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

I don’t know if it’s too late but it’ll be a travesty for women and girls if we lose ground after next GE with Labour

We’re one of the few countries that might pull out of it - thanks to all those who keep posting, speaking and fighting

I can’t bear to lose that

Maybe no-one's answering your question because it's clear you're not arguing in good faith. Take your astroturfing somewhere else.

It might have escaped your notice but this is a thread about the conservatives

Unless the intent was backslapping "isn't kemi marvellous?" In which case OP has been a bit disingenuous

Your repeated attempts to try and say other posters including myself have said this that or the other, indicates to me that you aren't really interested in the issue this thread was about.

I have pointed out (complained?!) that the article was about how people and organisations dont understand or deliberately misuse the EA. ie it is to protect people from discriminiation. It is not about positive discrimination.

Why would you think implying that a poster, in this instance the OP, is disingenuous when I have on two occassions pointed out that you have deliberately tried to misintrepret what I have said and the purpose of the thread, would mean that you are someone to be listened to.

Worst of all you have hijacked a thread about how the EA is actually working to try some sort of (not very sucessful) pro Labour propoganda. And yet somehoe you aren't committed enough to the issue to start your own thread. The implication being it is all just a game.

On the basis that you are just rude, on the basis that you dont even read what people say, or twist what they say I am quite happy for everyone to know I will just skip over your posts.

And will probably do the same on any other thread you choose to post on.

Kinda proves my point that you aren't interested in a debate. Fine.

I'm not an astroturfer. Suspect many of the pro Conservative posters on this board are however.

Whilst there is every evidence that the EA is not perfect (and the alterations to accommodate the GRA have been damaging) one of the issues other than the one KB wrote about ie it is to prevent discrimination, not to allow positive discrimination, is that there are in fact many instances when the single sex exemptions could be called into use.

There is absolutely no reason why prison services, the NHS, those providing personal services (ncluding waxing ) couldn't invoke these.

The problem is that for instance the NHS (long before the trans issue) basically went down its cheaper not to have single sex services. And nobody objected.

And the other is that since the advance of TRA ideology, too many organisations aren't willing to make the effort to invoke single sex exemptions. ie they might be "cancelled".

So even with the EA as it currently is, there could be far more provision of single sex services eg changing rooms, but this will mean over turning the societal compliance with the Stonewall agenda - which isn't really about trans rights, but the erasure of sex.

But I think we all have to face up to the fact that in the current climate (not just that the Tories are in power) created by external events, means that for most MPs of any parties this is not the top of their list of issues that need to come to the House of Commons.

Can anyone imagine a campaign that said to service providers did you know you could argue for single sex exemptions?

I understand the point that you are debating, you are saying that oppression is the purpose of the equality act. Maybe it is.

Equality is just that though. It's level. It's not about punishment for the opposite characteristics.

What journalists call a culture war is simply people arguing about what the reasonable equilibrium is.

No single cluster of people be that political or organisational has all the answers and when the perceived balance is out of equilibrium there is friction.

The culture of personality makes it extraordinarily hard to talk about equality as the media have simply adopted reality show ethics and applied them to everyone and everything.

It's tedious and destructive.

Well they are, aren't they

Sex Matters https://sex-matters.org/about-us/
Fair play for women https://fairplayforwomen.com/equality-act-2010_womens-rights/

You could be right.

@IwantToRetire - you see I agree with that. Single sex exemption can be more widely used.

What TRA have done effectively is nibbled away at social enforcement of the law. Single sex exemption is legitimate; okay but without legal risk but it is a legitimate objective in law and there is good evidence for it.

What has happened is that in starting to look at wider acceptance of trans people, that these exemptions have been targeted such as prisons. In a way, you have to admire the TRA because they took the hardest case and got guidance and procedure changed without much evidence.

This is one of many problems with government now. It's easy to get swept along in an ideological way but imo it is important not to. Like abortion rights, or even legalizing homosexuality in the 1960s, parties need common positions or the matter is bartered for political advantage between parties. Abortion and the 1967 Act establish basic rights of bodily autonomy for men and women. Yet unless major political parties agree, it can change. I see no sign of this but the position for single sex exemption should be a shared position too.

Otherwise, we have a disaster because it means a change in the law can be changed again. I have taken a few lumps here as being some sort of Labour spiv - but I am being very practical. A change of government is coming.

@IwantToRetire I’m not sure the EqA as it is can do what we need it to. You’d have to get rid of very vested interests

Can Kemi get where she wants to go with biological sex? I’m not sure of all barriers but it seems the question has been posed to ECHR showing intention

It’s a start, Labour have said they oppose the move

Pro conservative here
No astro turfer here

I just had to look up astroturfing to be sure what it meant and got a bit side tracked into that fake grass stuff, it's kinda seductive but I don't want to be hoovering a lawn so I have come back down to earth.

I live in a very safe seat so my vote has little weight. I've always voted tactically in the past when it was going to make a difference.

I don't represent any organisation. I do work in higher education and have to be neutral in my job.

