Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Caroline Nokes (Chair WESC) Thought She Would Agree With the Feminists But Realised She Doesn't and We All Need to be Kind.

65 replies

gardenbird48 · 25/03/2021 11:48

So Caroline, the Chair of the Women & Equalities Select Committee thought that she would have agreed with the feminist (gc) view on this issue, but then realised that actually she doesn't and we need to budge over and stop worrying about being called pregnant people and stop dragging it down to the lowest common denominator, 'you know, the one example they can find of a transwoman who's attacked someone' Hmm

Trans rights are a major part of the remit of Nokes and her committee, which is currently undertaking the inquiry into the government’s response to Gender Recognition Act reform. (May’s government held a long consultation on updating the GRA and committed to introducing those reforms, which were later shelved by Johnson’s administration.) The committee hearings are extraordinarily sensitive, empathetic and detailed sessions with some of the leading figures on both sides of this debate, one of the most bitter in the current political landscape.

Nokes, in ways that largely go unnoticed, quietly encourages a lot of support and kindness towards trans people. I put this to her and she is clearly pleased that someone has noticed. “I think it was when we were doing the domestic abuse bill something really struck me about domestic abuse statistics for trans people,” she says: “they’re tiny in number, I absolutely acknowledge that, but as a proportion it’s much bigger.”

“These are people who have the worst experience of the health service, they, as young people, have a really rough time in education, they then end up in a relationship where they’re the victim of domestic abuse. You sort of look at it and think we have to make the system kinder to trans people, and instead of focusing on having a massive row about what constitutes a woman, and whether we’re going to refer to a pregnant person as a woman or not, can we not please just be a little bit kinder to people and work out how we can make life easier for trans people?”

“When we’ve become so much more tolerant about so many aspects of life, it just seems to be really, really awful that we can’t be more understanding, and everybody the whole time wants to drag it back to sort of the lowest common denominator and to wheel out, you know, the one example they can find of a trans woman who’s attacked someone. Please, you know, we can be kinder than that. We can be nicer than that.”

Some of those in public life making the kinds of arguments Nokes cites are squarely in her own demographic: women of a similar age and social status. (Although in general, women are more likely to be supportive of trans rights than men.) Does she ponder how she has reached a different conclusion to many people similar to her?

“Yeah, I do, and interestingly at some of the some of the GRA evidence sessions, I’ve gone into them with a sort of a preconceived view of, you know, my heart is with the 45-year-old feminist. Absolutely, you know, I’m going to agree with her. And then I sit and listen and I go ‘You know what, I just don’t agree with you.’ I think that’s good for me. It makes me challenge my thoughts, my views. That’s so important in life.

www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2021/03/caroline-nokes-i-worry-conservatives-are-slipping-backwards-being-narrow-minded

OP posts:
MichelleofzeResistance · 25/03/2021 14:30

Caroline. Love. Fuck that.

gardenbird48 · 25/03/2021 14:40

slightly concerning that she's saying this now, ahead of the next set of oral evidence from the feminist groups - although who knows who they might be - praying it is not the Fawcett Society or 5050 Parliment or WEP - probably will be all three - even though the WEP is a political party, they'll probably find a way to shoehorn them in to support removal of the medical diagnosis and thus introduce self-id.

OP posts:
Gerla · 25/03/2021 14:41

I think she overlooks her own sexism. When she chaired the first evidence meeting she couldn't even be bothered to use the women's titles when introducing them.

Agreed. She is not the sharpest tool in the box, but she does know that she has to toe a certain line if she wants to stay in power*. She has never had a "normal" job, i.e. not working for a family member before becoming an MP. She hasn't looked into this very deeply (not a surprise - when she was Immigration Minister she admitted that she didn't bother reading The Good Friday agreement) and her postion of privilege means she hasn't probably given a second thought to what this means for women prisoners, to give just one example.

*The only party that has a hope of unseating her in her constituency are (were!) the Lib Dems who are even worse than her on this topic. She will continue to appeal to women in her constituency on a very local level only and will avoid any difficult questions. Sadly, it will probably work.

Thecatonthemat · 25/03/2021 14:41

Has the committee now heard all the oral evidence from GC women as well as the much beloved? Is it watchable anywhere?

Defaultname · 25/03/2021 15:21

@Ereshkigalangcleg

Every conversation I have with the Chancellor starts with

I read that as the failed Green politician! ConfusedGrin

I did too. I hope we're not wrong, and it's not a spell-check mistake.
AngelicInnocent · 25/03/2021 15:52

Probably a silly question because I'm quite new to this debate but is it possible to have a petition for parliament to acknowledge that not everyone agrees that TWAW, many of us wish to keep our sex based rights, are quite happy to support trans rights but not at the expense of women etc etc? Or would that be against some rule or other.

Kit19 · 25/03/2021 16:24

no petitions site would carry it Angelic - it would instantly be deemed transphobic and taken down

many of us have written to our MPs saying similar. Most labour MPs reply with a C&P handwaving away concerns and talking about TW as the most vulnerable group in society ditto Lib Dems. Both parties have had MPs come out and say they dont want the votes of people who dont think TWAW

Tory MPs are a more mixed bag. Some are full on TWAW, and some are 'no we completely get your concerns'

AngelicInnocent · 25/03/2021 16:30

Ah OK, thank you for replying. I'm currently reading through lots of older threads but am still catching up with what's been happening.

