Would you vote Tory if Kemi Badenoch was Tory the party leader and the election was tomorrow?

[lechiffre55]

Just curious to see what the answers here might be.
Would you vote Tory if Kemi Badenoch was the Tory party leader and the election was tomorrow?
Feel free to answer any way you like, and I don't care about derailing. The question is quite tongue in cheek, don't take it too seriously, and have fun with it if you want, rant if you want. I'm trying to get a picture of the MN mood.

Nothing to stop another case from the ECHR which says that the government is wrongly allowing too many exceptions.

On what basis would that decision be made?. They don’t just randomly pull their decisions out of the air.

On the other hand Parliament could decide tomorrow to create legislation that doesn’t include the exceptions. If it hadn’t been for the work of left wing feminists, Maria Miller and Penny Mordaunt would have waived through self ID and Conservative ministers and the wider party wouldn’t have noticed.

No, a woman can’t be barred from setting up a single sex rape crisis centre in the U.K.

No

I wouldn't vote Tory even if a fluffy kitten was running it

It’s already happened.

Screen shots with venues denying the poster access

The Conservatives allowed policy creep that harmed women’s rights because fundamentally they don’t believe in a rights framework.

Screen shots with venues denying the poster access

Which is against the law. Unfortunately you then need the funding to take them to court, but you are talking about policies, not the law.

A lot of this is on FWR

You need to keep up to date with the reality of what is going on as it diverges from the stated aim of guidance

Also posts from TRAs that tell women why they feel confident the law is currently in their side.

All worth looking at

@piesforever

Interestingly, why are you all so obsessed with trans people not having rights? Does it actually affect you really?

Obviously trans people should have rights, the issue of course is whether they should have a new type of special extra rights.

Firstly people may care about the real world harm to women, and things don't need to have a personal impact for people to care about them. If anything, it's selfish if you only care when it starts to be a problem for you.

But other issues like:

Fairness.

Our politicians can all just start lying about what a woman is? Because of ideology? Well that raises some questions about society and our leaders... what else would they go along with if it becomes morally fashionable?

The fact that one side is against open debate and trying to silence and demonise people. Even using threats and violence. And this is over something that they just invented 5 minutes ago, can't defend, and are willing to even attack people over it.

So questions about democracy and free speech. And political extremism. And institutional capture.

Then issues like medical science being distorted by ideology.

And the risk of harm to children when "treatments" are mainstreamed with very questionable evidence.

Then the explosion of people claiming to be trans.

Or indoctrination in schools.

Lots of issues here.

That doesn’t make them correct, and if you are talking about people breaking UK law, then ECHR rulings are beside the point.

They likely are. As your version doesn’t reflect reality. Men are in a huge amount of single sec spaces already.

ECHR rulings were the cause and limit change

Sex

I don't think anyone in power really gives a fuck about either trans rights or women's rights, but they're happy to stir up this hornet's nest to get you voting for them.

Who would benefit from removing ECHR protections? It would probably result in lower standards for things like prisoner care, tenant rights, children's rights, employee rights. Multibucks for big business that currently has to ensure minimum standards and not treat people like shit.

The people behind these culture wars see humanity as a real survival of the fittest - nothing is owed to the people who are struggling so if they live in crap conditions and have crap education etc, it's on them and their fault for not working harder and outcompeting others.

Yes.

Why do you think they would be correct?Which article in the convention would they base their argument on? The GRA is almost 20 years old - where are the successful challenges to the exceptions? What case law makes their success likely?

No. I don't vote Tory. I'm one of the many wanting to vote for a Labour Party that will support and reinforce women's sex-based rights and protections.

Your argument is the law protects single sex spaces for women in the U.K.

Theirs is that they can challenge and get the results they want with the law as it currently stands

Given the current carnage for women and the inability to preserve those single sex spaces then they’re winning. The current legislation is not working

I’m for legislative change to stop that.

Going further I’d rip up the whole legal lie if I could. Humans clearly cannot change biological sex. Creating a legal sex as separate to biological is causing damage. For women and children.

Who would benefit from removing ECHR protections? It would probably result in lower standards for things like prisoner care, tenant rights, children's rights, employee rights. Multibucks for big business that currently has to ensure minimum standards and not treat people like shit

Very few, also need to be careful not to confuse EHRC guidance with the ECHR, they are entirely different.
The Goodwin case does not give men access to womens spaces but cuts to funding does, even the announcement yesterday on men in NHS female wards, many hospitals wont be able to implement it, they simply don't have the ward space and no one is offering them the money or staff either.

It is also sports organisations that have banned men from female sport, not the UK Govt who have stood by.

Such and such considerations should outweigh the exaggerated, or less important, other side. Worries are based on bigotry. Women's unreasonable distress can't be given weight and would violate the trans person's rights if you don't allow access.

Argue something like that.

It's not "random" but they are free to sometimes come to completely opposite decisions. It is subjective to a significant degree. And if they have the desire to give a certain ruling, you can come up with some legal reasoning for it, even if it's not particularly strong.

Theirs is that they can challenge and get the results they want with the law as it currently stands

Except they haven’t.

The Goodwin case does not give men access to womens spaces

Surely can see the case leading to the GRA does precisely that by allowing legal female sex certificates for men.

You’ll need to show that we do have single sex spaces currently

As we don’t then I think you’re wrong on this

The people behind the culture war are those who subscribe to, and are pushing, three U.S campus originated theories, namely 'Intersectionalism' and the politics of victimhood; Queer Theory and Critical Race theory.

If you push and try to impose something - you inevitably get push-back.

It isn't against the law. The law allows single sex spaces but they are completely optional and nobody is required to provide them.

Ok this makes more sense given where we are

Thanks for clarifying