Another Labour councillor resigns over Cambridge City Council's transgender policies

[StandWitch]

See www.cambridgeindependent.co.uk/news/labour-councillor-kevin-price-resigns-from-cambridge-city-council-over-transgender-rights-motion-9127531/ and cf. www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3322389-labour-councillor-quits-in-row-over-facilities-for-trans-people-the-times

A Labour councillor of 10 years and former deputy leader at Cambridge City Council has resigned over a motion on transgender rights.

The motion, brought by the Liberal Democrats to a session of the full council on Thursday (October 22), began with the words: “Trans women are women. Trans men are men. Non-binary individuals are non-binary.”

It is quite possible that the previous shenanigans is what led to his resignation as deputy leader in 2018 www.cambridgeindependent.co.uk/news/deputy-leader-of-cambridge-city-council-stands-down-9051099/ as the dates are the same

The motion, brought by the Liberal Democrats to a session of the full council on Thursday (October 22), began with the words: “Trans women are women. Trans men are men. Non-binary individuals are non-binary.”

Kevin Price , who represented King’s Hedges for the Labour party, said he could not support those words, saying they would “send a chill down the spines” of “many women,” and saying it is “foolish to pretend” there are not widely different views or concerns about women’s rights.

He said he has not voted against a Labour motion in his 10 years on the council, and said he did not intend to break that “principle”, and instead announced his resignation to the meeting, saying there are times when conscience “must be weighed against the pull of party”.

A second Labour councillor, Carina O'Reilly has been targeted by TRAs www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/two-cambridge-labour-councillors-accused-19019555

She dared to retweet JK Rowling.

There is some detail on the council's motion here:

democracy.cambridge.gov.uk/documents/b15527/Information%20Pack%2022nd-Oct-2020%2018.00%20Council.pdf?T=9

Facilitating and strongly encouraging all Councillors to attend
Safer Spaces training
Safer Spaces training for councillors was delivered on 24th February
2020 for the first time and officers can run further sessions. Officers
have also been asked by Cllr Smith to book transgender awareness
training for councillors. The council also provides 2 training sessions on transgender awareness per year for staff delivered by The Kite Trust.

There is also something about consulting groups about which Pride flag they want flown.

Essentially this motion was to object to the government not making a new GRA.

Students don't manage staff, they are not responsible for staff disciplinary procedures, and are not legal advisors to the employer... Do you genuinely think students and college special interest groups have had staff management responsibility legally delegated to them by the professional staff employed for that purpose?

Of course we know that the students aren't the employers and don't have the authority to terminate anybody's contract. The point is, though, that they're trying to make that happen by using other levers at their disposal - eg. bombarding those who could sack him with complaints. Will they succeed? Probably not - yet the fact that this is what passes for progressive activism in student circles nowadays is simply extraordinary, and highly worthy of discussion. No wonder those on this thread are upset - it's absolutely disgusting.

@FairFridaythe13th

I believe that they can harass him at work, that they can orchestrate a campaign of raising all sorts of complaints about him, write letters/boycott/picket... make his working life crap until he thinks 'I've had enough'. Have you never been bullied at work? These are motivated activists with too much time on their hands.

And yet you say this.

*And maybe set up a petition to have the lead bullies sent down (is that the expression)?That would be amusing...

Is being amused at a petition wanting students to be kicked out of education for inane ravings not a bit over the top? Tit for tat? Colleges have a difficult task with these young people but they definitely won't be bullying them back or acting to reward their bullying.

It's called sarcasm. Because adults don't do that.

However - how do you propose letting them know that orchestrating a campaign against someone isn't right? Maybe they aren't mature enough or have the critical faculties to be there anyway.

The protected characteristic of gender reassignment HAS NOT CHANGED.

I'm aware. Nevertheless, the larger social trend is to treat a claim of transgender status as a protected characteristic. You have to be in serious denial about what is actually happening to think that employers or any other party are demanding proof of a GRC before honouring a claim to transgender status.

The GRA enshrined the fiction of 'sex change' into law, which reified the notion of 'transgender' as a protected class, and now the claim to trans status itself is enough to afford a person (even a hypothetical person) protected status. Crucially, this protection is not about the right to respectful and equal treatment as a person, it is the belief about having changed sex that is to be protected from challenge by others.

Do you genuinely think students and college special interest groups have had staff management responsibility legally delegated to them by the professional staff employed for that purpose?

Of course not. There are many recent instances of universities firing, suspending or failing to support staff who are targeted by student mobs, however. I hope that doesn't happen here, but given the wider cultural trend, surely none of us will be surprised if it does?

Transwomen can only be considered women if the definition of 'woman' has been officially changed. As far as I know, neither the scientific nor the dictionary definition of 'woman' has changed. Good for Kevin Price.

the larger social trend is to treat a claim of transgender status as a protected characteristic

Court cases are about the law on the statute books.

You have to be in serious denial about what is actually happening to think that employers or any other party are demanding proof of a GRC before honouring a claim to transgender status.

