Sunak: "I know what a woman is – an adult human female"

[escapingthecity]

I know it's a Mail link but I've not seen it up anywhere else yet:

Rishi Sunak wades into trans debate saying 'biological sex matters'
mol.im/a/11707375

Glad to see him taking a clear position.

@LemonBounce

I expect others will have said something by the time I post this, but here goes:

Accurate reporting will not in itself close the sex pay gap, it provides information about it so that policies can be devised which will close it.

Since claiming a special identity is entirely subjective, that 0.1 percentage of the population figure is not a stable statistic. It can be as large as require to obfuscate the true picture.

If any man can identify as a woman and be taken seriously, then the pay gap or representation deficit in an industry can be "closed" without the position of the women in that industry improving one jot.

There is a 90%-10% sex split in football participation. If 0.1% of the male footballers move to compete in the female category, you will reduce female participation by 1% - because there are limited numbers of places in squads - and create more opportunities for males in the male teams. So a disproportionately detrimental impact on women.

The number of "women" sex offenders imprisoned in Ireland has increased by 300% over the last few years...because three male sex offenders have now been moved into the women's estate. Not because women are becoming more likely to commit sexual assaults.

Anyhoo, nice derail, I'll give you that. I will not be participating from now on.

"I know what a woman is, an Adult Female woman"

But he (Tories) have opened up several Gender change clinics under the NHS and one can change the description on their birth certificate and be legally called a "woman" or a "man" for that matter, which is what Sunak has said, so no change there.

The Gender Recognition Act 2004 (GRA) enables a person to change the sex recorded on their birth certificate, either from male to female or vice versa

Unless he states he will repeal the GRA, what exactly has he said?

Its under the last few years of Conservative rule that TW have been allowed to compete in female sport, i wish these politicians would actually do something positive instead of trying to mislead us all.

You CANNOT blame Labour fir Brexit! Fuck the fuck off with that!

Just feels a shame all this energy going into an area actively trying to reduce the rights of a minority group.
There are so many issues around women's rights that would have a greater impact for women

Actively trying to reduce the rights of this majority group - women - is a massive shame.

pissssedofff · Today 14:10
"I know what a woman is, an Adult Female woman"

But he (Tories) have opened up several Gender change clinics under the NHS and one can change the description on their birth certificate and be legally called a "woman" or a "man" for that matter, which is what Sunak has said, so no change there.

The Gender Recognition Act 2004 (GRA) enables a person to change the sex recorded on their birth certificate, either from male to female or vice versa

Unless he states he will repeal the GRA, what exactly has he said?

Its under the last few years of Conservative rule that TW have been allowed to compete in female sport, i wish these politicians would actually do something positive instead of trying to mislead us all.

To be clear, Labour brought in the GRA 2004 and the Equality Act 2010.

Short of repealing the GRA which many people here might think is what is really necessary,(if so I agree), there are some other approaches that might help.

The main one is to strengthen and update the Equality Act where protections are in place on the basis of “sex “ which allow for discrimination. These protections are already supposedly in place in principle for things like sex based schools, changing rooms. hospital wards, schools rape crisis….. anywhere it seems important.

The problem is that the word sex in real life has had its meaning changed away from meaning a biological state of being male or female to meaning a gender someone says they are. Because of this all sorts of female spaces have become open to males (sex).

So Rishi could use a legally allowed process within the act, to update the Equality Act to make clear that the word “Sex” in the act means biological sex.

If sex were specifically defined as biological, then a GRA wouldn’t make a difference (even though it allows for lying on a birth certificate).

Anyway, this is why Sex Matters has set up the petition to update the Equality Act ( now at about 78,000 signatures out of 100,000 needed).
petition.parliament.uk/petitions/623243

An additional approach would be to publish a clear list of spaces/activities that must be sex based . At the moment it is up to institutions themselves and many of them have been Stonewalled for years into believing they must not allow any sex based discrimination at all. Such is the institutional capture that there is confusion everywhere.

Speaking of which.

Hopefully this will provide the push to strengthen the EA2010 so that it is very clear that no male can participate in female sport in the UK in the future.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4734801-uka-has-today-outlined-its-position-relating-to-transgender-participation-in-athletics-in-the-uk?page=1

petition.parliament.uk/petitions/623243
please sign and share, I’ve had very positive feedback. sometimes people need Sex and Gender explained to them,

I know its terrible isn't it?

