Kemi Badenoch knows what a woman is.

[SeaweedPop]

Adult human female.

In the next general election Kemi would get my vote for prime minister. Never before have I voted Tory, but I do believe that I am ready and willing to die on this hill.

All the candidates would cut state spending in some areas, because state spending is high and they want to cut taxes. They’re Tories.

If you want support for Labour policies, tell them to get back on the side of sanity.

Not agreeing that Badenoch is a decent person does not equal being a TRA. I am not a TRA, but I will say this. Some of the rhetoric expressed towards trans people on MN reminds me of the moral panic and bigotry whipped up in the early 80s around gay and lesbian people.

There is a trans woman in my family. She is a threat to nobody. She has, however, been harassed and assaulted for being a trans woman.

I was pondering this very question yesterday which you have answered, thank you. I have been researching her as she is a candidate I've not heard of.
Quite honestly Im sick to death of all the catchy slogans, its like a Dick and Jane childrens book......IS IT TIME FOR TOM CHILDREN?

But thousands of women have also been harrassed and assaulted for being women. So I don't see that as an argument against keeping their protections.

Trans people need protections too. But not at the expense of women.

However, I am not a single voter issue on this. I agree with her on the need for single sex spaces and the need to define women correctly. But much as that policy matters hugely, and affects other areas of life, it is not, for me, the be-all-and-end-all, because things like her policies on education are also extremely damaging. I have to choose who to vote for as a combination of many factors, and it won't likely be conservative as a result. Even if I think the issue of women's rights is huge.

Hideous views and I have a horrible feeling many MPs backing her for not exactly the right reasons. I think they think she will attract a younger vote because she is black. She won't, because regardless of whether she'd black, white, mixed race or whatever- her views will not appeal to most younger people.

I think all the Tory candidates have learnt that knowing what a woman is, is going to win them votes from quite a lot of floating voters and the disenfranchised from the more left wing parties. I think more of middle of the road Tories like Rishi would also stand up for women’s rights.

@aanystropheus, I had not heard about that. But before nurses had to have degrees we had State registered nurses and state enrolled nurses. The former had to have higher qualifications. Both used to get on the job training by Sisters on a ward. Given we have a nurse shortage I like the idea of some nurses training on the job. Some candidates might not be able to commit 3 years to a degree and need to start earning from day 1. They should not be denied a career in nursing.

Her policies will do much more harm than good and luckily some of us aren’t so blinkered that we will blindly nod and say yes because of her race and sex and the fact she doesn’t like trans people.

But thousands of women have also been harrassed and assaulted for being women

Well I know that! But the fact is that some posters on here seem to want everyone to think that trans women are a threat to women, and it is just not true. The people who are a threat IMHO are the predatory men who might attempt to hijack trans rights to hurt women. They are the enemy, not trans people.

‘There is a trans woman in my family. She is a threat to nobody. She has, however, been harassed and assaulted for being a trans woman.’

That’s awful. It doesn’t make it anti-trans ‘rhetoric’ to say a male person should respect female-only spaces, and nobody should be obligated to do what you choose to do, and perceive your family member as female.

@ClaudineClare

You can’t guarantee no transwoman will be a threat to women. Please don’t pretend you can. But concerns about privacy and dignity do not need the idea of ‘threat’ in order to be valid. Women have a right to privacy from male people, no matter how well-intentioned.

@claudineclare, transwomen who compete in female competitive sport are a huge threat to all women's competitive sport. Until transwomen give up the campaign to compete in female sports they are all a threat.

No, I agree with her definition of a woman (as I'm sure do many on this thread). But I'm horrified by her stance on public spending and her conflation of Net Zero with "wokeness", given it's our best chance of solving the energy crisis and by extension a lot of the cost of living problem.

Just because someone knows what a woman is doesn't mean they're in any way qualified to run a country.

I was pleased to hear she knows what a woman is, but there's no way I could vote for someone who wants to cut staff in schools. What an ignorant, appalling idea.

Oh and for what it's worth, business leaders have also come out in defence of Net Zero to try and quell some of the nonsense from Badenoch and others Open letter here

But keeping women's spaces single-sex is a valid thing for women to want, in order to protect themselves. They shouldn't have to give that up to include transwomen, who deserve protections of their own for their own issues. Just don't group them with women. I'm all in favour of them fighting for protections from harrassment and assault. You don't need to involve women to get that, though.

Indeed, predatory men are the issue. But as you can't separate them from transwomen, who may or may not be predatory, you can't expect women to be the ones that have to give up their safety.

Good point.

What kind of people do I want to align myself with?

