Kemi Badenoch: Diversity obsession has led to Kafkaesque madness (KB for PM?)

[IwantToRetire]

Another really straightforwarded down to earth practical commentary of where chasing the rainbow has led us. And ideas on how Government cant, without being dictatorial help solve the mess.

The root of the problem is a fundamental misunderstanding of the Equality Act 2010, often exploited by those with a separate agenda. The Equality Act is a shield, not a sword. It is about preventing discrimination, not social engineering. There are no protected groups in the act, only protected characteristics. A white man is just as protected on the characteristics of race and sex as a black woman, yet many believe the act is there just to protect minorities, when in reality it protects us all.

Many companies’ diversity and inclusion activities are falling foul of the law; for example by confusing legal positive action and positive discrimination, which is illegal — except when selecting political candidates (a handy get-out-clause Labour devised to use all-women shortlists). Encouraging people from underrepresented backgrounds to apply for a job or go for a promotion is positive action, and legal. Restricting applications for a position to a certain group is positive discrimination and most certainly isn’t. This has led to increasing calls for the Equality Act to be scrapped. The act is 13 years old and could be improved but the issue is not the law. It’s bad actors misrepresenting it to suit their agenda.

Many of these laws were written at a time when institutions knew how to self-regulate. Someone proposing a terrible idea would be checked by colleagues in the organisation. Today, those colleagues are scared of being called bigots for disagreeing, so they say nothing. What the Farage and Sawers cases have done is show that this problem is getting worse. Long-held tenets of liberal democracy — freedom of association, freedom of conscience, the presumption of innocence — are being tossed aside in favour of dubious inclusion strategies that themselves fall foul of the law. In some cases they’re cancelling people before any wrongdoing occurs, leaving them with no way to prove their innocence.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/kemi-badenoch-banking-scandal-natwest-niigel-farage-wdp3mmq0w
Also available via archive.ph

Anyone who agrees with Miriam Cates on her views that women need to have more babies is not feminist. There are plenty of people who are attracted to this board because they are GC, rather than GC feminists. Posie Parker describes herself as GC not feminists. That's fine.

I'm GC and feminist. Apparently that makes me lefty and upholding gender ideology.

I've lost friends over my views, been called a bigot and a transphobe. I've posted here for over 10 years under different names and had a good vibe with the board before the influx of GC.

Because I won't vote conservative people like you insult me make insinuations about my intentions. But I don't understand how any genuine feminist can bring themselves to vote for the current Conservative party.

I don't vote Conservative either and have no plans to do so. but these days I try and respect the views those who do. The only posters I can recall either insulting or making insinuations about me on this board are those who assume I must be a Tory voter, or in one case, a Donald Trump shill.

I can honestly say I don’t give a crap who you vote for, no one here is going to make you change what you do. I mean Labour are anti women liars but you do you. If they get in and we lose more rights you can own that outcome.

Plopping onto FWR with you’re all non feminists who don’t care about women’s rights is wrong and shitty

We are getting somewhere without your criticism, and the pp.

I prefer to hear from other posters who don’t just hang about to have a go at posters on FWR.

Some great posts on here as per so thanks to pp for those

What do you think the answer is? I'm unclear what Badenoch is suggesting....

What PomegranateOfPersephone said. Follow the law - not misuse it.

The linked article by Kemi Badenoch demonstrates her clear, rational thinking on equalities and that she has the courage to write it knowing that it is going to make some people brand her as far right because she explains that the protected characteristics apply to everyone, that the protected characteristic of sex applies to men and women, that of race applies those of European heritage as much as those of African or Asian heritage. She is talking about a genuine equality, people who want everyone categorised in a new hierarchy, a new apartheid where the old hierarchy is not swept away but simply turned upside down will not like that and rail against it.

You are proving my point.
I have not "plopped" I've been around for ages. I visit less than I used to because I find the debate less feminist, more GC and I peaked ages ago so it's less interesting to me.
I'm not a labour voter, I've never voted for them before, but I rate Starmer more highly than any alternative. He's done more to support women than the other leaders.
I am not impressed with KB because she wasn't vocal about this when it was risky for her to be vocal. She's taking the opportunity to be "I know what a woman is" because it gains her political capital.
I will for a party with actual policies that benefit women and who say no to self-ID. Rather than a party who are virtual signalling to the right with no intention of actually doing anything to better womens lives.
If you start a thread about KB people are going to disagree. That's allowed.

This gatekeeping by posters like you is why someone said the board is getting really right wing

but I rate Starmer more highly than any alternative. He's done more to support women than the other leaders
Could you give examples, maybe? And possibly clarify what type of “women” he’s happy to protect, given he apparently imagines having a cervix is not peculiar to women.

