue, we have to argue out exactly what rights people have and what they do not have. I honestly do not know of any other group camaigning for what they perceive to be their human rights who would not be confident enough to explain precisely why their rights are being denied. Anyone who had a case should surely be gald of the publicity?

Quite simply, people who do not believe in debating human rights do not believe in human rights. Free debate is human right.

This is really interesting and odd wording in the the Times

'Karen White, a convicted rapist and paedophile who was born a man but used a transgender persona to attack female prisoners in a women’s prison.'

1. Karen White said they were trans so they were trans. What is this 'trans persona' idea??? Not heard that one before.
2. Karen White was able to abuse because the prison system said oh this person says their a woman and so even though they're a convicted rapist we'll put them in with the women. The mechanism is invisiblised. It's as if she hoodwinked them somehow when that's not the case. Prison system knew who they were and had a think and locked them in with women.

do you know what? I like our local tory boy mp. he;s rock solid on GC issues and has a good understanding of the 'trans kids' stuff. he's also very civilised on women's prisons

I fucking hate Boris Johnson, but that's not who I'm voting for. so maybe I will put a cross in that 'conservative' box next week for the first time ever in my life

there just isn't a credible alternative and I'm sick of spoiling my ballot

I think that’s it Bovary, they’re so certain that women will vote for them anyway that it doesn’t matter plus they’re certain they are on the ‘right’ side. for the first time ever I will spoil my ballot (I live in a rock solid Tory seat so it won’t affect anything) but I cannot bring myself to vote for a party that is willing to throw women under the bus AND expect women to cheer them while they do it