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

Kemi Badenoch appointed new Minister for Women and Equalities

957 replies

Manteiga · 25/10/2022 19:21

And International Trade Secretary. I'd have preferred to see her as Secretary of State for Education in addition to Minister for Women and Equalities, but this is good news.

twitter.com/Conservatives/status/1584957913059454976

OP posts:
Thread gallery
13
BlueWalnut · 26/10/2022 09:07

Justjoinedforthis · 25/10/2022 19:38

Also doesn’t think misogyny should be classesd as a hate crime.
Honestly I am GC but celebrating these far right wing nutters is what puts me off these boards completely.

I agree

AutumnCrow · 26/10/2022 09:09

the LGBT community generally

No such thing though. It's construct of Stonewall.

beastlyslumber · 26/10/2022 09:09

Scary, insane, far right, nutter, monstrous, disgusting, evil, stupid... people need to understand that these are insults, not arguments. Deploying them just makes you look like someone who has no arguments.

ArabellaScott · 26/10/2022 09:10

ThreeLocusts · 26/10/2022 09:04

This, in spades.

Really? How so? What is 'insane'?

How many posters have we had on this thread now pop in to use 'deluded' 'insane' 'monstrous' 'nutter' etc?

And to accuse KB of being 'extreme right wing' - yet without any specific examples of what makes her so. Her voting record suggests she largely votes with the majority of Tories.

IDK much about Badenoch. I would like to hear more about the buffer zones and discuss that, what were her reasons for voting against, etc.

The rest of the comments here just seem to be ad homs, not sure of the motivation but it's just not adding to the debate to insult someone's mental health and try to 'monster' them.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 26/10/2022 09:11

IDK much about Badenoch. I would like to hear more about the buffer zones and discuss that, what were her reasons for voting against, etc.

Yes, I disagree with the vote, but I'd like to understand the arguments for voting against it.

Alltheprettyseahorses · 26/10/2022 09:12

ThreeLocusts · 26/10/2022 09:04

This, in spades.

If Kemi Badenoch had allied with TRAs there would be no complaints about her standard Tory political stance. When the close TRA alliance with genuinely far right and extremist MP Crispin Blunt is condemned and apologised for, get back to me.

ArabellaScott · 26/10/2022 09:12

I cba to count them, but there are many many posters on this thread making one post only, either to insult KB's mental health (or that of women on this board) and those agreeing with them.

This isn't debate. It won't get us anywhere.

ArabellaScott · 26/10/2022 09:13

Debate here from 2019, I can't seem to find the latest one, can anyone point me to it?

hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-07-11/debates/AAC1AF02-E656-48FA-A33F-604D6568490A/AbortionClinicBufferZones

Ereshkigalangcleg · 26/10/2022 09:17

Thanks Arabella. Nothing firm there, they refer to a review carried out in 2018 which seems to have influenced policy.

beastlyslumber · 26/10/2022 09:17

Re. the buffer zones. As much as I sympathise with not wanting a bunch of crazies yelling at women going into a clinic, I also agree with this: Writing for The Times, Anthony Horan, director of the Catholic Parliamentary Office, argued that the proposal “takes a sledgehammer to our civil liberties”, including “the right to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, as well as the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion”.

If they can ban anti-abortion protestors, they can also ban pro-choice protestors. I don't know if this was why KB voted against the bill, but it's why I would have, were I an MP.

ArabellaScott · 26/10/2022 09:17

Ah, I think it's part of the Public Order Bill:

hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2022-10-18/debates/52B4111A-9C01-4FF0-A1CF-06721F589D61/PublicOrderBill#

WahineToa · 26/10/2022 09:17

Yes, I disagree with the vote, but I'd like to understand the arguments for voting against it

I don’t know her own arguments, but based on a few things I’ve read about objections I think it’s the concerns around freedoms, protesting etc and if we do this for that, would it then happen elsewhere. I personally think the solution is that terminations should not be separate services and should be something that happens in hospitals.

ArabellaScott · 26/10/2022 09:21

'Let us be absolutely clear: we are not debating the principle of whether these so-called protests should be banned; they already are banned in certain places, and the principle of that has been supported by the House. We are just asking whether the existing statutory arrangements—the public spaces protection orders—used by councils to introduce buffer zones around individual clinics are effective. Only five out of 50 targeted clinics are protected.

There are three issues relating to PSPOs: they create a random patchwork of protections, which is inadequate; they are expensive to introduce and very difficult to uphold in the courts; and crucially, they can be introduced only with evidence that harassment is taking place. I made this point to my hon. Friend the Minister last night, and it is a painful thing for him to have to accept, but it is the Government’s policy that women should be harassed outside abortion clinics before a PSPO can be issued. Can the House think of any other policy that requires women to be harassed before the Government or the local authority do something that is perfectly justified? That is an immoral basis for PSPOs.'
Bernard Jenkin

This from the debate, which I'm reading. It's long.

hatsofftoyouall · 26/10/2022 09:22

"Gender based rights" are right wing.

It means you adhere to sexist capitalist ideas of sex/gender stereotypes; the ideology certainly appears to profit a lot from the sale of anything baring a rainbow or trans flag, pronoun badges, totes to life long medical care, mostly private.

Even those proclaiming to be non binary appear to have to adhere to an aesthetic and buy shit that signals their belief. I do get annoyed with GC flags and merch tbh too.

How many charities profit from lgbtqI+? (Fwiw the I has said they're missing out on funding if necessary support for those with or parenting people / children with dsds due to their inclusion.) I forget what the projected global growth amounts; mostly medical.

The ideology certainly generates a lot of jobs...

Sex based rights are female centred and socialist.

