Lord Herbert: Royal Commission to remove trans debate from politics?

[tabbycatstripy]

Nick Herbert, Johnson’s LGBT advisor, suggests a Royal Commission ‘led by a senior judge, [to] comprise members who are “truly neutral”, and be founded with “cross-party support and without predetermination of its direction or outcome”’ to make decisions on the trans debate.

In the Twitter discussion below this announcement, there are four or five male members of the HoL discussing whether this would work (some for, some against).

I am absolutely against this. These issues aren’t for ‘neutral’ anyone to decide in secret. As Lord Lucas says, they need full transparency and democratic engagement. They are the stuff of politics, not questions to be removed from the unwashed masses and dictated to us by Stonewall-trained judges.

Could he look more out of touch?

@Theeyeballsinthefuckingsky

The replies to his thread highlight exactly why discussion seems to be impossible

We're having a discussion on the thread. How does a discussion highlight why discussion seems impossible? Is it the wrong discussion or something?

@Theeyeballsinthefuckingsky

MASSIVE APOLOGIES

I misread your post

I wondered if that meant the replies on the Twitter thread.

Yes, I fucked up and read 'his thread' as 'this thread'

@tabbycatstripy

It’s just undemocratic. We have bodies to make decisions about which laws we should make, and we have bodies to enforce the law. Let’s not mix them up.

This.

The thing is, when you ignore democracy, you end up with a worse mess. Britain’s path to Brexit began in 2010 when a voter (Gillian Duffy) told Gordon Brown thet she was very worried about immigration, and instead of hearing and engaging with her concerns, he carelessly dismissed her as an irrelevant “bigoted woman”.

Gordon Brown is not Prime Minister anymore.

When politicians ignore voters’ concerns because they don’t share those concerns, those concerns do not go away.

The Stonewall-owned politicians can ignore women and tell us what we ought to think, but that doesn’t actually change what we think. And when the government ignores a huge proportion of its electorate, the government falls.

It would all be a lot more orderly if they’d just listen to the concerns of the majority of their voters and adjust policy accordingly.

What makes gender so special that this is required ?
Has there been any comparable policy examination for other issues?

‘It would all be a lot more orderly if they’d just listen to the concerns of the majority of their voters and adjust policy accordingly.’

With the caveat that the majority can be wrong. If the majority wanted to detransition trans people (ignoring ten year olds for a minute) then I would oppose that on human rights grounds. But the government has to be able to distinguish between legitimate human rights claims and overreach that affects everyone else negatively (like this).

Independent lol
Wants to take it out of politics until there are more of the right type of politicians.
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/lord-herbert-britain-needs-more-trans-people-in-public-life-including-the-commons-ntr88g6xv

Emily Bridges’ mum revealing true self again:

‘Nick Herbert claims here that there are "genuine concerns" about trans athletes in Sport. All ministers across all UK home nations knew Em would be eligble to compete. Because I messaged them. Around a year ago. I also reached out to PM Arden in NZ.’

Ladies, gentlemen and non-binary folk: the ego has landed.

Thing is with a Royal Commission, the government sets the terms of reference and I would be concerned who would try to infiltrate that process given how hapless the Cabinet is.

Would the APPG chaired by Crispin Blunt try to muscle in? The Select Committee chaired by Caroline Nokes? Stonewalled civil servants? Would this lead to tussles with Truss and Badenoch and more flouncing by TQ+?

How would true impartiality be achieved and demonstrated?

No worries Spinning 😊😊

You know I can’t help thinking the if EB mum had had a successful sports career of her own we wouldn’t be here 🙄

Apparently the last royal commission was 2000 into the House of Lords reform

www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/labours-manifesto-fails-recognise-royal-commissions-are-past-their-sell-date

‘You know I can’t help thinking the if EB mum had had a successful sports career of her own we wouldn’t be here 🙄’

Her behaviour is a bit much. Emily is 21, not 12. Why is she ‘messaging’ (emailing?) Jacinda Ardern?