My DD has competed seriously for a few years now, its madness that Mike can became Miranda and race in the same events as a woman and probably win.

But thats my point, this has been allowed to happen under a Tory Government yet all we hear is "Labour don't know what a woman is"

I don't funkin care, they not in power!! i want this sort of thing stamped out by the Government of they day, they fund UKA and all the other sporting bodies.

It’s true. No more slithering.

"I think Labour are in for a real shock at the next election. [...] At the current rate of shambolic progress Labour could lose yet another one, again. And if they do we'll get the same old tired "we need to reflect on what went wrong". Reflect now before you lose you muppets. Do the soul searching, head scratching, arse sniffing, and "what could we have done different"ing right now. Open your eyes and ears and listen to the public you want to govern."

It is worth remembering that Blair won in '97 because his team (ahem Mandelson) essentially remade the Labour party of the '70s and '80s into a new political entity. They rebranded the whole thing as "New Labour" and salami-sliced the population into distinct demographics (such as Worcester Woman) with specific targeted messages for each.

They didn't just listen to the electorate; they scrutinised them.

My feeling is that it is going to take something similar again. Labour is now carrying a similar legacy to the one Kinnock had to deal with back in the day: a militant section of the party wreaking havoc, traditional voters moving rightwards in droves, the rise of new political forces on the landscape, strike action, a sense they are massively adrift from ordinary people.

Just because the polls say something doesn't mean it's going to happen. Everyone thought Labour would win in 1992, but it took another five years and the wonderboy Blair to deliver the victory. And I strongly feel that only Blair could have won in 97 -- Kinnock was just too associated with the landscape of 70s and 80s Labour.

And this is the thing. For Labour to win, they have to divorce themselves totally from the Labour phenomenon of the last ten years, the Labour where over three quarters of the British electorate are "hateful bigots": Brexit voters, white van men, feminists, sportswomen, public servants and community activists that worry about safeguarding, people who hang the England flag outside when it's the world cup, people who like the last Night of the Proms, anyone who goes "hang on, you can't let blokes into ladies loos", people who vote Conservative, people who vote for Labour MPs that Labour militants don't like, people who just don't vote because they've had enough of it all, people who didn't take the knee, people who think die-ins are really stupid, people who drive cars ... and don't even get me started on the invective thrown at people of colour who dare to vote something other than Labour.

When you boil it down, the only people who aren't "hateful bigots" are the people busy calling everyone else hateful bigots. I'd be surprised if there is 100,000 of them.

And don't think the public don't notice. They do.

This shit is just electoral suicide. And people remember. For crying out loud, older people still remember Michael Foot wearing a donkey jacket at the cenotaph (even though it wasn't actually a donkey jacket).

In my view, they can't turn it around in two years. They need to win the Brexit voters back for a start, and I can't see that happening any time soon.

@DarkOphelia
Phew so much to cover, where to start.
I agree with pretty much everything you said. Your coverage exhibits a wide breadth. I know exactly what you are talking about with hateful bigots and white van man. Thorrnberry has been keeping her head down since around Corbyn was a thing.
There's this problem on the far left with dismissing people's views. Anyone who disagrees with progressive values is not worthy of having thier voice heard, and it's ok to completely ignore them to the point of cancel culture. The problem for the left is these unpeopled untermensch still get to vote. The circle of "acceptable" seems to be forever shrinking constricting. Even progressives end up being cancelled for a single misstep. You've already given several examples of this. I would add Clinton and "deplorables". It played very well to the audience in the building who loved it. Across the country it probably cost her the election. There's this "I'm right, and anyone who disagrees is a bigot" mentality. I think Sturgeon has it too. It NEVER wins.
I think come the next election the turnout will be the lowest ever. So many natural Labour voters on mumsnet saying they won't/can't vote Labour. I can't see many voting Tory. People will simply not vote. It will come down to who can mobilise thier traditional voter base against their will. I think the next two years are going to be critical. It is still within Starmer's power to lose it.

@DarkOphelia
So much this!

I am of the opinion that, in most situations, 'gender neutral' should be replaced by 'single sex'.