The protected characteristic of gender reassignment does not require a GRC. What have I said about employers demanding proof of a GRC. Nothing. The application of this PC has NOT CHANGED.

the belief about having changed sex that is to be protected from challenge by others.

You are just making things up now.

Honestly I don't know why amateur lawyers like yourself do this here, it goes on a lot and it worries people sick about hugely inflated risks which bear no relationship to the number of cases, actual disciplinary and dismissal process that exist in most companies.

This man is not at risk of dismissal.

It's not a feminist thing to do, to speak incorrectly to women about their rights and protections at work. Surely the point of feminism is to break down misinformation and help, not to write this distorted doom.

the belief about having changed sex that is to be protected from challenge by others.

You are just making things up now.

This belief is actually what is protected in the claim to transgender status, and it's important for feminists to understand this. 'Trans' is not an immutable characteristic of human beings, it is not even the state of having had certain medical procedures done to one's body. It is a metaphysical claim to be the opposite sex, and it is this metaphysical claim that is protected by laws that protect transgender status, and which is protected by increasingly ubiquitous social taboos, particularly around language. This reasoning was on display by the judge in Maya's case:

I conclude from … the totality of the evidence, that [Forstater] is absolutist in her view of sex and it is a core component of her belief that she will refer to a person by the sex she considered appropriate even if it violates their dignity and/or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment.

He is explicitly prioritising the metaphysical claim of the (hypothetical) trans employee to have changed sex, and saying that by challenging this belief, Maya is violating the hypothetical trans employee's dignity. This is what I mean when I say that what is protected in laws around 'trans rights' is not the right of the person to fair and equal treatment as a person, but rather the reification by everyone else of their claim to have changed sex.

This is why talk of 'balancing rights' is ultimately futile - you can't balance women's sex-based rights with 'transgender rights' when the foundational claim of the latter is the 'right' to be treated as a sex which you are not.

Trans activists understand this, that's why they are so uncompromising in their refusal to acknowledge that sex is ever relevant to anything. Not sports, not prisons, not medicine. To an outsider, it might look like foolish overreach when they go to the mat for male sex offenders in women's prisons, or men in women's rugby. Not so. They understand their cause perfectly, which is that 'trans rights' depends on a metaphysical claim, and thus the primacy of this claim must be asserted in all circumstances for it to maintain its coherence. They know that any admission that sex might sometimes be more salient than gender identity is fatal to the metaphysics on which 'trans rights' wholly depends.

My central point in this thread is not to offer legal advice (!), but to remind everyone of the broader societal trend that I see in motion, and to illuminate the underlying logic that is driving it, which IMO is what we need to be tackling, rather than throwing ourselves one after another on the rocks of a powerful cultural movement that at this point in time feels overwhelming and unstoppable.

It was Maya's choice to try to use her own belief as a defense, as it was the only tactic available to her because she wasn't an employee and there hadn't been a dismissal. You are now trying to look back from those judges comments and claim this is because "trans belief" was already a legal concept he was applying. You are talking nonsense.

I think you should shut up about Maya's case. It's bad enough TRAs writing bulshit about it but you, here, claiming we are legally compelled to believe is terrible.

You are not helping anyone.

It's bad enough TRAs writing bulshit about it but you, here, claiming we are legally compelled to believe is terrible.

We are socially compelled to believe (or pretend to believe) and yes, increasingly legally too, everywhere. Norway is about to pass a law making 'misgendering' a criminal offence punishable by up to three years in prison.

twitter.com/anyabike/status/1318946116608708609

This is not an outlier but entirely in line with the logic of gender ideology, as are the proposed Scottish Hate Crime laws. Transgender status does rest on a metaphysical claim (and is hence a belief) - that was not created by Maya's case, it is the basis of all laws that enable a person to falsify his or her legal sex, as well as all the policies allowing men into women's refuges, change rooms, prisons and sports, and of course the 'science' that has doctors sterilising children in the belief that they have the soul of the opposite sex trapped in their body. Questioning this metaphysical claim, even indirectly (by supporting JK Rowling) has led to the social shunning and firing of people like Gillian Philip and Jenny Lindsay.

It does no good to be in denial about this. Recognising what is happening and naming it is the first step: this issue is not about civil rights, but about elevating a metaphysical belief above material reality, and socially, economically and legally punishing anyone who challenges it.

You can shout that it isn't happening until you turn blue, but the rest of us can see what is in front of our faces.

It does no good to be in denial about this.

I give up. I am not socially compelled. Nor am I compelled at work in a senior level HR job in a central London Russell group university, where I've asked for policy changes, consulted with our QC, and explained policy conflicts to D and I staff and academics. No-one had the slightest problem with any of these conversations taking place.

According to your bulshit I should be unemployed and in prison by now.

Article in Spiked: www.spiked-online.com/2020/10/27/the-extreme-entitlement-of-trans-activists/

"Cambridge students want to get a porter fired because he refused to say ‘trans women are women' "

Court cases are about the law on the statute books.

The definition of what constitutes gender reassignment is woolly, confusing and subject to the prevailing public mood. It's not clear cut in any way.

