Sunak to drop legal plans to bar transitioning in schools?

[D1nopawus]

FFS. Just as I start to think the grown ups are back in the room.

Rishi Sunak set to drop legal plans to bar transitioning in schools

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/31645f02-4ce5-11ee-98c9-759fff07db04?shareToken=c9611eafea6f3f775129767e94bdbb46

MC women are in there too although agree on JSO vibe for latter

It doesn’t need to take much actual action. Just anger on social media

Look at that BBC presenter convalescing somewhere. And Sturgeon

I agree, I'll check my ones out. I'm in Liz Truss country, so there's that. Lol

I agree that this issue hasn't really cut through to the general public. And even those of us who care passionately about it might still vote Labour because of the harm the Tories have done.

So, who knows? If I were Sunak I might be inclined to attack Starmer's record on this. Elections are won or lost on the personality of the leader - look at how effective the attacks by the Tories on Kinnock were, or, more recently, Labour's portrayal of Theresa May as a ditherer. Starmer has flip-flopped like crazy over this issue and a variety of his frontbenchers have said egregiously stupid things. Make Starmer look like an unprincipled idiot and Sunak might stand a chance of gaining some ground.

Sunak is finished. He's either going to the country in May or September next year. People have largely stopped listening to the Conservatives. The polls haven't moved in a year after the Truss mess.

My view is that people would do better to engage with Labour on this. Difficult yes but reflects reality. They will be in charge pretty soon.

You’ve said this before but I think you’re speaking from standpoint of someone who works with politicians

Of course it makes sense for you to hitch your wagon to whomever for career purposes as I might a new client

What do you want exactly from a GC voter to ‘engage with Labour’

I'm hoping this trans shitshow will die with the Tory government.

I'd put the chances of this between 0% and 0.000%.

It’s only over when the law changes and women get spaces without men by law

Given Starmer is more a we don’t talk about it I doubt it’s high on the agenda

I don't agree with everything you've said here, but I've had a similar general thought about the hands of legislators being tied.

Here in Canada it is actually worse, because we have a written constitution in the American style, installed about 1980 when that was the big trend, and because our courts have more power relative to Parliament compared to the UK.

But increasingly it seems like the whole concept of the primacy of Parliament is compromised, and decisions, or the scope of possible decisions, are constrained by a plethora or regulations that are too difficult to change.

So we get discussions here on MN about dealing with what beliefs are ok to have in the workplace, and it gets all into the legal weeds, and I am thinking, fuck, maybe the laws and regulations we are trying to work inside of here are actually just kind of shit in the first place?

I would never have thought it 30 years ago, but I now look at a lot of equalities types of laws and regulations, or things like human rights tribunal set ups, and think - it is so clear to me how these could go wrong, how they could become just another vehicle for asserting power or hierarchies of value. And they are determining so much of the scope of the discussion.

The other issue is that the government only has an arms length relationship with many parts of the state and their everyday function. In general this is a good thing and protective. But many of those institutions, like the NHS, were captured early on, targeted to create a culture that integrated and accepted certain policy directions. And the state is finding it very difficult to change the culture there because they are limited in how much direct power they have.

Labour hasn't really left any way for anyone to engage on this, from what I can see.

In general I think you are right pragmatically, you have to deal with the government you have. But they seem to have burned their bridges, and I don't mean that as a kind of psychological metaphor. I am not convinced they can engage on this issue.

Malaga Airport! What a wonderful way to get around the word censors! Love it!

The Tories have given up.

This is a good post. And I agree

I’m not sure there’s a way to reverse it. They are not elected, we can’t vote them out.

Canada seems calmer than here on all this. We at least have the media which can hurt people politically, although again not those institutions in the background. Do you get much backlash?

I’m not sure what it will take to get out of all the weeds invested people have created and ensure cannot be challenged

@Rudderneck - I agree that Labour have made a mess. And that it is difficult to engage because the line from them has been so severe for a long time.

However, I was told they would never change on self ID on here and even by suggesting it I was some sort of Labour shill.

Government is very different from opposition. You have to actually make things work. It wasn't a surprise when in opposition Labour gathered a collection of supporters including trans activists.

But I do think Labour are actively trying to change their support in voters. They clearly don't want self ID either. It won't be s useful sell to that middle floating voter they need to win.

Being gender critical is painted as some ersatz belief. I think that's wrong. For most people, this is such a basic idea of binary biological sex. And legally I do not see you can't legislate to ensure women's safety and single sex spaces.

The Tories know that they can do this, Labour will get the same advice when they get in. I can't guarantee this change in attitude but having worked in politics and law for s long time, all the stars are aligned to make s change.

Labour have divided the issue in the statement they made. Single sex spaces... okay. And then recognition of gender dysphoria by a GP. Separating the two is promising. Single sex spaces needs to be addressed first. The second is a debate that's being going on for 40 years or so. No quick fix.

The advice should be to Labour

It us up to them to engage with voters not the other way around

And it looks like GC women have been making enough waves to have an impact. Which is brilliant

"They (Labour) clearly don't want self ID either."

What makes you so sure?