ArabellaScott · 26/10/2022 09:22

(so far no sign that Kemi spoke at the debate, though Joanna Cherry made some interesting points. Caroline Nokes and Stella Creasey also spoke)

hatsofftoyouall · 26/10/2022 09:24

ArabellaScott · 26/10/2022 09:12

I cba to count them, but there are many many posters on this thread making one post only, either to insult KB's mental health (or that of women on this board) and those agreeing with them.

This isn't debate. It won't get us anywhere.

Quite.

But I'm not surprised.

Debate is the bedrock of democracy.

If you can't debate you won't govern.

OldCrone · 26/10/2022 09:24

electricdreaming · 26/10/2022 08:57

I said “perhaps” this is why - I think some people believe that because it’s ‘exclusionary’, it’s not progressive. The left is generally associated with progressive ideology, the right with traditional. The advancement of LGBT rights is mostly associated with the left, therefore the general public might be inclined to see GC thought as right wing. However, the advancement of women’s rights is also associated with the left. Sex-based rights and gender-based rights are in conflict though. Maybe they’re both left wing but just opposing sides of an argument. I didn’t say she was right wing because/if she’s GC. I said perhaps this is why she’s perceived as such.

I think some people believe that because it’s ‘exclusionary’, it’s not progressive.

Don't you mean that because some people who don't agree with it have labelled it 'exclusionary', it's not progressive? It's anti-women activists who have labelled gender critical people 'terfs'.

The left is generally associated with progressive ideology, the right with traditional.

What do you mean by 'progressive'? What is this 'progressive ideology' progressing towards? What does this utopia look like?

The advancement of LGBT rights is mostly associated with the left, therefore the general public might be inclined to see GC thought as right wing.

There is nothing left wing about everyone doing what they want with no consideration for other groups. The communist party is one of the few political parties who agree with gender critical feminists about genderism.

However, the advancement of women’s rights is also associated with the left. Sex-based rights and gender-based rights are in conflict though. Maybe they’re both left wing but just opposing sides of an argument.

I can't see how you can argue that genderism is left wing. It's to do with the rights of the individual overriding the rights of women as a class. How is that in any way left wing?

ArabellaScott · 26/10/2022 09:25

Fiona Bruce:

'I rise to oppose new clause 11 on the basis of its grave implications—indeed, threats—to freedom of thought, conscience, speech, belief and assembly. Let us be clear: new clause 11 flies directly in the face of those freedoms. It has far wider implications than on abortion alone; it potentially criminalises even those who simply stand peaceably near abortion clinics, and who do so mainly on the basis of their faith-based beliefs. I believe that the clause contravenes human rights. Notably, for example, article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights states:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”

The broad wording of new clause 11 is open to such wide interpretation, particularly the words “seeks to influence”, that it could well catch virtually any activity. The proposed criminalisation of influencing is imprecise, unclear and unpredictable in its effect and potential impact, which contravenes the basic principle of certainty of the rule of law. Certainty is vital so that citizens can tailor their behaviour and remain within the law’s boundaries. Could a social worker advising a confused teenager going to an abortion clinic be seen as influencing within the meaning of this clause and therefore be at risk of criminal liability? This new clause fails the test of certainty and should be rejected for that reason alone.'

hatsofftoyouall · 26/10/2022 09:25

The ideology certainly generates a lot of jobs...

And a lot of single use plastic btw.

ArabellaScott · 26/10/2022 09:29

Fiona Bruce's further points are all useful. Long speech, but she's saying the bill is too vague, and risks making prayer a 'thought crime'.

So far this debate isn't at all 'anti abortion', but looking at the wider implications of banning protests (heathrow protests are mentioned, as are protests at political conferences).

Technical practicalities and implications of banning protests. I'll need to come back to read the rest later.

WahineToa · 26/10/2022 09:30

So far this debate isn't at all 'anti abortion'

No and that’s an important point. Voting against buffer zones is not anti abortion.

RedToothBrush · 26/10/2022 09:32

floradora · 25/10/2022 19:46

Kemi Badenoch:

voted in favour of fracking despite the manifesto promise to ban it. She also voted against buffer zones around abortion clinics

The fracking thing was massively more complex than you make out. The fact that there were MPs openly voting for it whilst saying they still opposed fracking but if they didn't vote for it (knowing there could be a later reversal of policy) they wouldn't have been able to take out Truss and vote for a new leader. So mentioning it is massively disingenuous.

The buffer zones around abortion clinics is much more concerning though.

I have hugely mixed feelings on her appointment. She's there to keep the head bangers in check and because Sunak needed her support to get rid of Johnson. She didn't get a promotion from Int Dev, which was interesting and wasn't a sign of confidence from Sunak but he did add the Equality Brief.

I suspect she's been total she needs to prove her worth. So she probably won't do much controversial apart from to work on women's rights, which was a necessity.

In many respects I think she a useful idiot who can do the controversy and once complete is disposable.

She does need to get this right though and stress the women, racism and homophobic side of the problem and the need to balance rights. And to firmly frame things like this and to stress the lack of medical evidence and need for safeguarding in a way that is difficult to reverse in a few years.

If she doesn't get the job done we are fucked for at least a generation with an even bigger and messy series of scandals that will eventually emerge.

So you have to back her to succeed but also be wary of what else she's pushing.

beastlyslumber · 26/10/2022 09:38

ArabellaScott · 26/10/2022 09:29

Fiona Bruce's further points are all useful. Long speech, but she's saying the bill is too vague, and risks making prayer a 'thought crime'.

So far this debate isn't at all 'anti abortion', but looking at the wider implications of banning protests (heathrow protests are mentioned, as are protests at political conferences).

Technical practicalities and implications of banning protests. I'll need to come back to read the rest later.

Thanks Arabella. This is really interesting to see. My instincts were that the bill was a problem for free speech.