In the Equality Act, I mean. "Sex" we would think is clear cut but legal opinions suggest it includes members of the opposite sex who hold a Gender Recognition Certificate.

But "gender reassignment" as a PC is extremely vague, and even though it was not originally intended to include non binary gender identities who aren't taking steps to permanently "reassign" their gender, a recent employment judgement has interpreted that these people are included and protected by it, even though the government acknowledged in 2015/16 that they were not.

Thank you DonkeySkin. Your posts always provoke so much thought.

Seconding that.

@FairFridaythe13th

And maybe set up a petition to have the lead bullies sent down (is that the expression)? That would be amusing... Same for the Edinburgh kindergarten Uni Labour etc group.

Same for those creepy Buller boy at Durham.

Now in The Times too: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cambridge-row-over-transphobic-porter-kevin-price-8bb7px950?fbclid=IwAR0jU3MqxI1PmFFvu1CT75W1HjuW6C5zyDzpaQxdbqqmPocDnzP1mA04FXU

Comments are supportive of Kevin Price.

I particularly liked one comment that said:

"Earlier this year Cambridge University approved a statement on free speech principles. It's easily found online. It begins: "[The University] is fully committed to the right of freedom of speech as a fundamental aspect of University life; 2. [...] will not obstruct speech that is lawful..." This seems to have passed the Union of Clare Students by.

The College has an obligation, legal as well as moral, to protect its employee against bullying, and take action against those who seek to bully. It should put its foot down."

KP sounds like a principled man. I agree with pp that the right benefits when left wingers like him are hounded and silenced.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

Court cases are about the law on the statute books.

The definition of what constitutes gender reassignment is woolly, confusing and subject to the prevailing public mood. It's not clear cut in any way.

My answers are about dismissal for not "believing".

The shape or form of anyone's gender reassignment has no bearing on the oft repeated assertion that saying anything about a broad range of issues that can be interpreted as you not believing can result in instant dismissal.

This is blatantly untue. The few unfair cases that are being challenged are not proof that dismissal will lead from any comment.

Remember the Duncan thread where he set off on his high horse to HR to try to get a bigot (normal person with normal views about sex being a relevant protected characteristic and that exemptions are important) into trouble?

There was no impact on the employee, as absolutely nothing wrong had happened. HR told her he had complained and that was the end of it.

According to the generalisations in Donkey's posts the only outcome anyone this woman should have experienced is instant dismissal. And yet that didn't happen.

Constantly quoting Maya's case which is fundamentally different to permanent employment rights as an exact read across is not actually making women more confident about understanding their rights, it does the absolute opposite. There's hundreds of women here saying they will be sacked for speaking and yet Donkey has only managed to mention 4 names, in circumstances non of which have the normal employment protection the majority of women who are now terrified into silence by the endless repetition of the inevitability of dismissal.

It's just not true.

www.varsity.co.uk/news/19916

It looks as though the LibDems have been using students to target Labour councillors in Cambridge for some time.

Ann Sinnott can probably tell us about the group of LibDem TRAs who were trying to influence local politics. I think they used to run the LibDem LBGT+ Twitter account.

This is blatantly untue. The few unfair cases that are being challenged are not proof that dismissal will lead from any comment.

Thank you for this clarification.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

In the Equality Act, I mean. "Sex" we would think is clear cut but legal opinions suggest it includes members of the opposite sex who hold a Gender Recognition Certificate.

But "gender reassignment" as a PC is extremely vague, and even though it was not originally intended to include non binary gender identities who aren't taking steps to permanently "reassign" their gender, a recent employment judgement has interpreted that these people are included and protected by it, even though the government acknowledged in 2015/16 that they were not.

I think this is relevant in that it's used as permitting occasional use of opposite sex facilities according to daily identification choices.

The issue here is not employment law but is about clarification of the interpretation of single sex exemptions in facilities (which will apply to work places) At the moment the land grab of undermining exemptions is used to justify identity led workplace policy with the associated claim that objection is equivalent to harrasment.

The solution to this is Ann Sinnots case. If we can get correct guidance then exemptions can be applied at work as appropriate and the burden of intimidation of women by harrasment claims is nullified. Additional Non gendered space can be provided where no-one is experiencing inappropriate behaviour.

If that makes sense.

Well I have written to him to support him. I suspect he is feeling a bit beleaguered & he may well not care - but still - I have written in support

Maybe some sense from the real world might put things into perspective. And some of these ‘students’ really do think they are going to sail through into the world of grown ups and have people laying out the red carpets for them. I saw one twitter account where they seemed to think of themselves as a future journalist... ha ha ha.

I started another post which probably not the right thing to do but here - I wrote to Clare College HR dept

I have sent a card to the man - but have sent this email to Clare College HR Dept

to ( HR Dept)

Dear HR Dept.

For the avoidance of doubt I am not a student nor alumni of Clare College

However I find it ( and obviously know because widely publicised ) very dreadful that a man who has done nothing illegal and has stood up for women ( Women vs trans women ) - ( I do not believe he has said anything illegal ) could be under such duress from some students.

I hope and trust you will support this man appropriately