On the current Rosie Duffield thread about the Labour Party, @RealityFan says:

"The other thing which is hugely relevant is that The Trans Child, in all its golden glow, halo, and suicide ideation preeminence, is absolutely the totem for the intersectional left.

At least three shadow ministers have trans IDing children including one with mastectomies, others hugely vocal online, and another half dozen or so shadow ministers very TWAW.

Right now in Labour, the trans child rights trumps all other minority concerns, and women are expected to give up some of their hard earned rights to allow trans their freedom."

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4890487-the-dark-arts-of-starmers-reshuffle-the-charade-was-powered-by-sycophancy-and-spin-rosie-duffield?reply=129059474

Right now, under and because of the Tories the trans child rights trumps all other minority concerns and the majority of children's rights. Hence this thread.

Yes. Whether by accident or by design (as with all fuck ups, a little bit of both).

Political correctness has so tainted institutions including the government and civil service, that anything even hinting at limiting civil liberties and human rights is a non starter.

The Tories also have their own toxic history with Section 28. They're very vunerable to Labour calls that any legislation to "limit" trans is Section 28 all over again...of course, we know that's a false equivalence, but it'll be easily sold in a GE campaign.

However, the end result of interlocking of, and unintended consequences from, the evolution of GRA to EA, and their reciprocal enactment in the ECHR, means that room to be bold re trans is very limited, maybe impossible.

Certainly that's what the AG and likely Keegan is telling Sunak. Whether Badenoch and Cates via Sex Matters legal advice can win out, I wouldn't put money on it.

Thatcher's bureaucratisation of education in the 80s, followed by Blair's National Curriculum, GRA and EA legislation, Cameron's same sex marriage legislation installing Stonewall into govt, their mutation from gay rights to trans rights, the move to trust schools with so many areas outsourced, including RSE (back to Stonewall, Mermaids, Gendered Intelligence), and both main parties being captured by TRA wings.

This is where we are today, and one of the most critical decisions ever, not being made or made poorly.

I'd suggest that 'rights' is a contentious term for it, and at the very least is highly selective about which rights are to be enforced, because others, like the right to equality of protection and freedom from forced affiliations, and the right of girls not to be forced to undress in the presence of males because the male (and other males) wants them to, and the right of girls in general to not be disempowered, subordinated to male children and staff, and exposed in this way etc are being skimmed right over. Having rights over other children is also nowhere to be found.

Baroness Nicholson has commented before now that she was there when the rights of the child were being drawn up, she worked on that group, and this was NOT what they were intended to enable. Badenoch made a similar comment about how the Equality Act, intended to be a shield, has become a weapon for those in bad faith to get what they want at the expense of others in a way completely contrary to the purpose of the law.

@Boksy - I think in the interests of fairness you had better name these shadow ministers as it really contradicts my knowledge of the shadow cabinet. A pro view that gender dysphoria exists is one thing, self ID quite another.

I can see the Labour Party rejecting self ID. Their statements indicate they will deal with gender dysphoria as a medical matter. Now that sounds rational to me.

My view is that self ID is open to abuse. That it can damage children. But gender dysphoria is something that I believe exists, very rarely.

On gender dysphoria a few things

Diagnosis is already part of the process and Labour’s aim is to make transition easier

We don’t reorder society - especially to the detriment of other sections of society - for other dysphoria type conditions, we treat.

And lastly diagnosis is not stopping men ending up in extreme positions where we can see the ludicrous policies and harm they cause to women and children

Also
What can the legal basis be for keeping a man with legal female sex out of single sex spaces?

Can anyone answer that one as so far I’ve seen nothing other than don’t ask, we don’t talk about it

Brilliantly said. We don't form laws to promote the rights of other medically diagnosed individuals seperate from the population at large. We ensure they're protected under the law afforded to everybody. As trans already enjoy.

We're in danger of enshrining a religious sect with full blasphemy laws, to apply to those who gain a medical diagnosis.

Now who's crazy?

As I understand it, the challenge of diagnosis and medical, ie surgical transition has had the same issue for 40 years. Many doctors suggest it's a belief rather than a medical disorder. If there is a GP screening process to limit access to medical transition then okay.

@EasternStandard - I don't share your view regarding those who have completed a medical transition. I can share with such a person. I cannot share with a man who self IDs. And I have had to in the last few years. That is where I draw the line.

We don’t have Self ID now and look where we are. There’s fairly strict process on diagnosis etc but you don’t need surgery. I think Dodds? confirmed you won’t need surgery also

It’s not working for women and children. Men are getting more sure they can access female spaces, more extreme. Male bodies in sports, demanding access to rape support, and the compelled speech. Plus violence and threats

I think we’ve tried as a society but it’s not doable to think we can ignore we have two sexes and women and children lose out - always us, not men - when we think we can reorder by gender not sex

The legal basis for keeping a man with legal female sex out of single sex spaces is the EqA2010, Schedule 3, Part 7, paragraph 28.

It says that people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment may be denied access to services and spaces reserved for the opposite sex. The protected characteristic of gender reassignment includes people who have completed the process of gender reassignment.