OK, well I disagree with that.
Certain categories of people face specific barriers. Women are discriminated against because of their biology. Black and brown people are discriminated against because of their skin colour. Visibly disabled people are discriminated against because of their disability. And yes, trans people are discriminated against when they choose to transition. Gay people are discriminated against if they are out.
None of us ask to be discriminated against for these characteristics, and for most of us we can't choose to hide these things.
By insisting the law should apply equally to white people, men, straight people, non-trans people, able bodied people we are removing protections for people who experience oppression. As a feminist I am not OK with that. Women deserve to have their unique needs protected, as do the other groups the EA covers.

Yes. When he was DPP he pushed hard to support victims of rape and domestic violence. He's pledged to halve rates of crime against women and girls. He as a track record of caring about violence against women and doing something about it.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/society/2013/jul/10/keir-starmer-inquiry-rape-domestic-violence

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/society/2010/dec/16/keir-starmer-rape-claim-retraction-cases

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65050644.amp

When Labour official policy was self ID I would not vote for them. I left the Lib Dems over this. But now they are saying no to self ID and recognis8ng biological sex.

Because I'm a feminist I already knew that Starmer had done these things. Conservatives on the other hand regularly debate anonymity for people accused of sex offences, something I passionately disagree with having experienced first hand how being able to name offenders brought my own abuser to justice. These are much bigger issues for me than whether a politician says in an interviewer "women have cervixes".

Rosie Duffield?

It is feminist to say that women should have some choice in whether they rush back to work or spend more time hands on with their young children. It is a choice based on family circumstances and not compulsory. I am so grateful to Tories like Miriam for speaking out on behalf of women and children. The main reason to prefer Tories over the rest right now is that they allow free speech and do not try to expel members who acknowledge biological reality. I say this as a Tory voter who was a Labour member till 2017. If we have no right to free speech, we can influence zilch. Think about it. There are many forces promoting this EDI gender identity ideology culture. The least I expect from legislators is that they attempt to understand the issues from various viewpoints. Labour fails to do this. Supports SNP gender woo in Scotland no political nouse whatsoever. Sturgeon resigns over this issue and they support her policy.

It doesn't count as a summary if it a complete misrepresentation.

By insisting the law should apply equally to white people, men, straight people, non-trans people, able bodied people we are removing protections for people who experience oppression. As a feminist I am not OK with that. Women deserve to have their unique needs protected, as do the other groups the EA covers.

Well done for illlustrating the point of KB article.

You may want that, but that isn't the purpose of the EA, although some like TRAs and you want to make it that.

If you want a law about protecting "unique rights" that you need to start a campaign and get some MPs to put it forward as a motion in the HoC.

In the meantime the EA is about protecting people with specific characteristics from being discriminated against.

And I maybe wrong, but I dont think there are any positive discrimination laws. So again if you think there should be then you need to start campaigning for them.

So even if it has taken this long to get to this point, maybe the KB article wasn't a waste of time as it may have helped some understand what the EA actually is.

When Labour official policy was self ID I would not vote for them. I left the Lib Dems over this. But now they are saying no to self ID and recognis8ng biological sex.

So the £5 GP note has really turned your head as a way to protect women and girls. They did a good job with that last attempt.

How are they recognising biological sex in law?

If a man can get a GRC for £5 what legal sex are they according to Starmer?

It’s interesting how easily hoodwinked people are by some weasel words

Here’s Stella Creasy on what a GRC does - on Twitter

Getting abuse and grief about this from commentators around the world (and here too)so a statement of fact - UK's Gender Recognition Act clear that those who hold a certificate are legally women or men. It does not require surgery to access certificate.

Starmer can tie ribbons round his head with adult female on them but in law he’s changing nothing other than making it easier to pay £5 to change legal sex.

Can’t believe the committed aren’t looking at the detail.

I don’t agree with Kemi on much, buts she’s bang on with this. A stellar article.

Its the crazy intolerance and lack of diversity of the Left that means I no longer call myself left wing.

Not Affinity. I am joining them. Strong free speech focus. Independent of political parties.

I take her to be making two arguments.

One being that what you have said is simply not a correct interpretation of the EA, whether or not that reflects your opinion of what it should say. Just like Stonewall "getting ahead of the law" was simply incorrect. That's not what it says nor how it is intended to work.

And the second that if you understand it as you are suggesting, the kinds of problems we see with gender identity are inevitable, because you are exactly setting up a new category of privileged classes.

The EA doesn't deal in abstract classes, it deals in concrete characteristics which belong to individuals.