Well let's see.

Someone:

• Not either stupid enough or manipulable enough or cowardly enough or deluded enough to have been captured by an extremist political lobby and to be repeating obvious marketing mantras and flat out lies on command

• Not fanatic in a quasi religious faith based on a philosophy of feelings creating reality and facts being something you select from, while suppressing the bits you don't like and criminalising/punishing those who won't do as you say and not mention said unwanted facts/evidence, with actions driven by it

• Not intending to use their position of power to further the suppression, subordination, harassment and exclusion of females and homosexuals, nor to dismantle bits of child and female safeguarding that make male people sad at encountering boundaries.

• Not in hock to a philosophy of double standards where some people are more important and worthy and get rights and consideration and nurturing while other people are told to shut up, get over it, deal with having less and face punishment and exclusion if they won't - because that's fucking insane, and any idiot with a basic grip on providing public services should know that's the dynamic for an abusive relationship and that historically this always ends in utter fucking disaster.

That seems to me a very basic, modest requirement for someone who is going to take public office and hold such power.

So yes, I would be choosing exclusively from within the pool of people qualified as above as being basically competent with capacity to do the job, and then consider the policies and beliefs from among them. You'd have to be insane not to. It's rather like the whole "well yes, he's an insane dictator who's extremist, but look how the trains run on time!" thing.

And so I do very much agree with her on that point, that knowing what a woman is is necessary in order to protect their rights.

However I don't agree on other policy areas, and I have to see the policies in the round. I think she would be dangerous for education and healthcare, as much as someone who doesn't know what a woman is - who would also be dangerous on those issues.

If another party with better policies would see the light on women's rights, then it would be much easier to make a choice.

Well of course some trans women will be violent towards women. There are bad people from all sections of society. But that is no reason to paint all trans women that way. I also don't deny there are issues to be resolved. But the hate directed towards trans women by some mumsnetters is dreadful.

Anyway, the thread is about Badenoch, who is not a fit person to be PM in my eyes.

Tired to death of this silly accusation. A grasp of reality and an unconditional refusal to sacrifice female rights to male people is not 'hate'. No matter how much Stonewall have marketed it as being. They are as sexist as all fuck, and believe that females stepping out of role is 'hate', and having boundaries that male people don't like is 'hate' and females having resources or thinking of themselves as entitled to say no to males is breaking the sex class rules and is 'hate'.

They have no clue what 'hate' really means, it is merely 'you're female, how dare you say that to your betters' and a toddler response to 'no'.

No disrespect to the op but this is absurd, isn't it? Everyone knows what a woman is, the issue is that some politicians are either too stupid or too craven to say so.

I understand why - I'm pretty cowardly myself - I admit it, but then I'm not standing for public office, never mind to be leader of a political party and Prime Minister.

I'm not a member of the Conservative Party and I've never voted for them so I'm a spectator in this game. I still live in hope that, by the next time I have to cast my vote, this will not be the deciding factor for me. But I'm absolutely clear that I will never vote for either an individual or a party who claims not to know what a woman is, or that it's complex. Because, to paraphrase Michael Gove - not something I ever imagined doing a few years ago but here we are - I think this country has had enough of liars.

@ClaudineClare

So vote that way. To my mind, someone who doesn’t listen when women try to resolve the issues you admit exist (like Starmer and most of his MPs) aren’t fit to be PM. This is a democracy and we’ll see whose view can achieve more consensus.

I thought I was a single issue voter however once I realised implications of a smaller state I am more scared.

‘They are as sexist as all fuck, and believe that females stepping out of role is 'hate', and having boundaries that male people don't like is 'hate' and females having resources or thinking of themselves as entitled to say no to males is breaking the sex class rules and is 'hate'.’

Everything except perennial and unacknowledged self-sacrifice is ‘hate’.

I don't hate trans people at all. I know one in the process of transitioning at the moment. I don't think they are a threat to women either, but neither do I think that of my other male friends and colleagues. I still don't think any of them should be in women's spaces.

I don't think anyone is painting all transwomen as dangerous, nor painting all men as dangerous. We are concerned that women have access to single-sex spaces for themselves.

Transwomen deserve protection and support too, but not in women's spaces. It's not women's problem to solve.

So it is vitally important that politicians realise this, because it is a vote determiner for many. It is a very large factor in how I might choose to vote. For me, it is not a single issue, and there are others that I see as equally or more important, but that is not true for everyone, and I know that for some people, this matters more than anything, that women's rights are protected. None of them hate transpeople (that I know of). They are just concerned that women's rights and women's spaces are not impacted by them, and remain single sex.