There are many many posters here that have paid extremely close attention to every incremental change and documented it, and this is the case elsewhere too thankfully. We truly are the many headed hydra now. I know some of them, a lot of us have met in real life at meetings. We are performing, imperfectly but with good intentions, a bit of a public service by doing that and that's all I am trying to do, add my little bit, albeit two finger typing on my phone because I already spend hours at a desk for beer tokens.

I am a policy analyst and specialist so tracking the minutae of policy development and explaining it simply is just something I have done for 30 years.

I do like a laugh so at a point when it gets rather tense and circular I like a funny meme. Calling me an MRA is fine, I love men's human rights as much as women's.

I love these threads, the conversation is amazing. The summer weather is yuk or I would be switching off and doing something else but at the end of the day I'm with all women and all men that want our words back. Get over it.

Wasn't talking about you 😉

Brava, Hepwo. Thank you and well said.

Good stuff Hepwo

It’s a shame the thread has attracted some. But FWR is great.

Yes, but it's a little provocative to put the 1+1=2 comment out there.

Tbh, I'm seeing the whole of gender ideology as crossing all political triplines.

There is a hardcore of Tory gender ideologues who would love to push Self ID, but have been put back in their box after the Theresa May/Marion Millar/Penny Mordaunt rowing back.

Yes, I'm talking Crispin Blunt and various colleagues in the Lords. In the media, Tom Hardwood waves the flag for the libertarian personal choice arguments on trans.

Is there any situation where this faction would again predominate? Maybe if Starmer trounces the Tories in 2024, somehow reconciles his take on gender in law, and the Tories decide to go down this path too, in choosing a Gillian Keegan or Penny Mordaunt as leader.

However I think the Tories will want to maintain clear blue sky here, and the leadership is Badenoch's to lose.

I want our words back too.
I also want better protection for the most vulnerable in society, politicians that aren't corrupt and siphoning public money to their private sector friends, and some kind of consideration as to shat the UK is going to do to contribute to the fact we are on the verge of environmental collapse. Oh and I'd quite like it so we start managing to send rapists to prison too.

Other people might see the "meaning of words" as their key issues. If I had a single issue vote at all it would be climate change. We are a very Liberal society with amazing freedom of speech compared with much of the world, and actually I don't think public figures should be given carte blanched to stir up hatred and divide society. So that's far less important to me.

Oh don’t worry you’re safe ; They do it when they run out of arguments. And get upset at flaws being pointed out

Very Labour. Unable to address issues

Humans have used social media in the way humans chose to use it.

I keep thinking back to earlier centuries, which we can only really reach through literature to understand the polemic of the day.

Our behaviour changes little, our instinctive reach for judgement gets a hold of our tongues before our brain can kick in.

I got called an astroturfer first. Was just pointing out I'm in the minority on this thread. I am also not making assertions about what politicians are doing "behind the scenes". I'm putting across my political opinion which I'm entirely entitled to hold.
Right at the start of the thread floisme challenged people to respond to the article, I did, now I'm getting called a paid labour bot. And told I'm rude for having a different opinion. It's not really an open debate.

IMO the TRAs did a very good job of moving the Overton window so that in c. 2015 to say women were distinct from transwomen was not possible. It's moving back now, thanks to women patiently challenging and some own goals from the "trans" community.

I agree with Brian Cox - back in a mo with the quote cos I have to find it

I don’t like this sort of politics. Societies are made up of individuals with different backgrounds, opinions, economic interests and moral and philosophical positions. The primary job of politicians in my view is to at least try to navigate these differences (guided of course by their own hopefully well-thought out political philosophy) with the aim of building a stable consensus - a necessary foundation for a well-functioning and prosperous society. That’s very hard of course, but it should be the desired destination. Nobody gets everything they want in a democracy, because a free society is a collection of individuals who hold different views, but also nobody should feel absolutely defeated. This is not compromise in a wish-washy sense of the word - it’s the very essence of and indeed the guarantor of our freedom as individuals. As Feynman memorably said, democracy is based, like science, on a satisfactory philosophy of ignorance; running societies is very hard, and nobody really knows how to do it, so we regularly change direction whilst building on the achievements of the past. Understanding this requires humility, and the instinct to unify rather than to divide. Seeking division therefore runs counter to everyone’s interests because it undermines a key idea underpinning democracy itself - the idea that individuals have legitimately differing views.

https://twitter.com/ProfBrianCox/status/1682708828880531458

Well if you keep attacking people for ‘bad faith’ blah blah you’ll likely get it back in the end 🤷‍♂️

People who want to discuss will get fed up with it

Maybe change approach

I feel like we have had some good chats in the past so I know while we are politically on different pages you are engaging in good faith

You are holding your own pretty well Adam.

I dislike the name calling. Apologies if I have done that

I know I posted the Cathy meme, that was an observation of your style.

I find the style of inaccurate précis difficult and just wanted to send that up a bit.

We are human though so emotion is inevitable.