My MP is Conservative and while a little bit patronising, is fully aware of what women are and what his teenage daughter would be exposed to if TRAs get their way but I just wondered about wider campaigns.

ConservativesForWomen · 25/03/2021 16:32

Women Uniting, the cross-party women's group, did try to to get their petition published by parliament but it was refused.

women-uniting.co.uk/

AngelicInnocent · 25/03/2021 16:39

Thank you

Erkrie · 25/03/2021 17:23

I'm not really all that interested in being kind tbh. I'm much more interested in safeguards for women and children. And when kindness and safeguarding conflict, I'm coming down on the side of safeguarding.

Cattenberg · 25/03/2021 17:33

Sadly, there are people out there who see kindness as weakness.

As for women’s sports, I agree with whoever said that just because different rights are in conflict, doesn’t mean that they should be given equal weight. Safety should come first, then fairness, then inclusivity.

FlyPassed · 25/03/2021 17:44

Does it constitute a conflict of interest if the person running a consultation - re two groups with opposing views - has publicly said that they favour one group over the other?

Ereshkigalangcleg · 25/03/2021 17:46

Yes I think it may do.

ArabellaScott · 25/03/2021 17:55

Angelic, I think it's always worth writing to MPs, and anyone who will listen!

NecessaryScene1 · 25/03/2021 18:02

Does it constitute a conflict of interest

Crispin Blunt recently got a rapping for his committee's behaviour, which suggests there is someone with teeth prepared to use them in this area.

Does anyone recall the details? Can we point them in the direction of this interview and see what they think?

TheRabbitOfCaerbannog · 25/03/2021 18:08

She's clearly been captured and has been of the same opinion for some time. She wrote "it's time to end the delays over trans equality" in an opinion piece for the The Times back in October:

Article

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/785da0d0-187c-11eb-a714-6e13d8ca860f?shareToken=13fe8ceefe28451648f8cc4ff8cbc399

Her views are in total alignment with Stonewall and other lobby groups. The fact that she's heard way more about the matter, but remains of the "be kind" persuasion, really does suggest she only has a shallow grasp of the issues as the CFW blog notes

MichelleofzeResistance · 25/03/2021 18:08

Inclusion as a concept involves reasonable adjustments - emphasis on reasonable - and takes into account impact on the other service users/those in the situation. Since if you limit and piss them off, mess what was being provided beyond it still being useful to those users, and generally draw attention and bad feeling to the party you wished to make part of the existing provision, you have not successfully included.

It does not mean the person to be included matters more than all others involved, nor that other needs should be sacrificed to the included person's best interests. Nor that it is ok that the situation no longer does what it was set up to do. That is not inclusion.

Rather like making single sex facilities into mixed sex at the cost of excluding a number of the original users is not inclusion. That's another thing entirely.

Socrates11 · 25/03/2021 18:12

The one fucking example. Yeah if only. #ShitForBrains

FlyPassed · 25/03/2021 18:30

Excellent point @NecessaryScene1!

There's such a daily deluge I sometimes forget, and fail to make connections.

unherd.com/thepost/the-trans-lobby-is-finally-meeting-resistance/?mc_cid=f2ee04e032&mc_eid=d6097a4670

ArabellaScott · 25/03/2021 19:47

@FlyPassed

Does it constitute a conflict of interest if the person running a consultation - re two groups with opposing views - has publicly said that they favour one group over the other?
That's a good point. I'd also like to question the hostility and absurd disrespect with which they treated the women's expert witnesses, compared with the trans rights' witnesses.
Socrates11 · 25/03/2021 19:49

That's a great piece Flypassed.

gardenbird48 · 25/03/2021 20:07

[quote FlyPassed]Excellent point @NecessaryScene1!

There's such a daily deluge I sometimes forget, and fail to make connections.

unherd.com/thepost/the-trans-lobby-is-finally-meeting-resistance/?mc_cid=f2ee04e032&mc_eid=d6097a4670[/quote]
ooh, great link thanks FlyPassed.

It was the Parliamentary Standards Committee that rapped Crispin's knuckles - maybe we could write to them about Penny Mordaunt stating twaw at the Dispatch Box - effectively speaking on behalf of the government and lying to the House and for Caroline Nokes blatant bias against women's rights?

OP posts:
MichelleofzeResistance · 25/03/2021 20:19

It really is as if professionalism and duty of impartiality and following policy or any kind of values has just been abandoned and that's supposed to be fine. They just blatantly ignore their own policies and standards and there's no accountability of any kind. The average village hall gets run with more care and accountability.

I think Baroness Noakes raised the issue about Mordaunt misusing her access to the dispatch box in this way? I know someone up high did?

theThreeofWeevils · 25/03/2021 20:22

Sadly, there are people out there who see kindness as weakness
..and feel it is their right both to demand it of women and use it against us. In day-to-day interactions, possibly unconsciously; but, wrt the current issues, in an organised and cynical way.

Swipe left for the next trending thread