It's certainly true that a significant faction of feminism is and has been all for the identity feminism you are describing. But you are wrong to think that encompasses all feminism. If FWR seems "less feminist" to you now it is probably because a lot of women have been having a hard look at that kind of approach to group abstractions.

By insisting the law should apply equally to white people, men, straight people, non-trans people, able bodied people we are removing protections for people who experience oppression.

How does this work in pay discrimination?

By paying a man the same as a disabled woman in the same job we are removing protections for people who experience oppression?

I'm talking about this bit, not the EA itself
She is talking about a genuine equality, people who want everyone categorised in a new hierarchy, a new apartheid where the old hierarchy is not swept away but simply turned upside down will not like that and rail against it.

When women couldn't get bank accounts without their husbands signature, but men could open a bank account any time they like, that was sex discrimination

When the bus won't stop for my friend in a wheelchair because the driver can't be arsed, that's disability discrimination.

The act protects people from discrimination and it works ok for that.

When she starts talking about the "professionally offended", and people who "misuse the act" she is coming across as if women/disabled people/lgbt people/people of different heritages are in that group are acting that way.

When she uses "discrimination" against Nigel Farage as an example of the "new equality" it comes across to me as more of the old equality.

It's not a ground breaking analysis of the EA, it's not a position that protects people who genuinely are discriminated against, and just because she gives a gender identity example that isn't going to make me agree with her.

It's also worth saying that a lot of these organisations she mentions like Stonewall were only able to get the influence they now have due to David Cameron's "Big Society" push to move functions out of government into the third sector/charities. For example, training like this in schools used to be centrally coordinated and managed through LEAs. That went against conservative ideology, they wanted to reduce state intervention so now its done ad hoc by charities of variable quality who give bad advice.

I think the phrase is "chickens coming home to roost"

My concern with self ID was always that any old sex offender/voyeur/pervert could turn up in womens spaces and say they were a woman, and there would be no challenge.

As soon as there is need for a GRC and a process to get that, women can challenge these men. So that removes a big reservation I personally had with self-ID

An admission that sex and gender are different and women need sex based provision removes my other huge objection, which is that I find it offensive to insist TWAW when females suffer so many negative consequences from biology. It also means prisons/sports/rape shelters etc can legally exclude males which is non negotiable for me.

So yeah, the £5 GRC is not ideal but it's far better than self ID and allays most of my concerns. I think its a potential compromise - other people may feel differently.

It's not yet policy or in law, but as long as self ID has been abandoned I feel much happier.

By insisting the law should apply equally to white people, men, straight people, non-trans people, able bodied people we are removing protections for people who experience oppression.

All laws apply equally to everyone unless they specifically don't. White people have the protected characteristic of race. Men have the protected characteristic of sex. Straight people have the protected characteristic of sexual orientation. There is no protected characteristic that covers non-trans or able bodiness (made up word).

If you don't like the idea that white, male or straight people should not be protected under the act then you have a problem.

My concern with self ID was always that any old sex offender/voyeur/pervert could turn up in womens spaces and say they were a woman, and there would be no challenge.

What is in place during the £5 process to stop any old pervert asking for a GRC? How will the GP decide a man has a fetish?

As soon as there is need for a GRC and a process to get that, women can challenge these men.

How? Can you be really clear on what women can do to challenge a man with a GRC who is now legally recognised as the female sex?

It also means prisons/sports/rape shelters etc can legally exclude males which is non negotiable for me.

Have Labour stated males will be excluded even though they are legally female with a GRC? Can you link to this if so

Again here is Stella Creasy, where is the recognition any challenge can be made by women?

Getting abuse and grief about this from commentators around the world (and here too)so a statement of fact - UK's Gender Recognition Act clear that those who hold a certificate are legally women or men. It does not require surgery to access certificate.

By insisting the law should apply equally to white people, men, straight people, non-trans people, able bodied people we are removing protections for people who experience oppression.

Why wouldn’t the law apply equally to everyone? It means nobody is discriminated against, why is this a bad thing?
A democratic society should not be trying to elevate any particular group above all others or placing any one section of society front and centre. That is not what equality means.

I'm not a politician

Yes legally with a GRC males are trans "women". Thats a fact and has been true for years.

The EA makes provision to recognise biological women. So sex based exemptions will apply. Starmer committed to this.

If you are not prepared to tolerate any position other than "you may only ever refer to females as she/her, you may not use the phrase trans women" then you are as bad as the "TWAW no debate" TRAs as you are insisting on quite extreme change to the status quo.

You are also doomed to disappointment because the law is always a compromise. We are a democracy.