Kemi is on the case!

[SleekMamma]

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/32012712-d2ef-11ed-b1cd-5223fe349502?shareToken=f8d230bb699c280b7ebafca5e872e305

Go Kemi Go Kemi

It is not about you, though; it is about the needs of women as a group.

If you feel comfortable in mixed sex facilities then you could use any new neutral facility that may arise; leaving the single sex facilities for the majority of women who want and require them.

It’s not about ‘policing’ anything, it’s about reinforcing the social contract (that single sex spaces really are single SEX, based on bodies not ladybrains) and clearing up any doubt as to what sex means in employment law and public services provision.

@Rubyrubyrubeee erm exactly where has Keir “basically done that”?

The 2021 census revealed 0.1% of the population are TW. Keir’s 99.9% means he believes 0.1% of women are TW.

For 51% of the population this does matter. Look at all the reactions on twitter etc. about the EHRCs response. Where have they said great TM will benefit from clarifying sex means biological sex - why would TW be so opposed to TM getting maternity leave, maternity pay, maternity rights, equal pay?

It is going to be very interesting how the debate in Parliament goes following the petition reaching 100k signatories. Who is going to speak etc.

Of course it is. Laws are there to be policed.

Believe it or not, some laws are civil, not criminal.

Are you suggesting this would be a civil law…

How will this law be policed exactly?

It's about making it clear to service providers that they are allowed to offer single-sex services and spaces, and that contrary to what lobby groups and activists have bullied them in to believing, it's not unlawful to exclude men.

It's more than just toilets, it's single-sex hospital wards, prisons, women's refuges, rape crisis centres, lesbian groups, requesting a nurse of the female sex, not gender, to carry out intimate examinations, etc.

Our dear friend RMW is feeling very grumpy about this. I was going to link the twitter thread only to discover he's blocked me!

Some laws are more about making some routines and norms of behaviour socially recognised. This is always how it had been with single sex facilities and services - until the advent of trans ideology, which has broken that contract of agreement. It now needs to be - re-asserted. Alongside this re-assertion there may well be a new set of facilities for those that need or prefer mixed sex or 'gender neutral'.

When in place, if someone infringes these rules then people will be more confident to call them out, and they will be within their rights to do so. Also, the primacy of biological sex will be restored.

It ALREADY IS A CIVIL LAW 🤦‍♀️

The Equality Act 2010.

Christ on a cracker, what is it do imagine this thread to be about?

I welcome some of this - and this is why I’m asking about how it will be policed. But I don’t think the threat is as great in some areas and I also think that some of these areas could have been tackled long ago. Eg mixed wards in hospitals - that’s been a longstanding issue and certainly not relating to trans women. It’s a matter of funding.

So if someone presents as a woman, will they have to “prove it” for certain jobs?

Will trans men be allowed to work in rape crisis centres and refuges?

There's a lot of the usual suspects being trigger happy with the block button. They seem to be feeling a tad fragile atm.

All of these sorts of circumstances will have to be taken into consideration.

What aspects of this proposal are you not welcoming of, and why?

Debbie Hayton (male transgender person) comment in the Spectator:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/kemi-badenoch-is-right-to-review-the-definition-of-sex/

How will this law be policed exactly?

GENITAL INSPECTIONS

I am cynical because it’s the Tories and they have openly admitted that they are going for the culture wars. But while I don’t disagree with the Tories on everything, however I’m not convinced that this is going to work.

IT WILL NOT WORK, IT'S JUST FOR SHOW

As a woman I don’t feel safe but that’s because of other reasons - lack of visible policing, street lights being dimmed or even turned off after midnight, don’t get guards on trains etc etc etc. This legislation feels like a distraction and I don’t feel the threat when I use the toilet or enter a 10km race as a woman.

SEE ABOVE. THIS IS PURE THEATRE

Did I get it right this time? 🙏

Can you tell us how toilets were policed before?

Or did a combination of women being able to leave or anyone seeing a male enter a female space, could get security or police, to assist them in removing a male from the toilets plus the societal norms which meant that only males who had ill intentions entered female spaces as all the rest, including males of all genders, respected that space being for female people only.

Why does this need to be 'policed' differently than it was 25 years ago.

'Policed' also means that if a male is using the space and they are an adult, 'policed' means they can be charged with an offence. So, again, the same as it was before some males claimed the privilege.

Right at this moment, women and girls who need these spaces to remain single sex, and I am glad to hear that this is not you, have no recourse unless they can prove a crime has been committed. Right at this moment, women and girls who need these spaces to remain single sex will self exclude from that space. And if no single sex space is available, they will self exclude from that area / activity.

Why do you think that this is the appropriate position for women and girls to be in?

The practicalities of implementing it. It doesn’t sit right with me as it feels like it is solely to target trans women as opposed to protecting women. (The latter is a handy potential “benefit”, but I don’t think it’s the driver).

Plus I’m not convinced of the intentions of the Tories actually doing this because they care.

I would rather a lot more research done on this to go through unintended and intended consequences.

The opening question for me is “how to make women feel safe”. Legislation is only a part of this, but the bigger issue is funding and political will to increase funding (funding for things like women’s refuges, funding for women’s services, funding for better wards in hospitals). We need more pragmatism and level headed discussion.

Hopefully places like Marks & Spencer's will say we strive to be compliant with equality law, and as an inclusive organisation, our changing rooms are single sex only, and there is a gender neutral/mixed sex changing room for people who aren't comfortable with that.

And all the other shops, pubs, service providers everywhere.

yay.

Well, quite. I’m just wondering if this is the right approach.

Yes, or have decent changing rooms where you don’t need to see anyone in a state of undress. Even if they are the same sex!

Either way, it’ll take money to solve. Not legislation.

Social stigma is definitely the right approach. Women need to know that there is nothing to be feared from saying oi this is the ladies.

Currently, it takes a very brave woman indeed to stick her neck out, because she's worried she'll be the only one and she will be targeted.

Other places will have to be enforced, rather than customer led. Sports, prisons, refuges, the NHS, etc.

I don’t think you understand how the EQ10 works? This is a minor change.

The Tories thankfully are wide awake to this issue and now that middle aged women vote in elections. They are moving on it and I am so thankful.

Labour are weak on this and have realised far too late that women vote.

"So if someone presents as a woman, will they have to “prove it” for certain jobs?"

This needs to be understood.

Because if they have a changed birth certificate, an employer may end up employing someone who is male for a role designated as being for female people.

This is where many of these issues coalesce. If there is no way to check someone's GR status and identification lies, then this person may be employed and then have to be terminated later for fraudulent activity.

However, this concept of 'policing' comes from not trusting people to do the right thing with very rare exceptions. And if you cannot trust people to do the right thing, then processes need to be changed.

And it does always come down to how many women and girls are policy makers happy to consider acceptable collateral before they put into place reliable processes to prevent even a rare male from getting themselves in that position.

Anyone want to give an acceptable number of women and children for collateral damage?

Mine is zero, by the way.

No. Sometimes in changing rooms, you need to come out, to talk to somebody, or you're in a private gym where the cubicles are insufficient.

If providers don't have enough changing rooms to designate one of them gender neutral, then they can enforce sex segregation, backed up by equality law. Up until now, they have been told it's discriminatory. Now they will know, unequivocally, categorically, that it is not.