Kemi Badenoch appointed new Minister for Women and Equalities

[Manteiga]

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

What people currently do says absolutely nothing as to whether they have a legally protected right to do that thing or not.

Do you actually believe that ‘trans rights are squatter’s rights’ and that ‘adverse possession’ applies to female single sex spaces?

Because that would be a novel argument to put in front of a judge.

This thread is about Kemi Badenoch. If you want to discuss toilets, start your own thread.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Yes. Away with your toilet derail.

is it even a thread on FWR if dadjoke hasn’t turned up to talk complete bollocks, misrepresent the law, and then start on about toilets?

Quote fail!

This is the origin of my 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

As if Pink News is signed up to IPSO!

Ah, a koan for the ages.

If woman speak amongst themselves and there isn't a male there to correct them, has anything even actually happened?

Er, no they don't. There's a special exemption in the Equality Act 2010 allowing same SEX facilities and services to be provided and for transsexuals, even with a GRC, to be denied access to them if doing so is "a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim".

I am in the UK and I know what the word privilege means. That some privileges might be enshrined in law does not alter the fact that many / most aren't. I don't think the fact that men can walk wherever they want at night with practically zero fear of sexual assault, whereas that is really not true of women, is any less of a privilege because it has nothing to do with the law.

The problem is that people are too thick or lazy to understand that something like white privilege is all about white vs black, other things being equal. A person could have white privilege compared to her neighbour, yet in a dozen other ways, and overall, lack privilege.

Intelligence is a privilege, and perhaps I should spend more time acknowledging the privilege I have over people too thick or wilfully blind that they cannot see the previous paragraph's point.

HOWEVER, even if I am right in theory this doesn;t mean I am right in practice... maybe there are better ways of explaining it.

I'm not sure that simply calling it white advantage makes any difference. You could just as easily (and disingenuously) say "how do I have white advantage over my black neighbour? He is richer, has a job unlike me, is able bodied and male."

That's fair enough. I have no expectation that others will agree with me. I'm afraid I can't think of any one thing that supports my view, it was a rather slowly formed view. I first came across intersectionality and privilege as ideas about 5 years ago and initially I thought it seemed progressive and on the right track, but I slowly came to reject and become suspicious of it. It seems to get in the way of people making arguments based on critically thinking about something and instead clumping all people with a specific characteristic together and suggesting that they must have one experience or one opinion. I guess ultimately I don't much like being told what I should think or HOW I should think about the world. I'm happy to consider other people's opinions but once an idea becomes the only way that I am allowed to think about a certain subject I become suspicious of it.

I've watched multiple interviews with various people some who speak in terms of "intersectionality" and "privilege" and others who are critical of these ideas.

Some of the interviews I've watched could be found on the Trigonometry podcast. Here's a taster of people who may have influenced me. But there's loads out there...

Andrew Doyle

Ayishat Akanbi

Zuby

Nimco Ali

Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Inaya Folarin Iman

Also some of the Peter Boghossian Q&As are quite eye-opening in terms of debate.
www.youtube.com/c/drpeterboghossian/videos

Also Andrew Doyle's most recent book is not bad (The New Puritans) but that's pretty recent and I think I already agreed with him by the time I read it.

Using whatever words you want from the following list can you come up with a phrase that describes something that one needs to be before one can possibly be accurately described as a trans woman

Adult
Human
Male
Female

I have absolutely no problem saying it, explaining it, justifying it.

I believe that male people, regardless of gender identity choice, have no place in female only spaces and should not be in them.

If some male people do not want to use male spaces, they need to campaign for mixed sex spaces. Not mug females and colonise and commandeer their spaces, while excluding and harming many females in the process.

So having stated my position clearly, let's hear your repetitive derailing position just as clearly.

Do you believe that females should have no right to spaces away from males, or equality of access and inclusion to male people? And that it is ok to exclude females from female spaces so that male people can have all the spaces?

Yes or no. Let's hear it.

"a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim".

Sadly many men think that women's privacy, dignity, safety and comfort is not a 'legitimate aim'.

Bullshit.

They experience racism

They have economic priviledge.

The two are separate and distinct things.

If you are poor and black / asian, you experience racism and economic inequality and the two combined create issues.

But you can't argue that someone wealthy and black / asian hasn't been discriminated against, nor faced racist abuse because they are rich. Its simply not true.

A few people need to get their heads out of their arses on this one. Particularly if they are Labour MP cos its more than one thats said it now.

TRA-ing 101:

Toilets. Go on about toilets.

