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

@Signalbox i did in fact read the first few pages and the last one; I was at work today so I can’t catch up. I saw KB’s views called monstrous and the pile on and defensiveness from the KB cheerleaders. Then I read two posters talking about left wing people having a loose screw and nuttiness. I pointed that out but it’s boring and I don’t belong on this thread according to your friend of the thread police.

There was a whole discussion on KB's votes on the buffer zones. Someone even posted excerpts from the HoC debate. Pp had various views on it but I think most leaned towards being in favour of the buffer zones, but able to understand some of the complexity and why a vote against wasn't necessarily a vote against women. I don't think you put forward any evidence about what you find "appalling" in her voting record? You could have got involved in the discussion, no one was stopping you @LadyWithLapdog

I can understand you being upset about being called a marxist if you're not one but you've come on here being very aggressive and abusive towards posters so maybe you're right that you should disengage.

@beastlyslumber i posted a screenshot of her voting record on equalities. Which is appalling as she’s now - believe it or not - an equalities minister. How is that not providing argument? I haven’t been abusive apart from telling someone to fuck off and calling someone dumb. Which is fair enough given the condescension and patronising attitude.

I’ve just been reading up on some of the health data disparities, which are perhaps even more shocking than the education disparities.

life expectancy, infant and maternal mortality and suicide rates are all horrifying.

Right, so you haven't read the thread. You haven't got time to read the thread so why don't you wait until you do have time, and then you'll see that there was no pile on or defensiveness. There was, however, a call for people to stop simply throwing abuse and actually make arguments or points.

Also no one said that left wing people have a screw loose or are nutters. In your haste, you have misread the posts, or perhaps skimmed over too quickly to pick up on what's been said.

Why don't you come back when you've actually read the thread? And stop the insults and name calling.

I haven’t been abusive apart from telling someone to fuck off and calling someone dumb.

And it was pointed out that the screenshot didn't go into enough detail about what the votes were so people went and looked for more information, and we discussed that in depth.

No it's not "fair enough" to come onto a thread and start telling people to fuck off and calling people dumb. You have been abusive and it's not okay.

If you want to have a discussion, read the thread, and engage by making a clear point or an argument. I'm not going to keep engaging with you anymore because it's derailing from the thread.

Just seen Nadia Whittome has been ordered to delete a tweet about Rishi Sunak not being “a win for Asian representation”. Seems relevant to our discussion.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-63405307

@beastlyslumber It was whether she was in place for some of the votes or whether her absence was justified or was the same as an abstention. Then someone said it was maybe a protest vote. Just patronising bullshit and gaslighting. Perhaps you don’t see it so. And you started with the insults BTW. Then a few others piled on. I’m off to watch TV now.

I hope she apologises to him.

That's not how the discussion went at all.

@beastlyslumber I’m not going back to it. You haven’t been effective then.

Self justification fallacy is when one thinks it's fine to, say, insult other people, but not okay for them to disagree with you or talk back.

Or maybe it's just hypocrisy. Either way it doesn't add to the conversation.

Seeking more in depth information than is shown in a single screenshot is not ‘gaslighting’ the person who posted the screenshot.

No one doubts the veracity of your supplied image but context is always a consideration, especially when talking about equalities (as there are always clashes of rights between differing groups that have to be balanced. It’s part of a healthy multicultural society to acknowledge and discuss those clashes).

The article goes on about how NW is also British Asian and doesn’t intend to apologise. If she’s not sorry an apology is pointless. I think this attitude is probably rife within Labour.

Lannistunat yesterday
Many in the parliamentary party find her views extreme -that is why she got so few nominations. She is of the right.

She was only eliminated at the fourth ballot. So she was more popular than
Jeremy Hunt, Suella Braverman, Tom Tugendhat, and Nadim Zahawi. She did not get ‘so few nominations’.

@TheClogLady I don’t think this is done in good faith TBH. It is gaslighting to be told someone who voted consistently against equality is in fact a beacon of equality. If you think those votes are rubbish, up to you. It’s all we’ve got. Same goes for anti same sex marriage etc.

Gosh, that tweet is a corker!

Either you believe IDPOL has some merit, in which case a British politician of Indian heritage becoming PM of the country that once colonised his ancestors is definitely a win for ‘Asian representation’, even if he is mega rich.

OR

Social class and economic status are the main qualifiers for effective political representation for working people in which case, stand by your critique of race-based IDPOL and don’t attempt to excuse the sneery statement you’ve been forced to delete by highlighting your own IDPOL category.

🤣 perfect answer!

God how fucking boring. You're not challenging anyone. You're just screaming abuse in people's faces.

Ive seen this poster do this on more than one thread. They are certainly an angry ranty person. It's quite successful in terms of derailing threads though.

By a single-sex toilet for women, do you mean a toilet which excludes trans women?

All male people, yes. That would be because it wouldn't be single sex otherwise.

Here's the thing.

Just because males have been using provisions, which under the EA are supposed to be single sex under the exemption clause, 'for years', doesn't mean that they ever should have been there or weren't violating women's rights to privacy and dignity. It isn't a right they had, so it's not a roll back.

Stonewall has demonstrated this trend of 'running ahead of the law'. It doesn't mean we should play along with this until the law 'catches up'. No we are well within our rights to stand up for our rights and to start to enforce them, precisely because of this creep by males to override the law by for cable means and outright intimidation and emotional blackmail.

Even asking the question about That GC people want to stop them using women's loos? Is a deliberate and very cynical attempt at intimidation and emotional blackmail to force the idea that transwomen have always had a right that has never existed in law, and 'aren't you being mean' for challenging males for 'just wanting to pee'. Of course it's not about peeing safety at all. It's about validation and in some ways a deliberate colonisation by a wider group of males for more nefarious reasons. Neither of which are about safety.

The issue is and has been the proper enforcement of women's rights hasn't been done in the first place when it should have been. Leading to their actual erosion in practice and attempts to follow this through in law. Woman in being socialised to be amenable to others have really just sat there and been walked all over because of their well intentioned, biting of lip.

In reality the EA actually gives males the right to use single sex provision without discrimination. So in other words males shouldn't discriminate other males on the basis of their appearance when it comes to access to toilets.

In short TW should be using male toilets without fear because its about safeguarding not validating feelings.

Which toilets males use should not be a problem for women. It's not a female issue. It's a male one.
Trans people should have the right to feel safe using single sex provision - but that doesn't mean they should automatically get access to the provisions of the opposite sex to which they were born. Their provision remains the sex they were born.

This isnt hard to understand

Trans women can and do use women’s loos perfectly legally. You want that to stop, yes?

@RedToothBrush they do have that right under the law, which is why Badenoch is proposing changing the law. You have misunderstood the EA2010 and the GRA.