Gender neutral sounds too soft and fluffy.

Call it what it is.

FlowerArranger · Today 17:16
I am of the opinion that, in most situations, 'gender neutral' should be replaced by 'single sex'.

Gender neutral sounds too soft and fluffy.

Call it what it is.

Please would you explain? Gender neutral would mean mixed
sex/men/women/trans/anyone wouldn’t it?

Single sex would mean only men or only women which is very different

He's a cunning liar, and he's using this to divert attention away from the state of the country and turn us against each other.

But....he's not wrong. Biological sex is important. And that is the correct definition of a woman.

‘He's saying it for votes though not because he cares about women's rights.

He cares about his legacy and not getting the biggest kicking at the polls in history’

Yes, he is.
Do you think that he’ll support legislation to protect women’s rights for the same reason? Ensure women-only spaces like refuges and prisons and support groups? Support women in sport?
Because I don’t really care what he thinks, or what his motivation. I want women’s rights safeguarded. Do you think he wants that as his legacy?
Good.

Michael Foot’s Donkey jacket was not your typical run of the mill Donkey jacket though as it was purchased from Harrods. You can see it in The People’s Museum in Manchester.

Actually, I think Starmer does understand that, which is why he has not wanted to condemn Brexit and why he has appropriated the ‘take back control’ slogan.

However, this is an Achilles heel for him, particularly as the Tories will claim that voting for Starmer is voting Greens/SNP. You look at stories about SNP politicians supporting Furries and the headlines write themselves.

Having said that, I think the main influence on voters at the next election will be the economy.

1. Ineffective against closing the gap - as it's widened.
2. 0.1% is not going to have any meaningful impact on analysis of the contributing factors to the pay gap.

There seems a lot of concern about data accuracy. I hope this has put those concerns to bed.

ooops! in terms of UK police = in terms of UK politics

I agree that the ‘calling out’, the ad hom insults and general virtue signalling are starting to have unintended consequences.

For me it started with Brexit. I was neither remain or leave, but happen to speak four European languages, have worked in three and been to my share of international meetings. There are issues with the EU and I could understand why some people might feel leave was the best option. But even mild attempts to suggest this, either in person or on SM, were quickly shut down. Why have debate when it is easier to label someone with a different view as racist.

Then came gender woo. Clearly bonkers, but again lots of virtue signalling. This time with active support from the public and corporate sectors. Bloody rainbows everywhere, politicians cuddling up to furries, new style women being lauded. Again no debate, not even when serious safeguarding issues were raised. Anyone speaking up was deemed to be phobic.

That was my journey, and others will have similar. Most people are good people and accept being called out once or twice, but will then silently dig in.

There are other issues. Years ago I worked on the Orderly Departure Programme which brought an end to the Vietnamese Boat People crisis. Suella’s developing approach to Albanian migration seems to be following the ODP blueprint. Could I say this on Fb. Of course not. Suella is an evil Tory bigot. No debate. Yet if she pulls it off, many will see it as an achievement. No country should have its immigration policy run by people trafficking gangs.

Overall, and I note it is a conclusion people are coming to with the SNP with dear India W, and seems to hold true with many MSM virtue signallers, is that the no debaters are not very bright. It is easier to state your position, however bonkers or science denying it is, and insult others. The fact it is happening in Universities (I give you Prof Sally Hines as an example) is beyond depressing.

Rishi has a lot of ground to make up. Labour will probably win. Labour is not the only party with a membership/backbencher problem. The tin hat view that Rishi is backed by a cabal of international bankers, who stabbed Boris in the back, and then manipulated markets to dislodge Liz and her low tax/growth policies, seems to have some currency, not just limited to anti vaxxers. Rishi is not particularly popular in his own party, and the Tories have form for unmanageability.

The tactic seems to be heads down, get the business done (NI protocol, some progress on immigration, a constructive line on Ukraine, a steady ship on finance including on inflation and employment , support for free speech including for GC types, calling the bluff on Nicola, Mick Lynch, and some of the Tory ‘low tax’ backbenchers). A small loss will be seen as a win. Rishi will have steadied the ship and can lead an effective opposition over a chaotic Labour. And who knows, if the Tories under Rishi manage two years of calm delivery, they might just pull off a miracle.