DO NOT MENTION ABORTION OR PRISONS IN THE UK BECAUSE THEN IT GETS TRICKY

You are a racist.

Similar to the sorts of things that have changed my views on other things. Boghossian is great.

I suppose my position is incredibly simple in that I just cannot see the problem with saying that a long term unemployed former miner simultaneously has white privilege whislt being deeply underprivileged overall due to his income, wealth, where he was born and lives, his health issues from breathing in coal dust etc etc.

I cannot get past the truth of this, but then again if it is an unhelpful truth due to the way it is perceived by the population at large then maybe it needs re-framing.

Also, one can acknowledge that other things being equal black people have it tougher than white, whilst also being absolutely clear that you don;t believe in positive discrimination to correct the problem.

Also note the much passion for inclusion and access and kindness and equality and look what the law says, and emotive speeches about the feelings but exclusively for males who want to be in female spaces (and whose conscience is clearly bothering them about it.)

There's never any mention or care for the inclusion, access, kindness, equality and sad feelings of abused women, women from BAME cultures and faiths, women with Autism, dementia, other disabilities, traumatised women..... in fact stand by for a wave of shockingly prejudiced and discriminatory dismissal of equality for them

It's like the 'oh the low funding of refuges, the plight of women and children in so many situations' that the left only ever mention or care about when it's a means of them being useful to shut up females who want to talk about TQ+ politics and its harms. Until there's a threat to TQ+ interests those women and children are of no interest whatsoever.

It's as if there's no actual values at all. Just a knowledge of what words might manipulate the gullible into giving whatever is currently demanded.

The problem is that people are too thick or lazy to understand that something like white privilege is all about white vs black, other things being equal. A person could have white privilege compared to her neighbour, yet in a dozen other ways, and overall, lack privilege.

I am not thick or lazy. I understand what "white privilege" means and I still think it is divisive. And actually I think it is a lazy way of thinking (or not really thinking because once you subscribe to the theory all the work is done for you).

And it is not simply used as you say. It is used to put people in their place and prevent them from participating in debate. And woe betide if they don't understand that they are "privileged" (these people are just think or lazy) or if they just won't go along with it as an idea (they are racist for rejecting "anti-racist" ideological terminology).

Plus the 2010 act is based on what TRAs disparagingly call ‘passing privilege’ anyway!

ie any transsexual male using female spaces should be totally and completely unclockable (and if we are talking about spaces where women undress, shower, toilet etc, then a penis is a very obvious indicator that this male person is not ‘visually indistinguishable’ from a female person).

Service providers should be aware that where a transsexual person is visually and for all practical purposes indistinguishable from a non-transsexual person of that gender, they should normally be treated according to their acquired gender, unless there are strong reasons to the contrary

Oh, a good swerve.

I stated her views on women's issues and was asked what transgender rights she opposed. I was then questioned on what is really an uncontentious point - GC people including her want to ban trans women from women's loos, which they currently use. It's not a hard question, and remember, it was you who engaged with me, but I understand you reason for not wanting to answer.

You are correct. As is everyone who grows up in a country with racism all around them. However much I went on anti-racism marches as a student and do my best not to repeat the racism of my father, I cannot help but feel slightly different when it is a young black man walking towards me not a young white man. I consciously fight it, but remnants are there in my subconscious, with my conscious doing it's best to fight them

Anyway, was there something about my post which made you think that?

Do you think some black people are incredibly privileged?

If so do you agree with me that this privilege means that their experience of racism is very different from the experience of someone who grew up in completely different circumstances?

Do you think that it is racist of me to say that I define blackness by skin colour not experience of racism, and that Kwasi Kwartang is, of course, black?

Men do not have a right to use women's loos.

Giving a sub-set of men something that not all men have is a privilege not a right.

The problem is that people are too thick or lazy to understand that something like white privilege is all about white vs black, other things being equal.

I think this characterisation is really ignorant. Some people who object to the term are probably thick and / or lazy. But a great many simply to not have the time to think about these things or to discuss them with others. A great many people are too busy trying to feed their families, and spend their spare time worrying about how to pay the electric bill.

Strawman alert.

Can you list all the times (at least 3 or 4) I have specifically said that Kwasi has faced racism and all the times (clue: none) where I have said that the privilege of wealth means you cannot be a victim of racism?

"They experience racism. They have economic priviledge. The two are separate and distinct things." 100% I agree

"If you are poor and black / asian, you experience racism and economic inequality and the two combined create issues." 100% I agree

"But you can't argue that someone wealthy and black / asian hasn't been discriminated against, nor faced racist abuse because they are rich. Its simply not true." 100% I agree