[quote EwwSprouts]Independent lol
Wants to take it out of politics until there are more of the right type of politicians.
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/lord-herbert-britain-needs-more-trans-people-in-public-life-including-the-commons-ntr88g6xv[/quote]
And, as we know, the Fawcett Society, amongst others, would stay silent if "the right type of politician" were to be all of the women and there were to be a HoC etc. made up entirely of those who were recognised as male at birth.

Dentons recommended working quietly behind the scenes to influence away from public scrutiny. What does Dentons have to say about what to do when you're busted?

Passing it back to your Stonewall-trained friends in the judiciary to deal with quietly out of sight seems about right.

A Royal Commission sounds like the kind of thing Thomas Cromwell would think up to get Henry VIII his next divorce or monastery

@tabbycatstripy

And he says LGBT organisations have been “shouty”.

The man’s right about that.

The TQ+ part of the LGBYTQ+ has been shouty. The LGB part has been a) forced into the union without consent and b) told to shut up.

Please stop conflating LGB and TQ+. No one ever asked lesbians and gay men whether they wanted to be shackled to the blue-haired brigade.

@tabbycatstripy

It would need to be led by a woman for me to feel it wasn’t same-old men deciding in women’s rights.

Given Marian Miller and others, and the history of this debate, I wouldn’t be convinced of the impartiality of any individual of either sex.

Indeed, I suspect this is an issue where being seen by both sides as impartial is impossible. The only type of impartiality that I can imagine sees the groups as seperate and therefore requiring separate rights (thus ensuring both sides get what they need) and that isn’t seen as impartiality by transactivists because it isn’t what they want.

I like the Twitter thread and am fascinated by the transactivists underneath demonstrating his points perfectly. However, I think it is much better that this plays out in the public arena as it’s currently so toxic that any debate behind closed doors, that doesn’t take the time to carry public opinion with it, will only result in the same problems being repeated.

Interesting that those favouring shouting and anger have entirely forgotten, or more likely are too young to remember and don’t want to believe in, the years and years of persuasion from homosexual groups that they weren’t going to bring in paedophilia and other harmful sexual deviancies behind them, and that the things they actually wanted were the same, reasonable normal things that others already had, and all the explanations of that and how it would work within society.

Persuasion and explanation is exactly what so many of those leading the campaign seem to be incable of doing.

Interesting that those favouring shouting and anger have entirely forgotten, or more likely are too young to remember and don’t want to believe in, the years and years of persuasion from homosexual groups that they weren’t going to bring in paedophilia and other harmful sexual deviancies behind them, and that the things they actually wanted were the same, reasonable normal things that others already had, and all the explanations of that and how it would work within society.

And just how much harder that task was because of the attempted forced teaming with PIE and the asinine stance of major politicians and NCCL.

A Royal Commission sounds like the kind of thing Thomas Cromwell would think up to get Henry VIII his next divorce or monastery

Doesn't it!

Pluvia

I see what you mean, but actually I disagree. The LGB Alliance is (AFAIK) the sole organisation that separates those two things out. Huge numbers of the people I see undermining my rights as a female person are gay, and mostly males.

I am absolutely not conflating the positions of gay and bisexual people as a group, but the LGBT sector (charities mostly) has been almost wholly on board with trans rights.

‘ The only type of impartiality that I can imagine sees the groups as seperate and therefore requiring separate rights (thus ensuring both sides get what they need) and that isn’t seen as impartiality by transactivists because it isn’t what they want.’

True. Impartiality is seen as bigotry.

But in general I agree about the force-teaming and I hope many more LGB people can see their way to withdrawing support from orgs that aren’t helping them the way they should be.

Yup, the forced teaming and forced unions didn't work then and they won't work now.

I really would like the PIE sympathisers and the 'minor attracted' movement exposed, out there visibly as themselves standing on their own stark platform, and not hiding behind decent people working on behalf of gay rights and the rights of humans to not be sex-stereotyped and pigeonholed into restrictive roles and dress modes.

@tabbycatstripy

It would need to be led by a woman for me to feel it wasn’t same-old men deciding in women’s rights.

It would need to be led by someone who knows the definitions of "woman" and "man". Anyone who says they believe TWAW is not neutral.