Yeah. I not bothering to retype my post.

It matters because in organisation specific reporting, it really can be skewed. And in small male dominated sectors. And in senior level and board sex balance analysis. I imagine some of those such as charities etc where funding may depend on such things to be considered for tender of services, or they are being held up to be a benchmark, this could also be rather important.

You might like to hand wave it away, I daresay you will. However those small instances can have an impact. And while you might be happy to accept the female employees of those organisations under the bus as collateral, that is hardly a feminist perspective.

It is really like the whole males in female sport issue. Many extreme activists will rely on the 'it is so tiny numbers' to attempt to convince people. But it only takes tiny numbers that then add up in one level of employment, or one sector, or one borough, or one organisation for people to see the potential and understand the ramifications.

And if the numbers are 'small now' look at the trajectory. When will it stop being ok? When a board that is supposed to be balanced by sex has 90% male representation?

I think I have seen enough of this shite to understand that those female transitioners, they are not actually getting treated as if they are male. They still face sexist discrimination. Because I have watched the sexist discrimination that still exists at primary school level. And it isn't 'gender' discrimination. Oh no.

Even now.

Also, why would you be including transitioned males as females in your ‘sex pay gap’? If anything, to appropriately monitor remuneration levels, both at individual organisation level and otherwise, you need those figures separated to make sure that specific group are not discriminated against surely? Well, I had that drummed into me.

That and without statistics, it is ineffective to talk about ‘pay gaps’. Statistics are what drives the actions. You cannot detach the discussion of pay gaps from statistics. Because how would you direct your efforts.

Trans people need accurate monitoring as well. So, the flip side to the ‘they are miniscule so it surely won’t matter’ is, ok, so ignore their needs because the tiny % don’t matter. They either matter or they don’t. Activists don’t get to have it both ways.

They are either important enough to track to ensure they are not being discriminated against as a group, or they are not. If activists want this group to be fully treated as the ‘gender’ they wish to be considered and not as the sex they are, I don’t believe it is symmetrical to then insist they are monitored separately.

I would hope for accurate reporting and to allow for real change where needed. That organisations would treat their needs as unique, while preserving the sex based needs of female people to be accurately tracked.

This really seems contradictory.

This issue isn’t the ‘overall numbers’ . The issue is the data of all the smaller datasets that feed into the overall numbers.

Your post didn’t ‘put those concerns to bed’. You obviously think you are making well founded points. But your posts about ‘gender pay gap’ seem to lack basic understanding on the importance of data.

It is analysis of the underlying data that is ‘fundamental in addressing that’.

It is through encouraging or forcing compliance, it is knowing the sector specific issues, it is knowing which organisation / department needs immediate actions or recommendations, it is understanding which pay levels need immediate attention. It is the tracking of full time vs part time vs zero hour or gig economy.

If you cannot analyse the data and all its minutiae, you cannot address the issues long term. And yes, the gap may be widening. Why is it widening?

It is well known that female people are over represented in low pay levels. That takes targeted intiatives to address it. such as childcare, such as encouraging women to return after maternity leave, or to actually employ female people in career roles in the first place instead of a male who ticks the ‘female’ employee box but will never be pregnant and will be less likely to take parental leave (because male employees are less likely to take parental leave).

It also takes initiatives to get female students into areas of study that lead to employment in high paying sectors where female employees are underrepresented. For instance, have STEM initiatives worked? Are female student numbers equal there, or even growing?

In one sector, are women in higher paying roles under represented in particular regions, why? How do we address regional differences.

The datasets need to be accurate to analyse and then address the issue.

Simply repeating ‘but the 0.1% doesn’t impact the whole,’ misses the point. It is in fact the dataset accuracy that is the point. It only takes 1 very highly paid person to skew the data where female staff are all on the lowest pay levels. If that disparity is happening in one organisation in a sector it is not unreasonable to think a sector/ region that attracts mature male transitioners could have that happen enough to hide the real issues in an organisation, a region or/and a sector.

Why on earth would you put impediments in the way of addressing the pay imbalance of any discriminated against any group?

So, no. Your post comes across as using issues now rather than words as you did initially as blunt tools to shame women who disagree with you, not you absurdly claiming you ‘put those concerns to bed’.