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.

If the GRA has led to that, then thats not the fault of the ECHR, but the fault of the GRA.
Goodwins case was about the right to privacy in regard to work and employers knowing "she" used to be a man.

The EHRC has issued guidance on this but fundamentally, if Govt does not fund e.g Hospitals to provide single sex wards, all the laws in the world will not help, mixed sex wards have been introduced to save money and help deal with staff shortages.
Money isn't provided for men/trans rape centres, so they get put in womens rape centres.

For example

JK Rowling’s rape crisis centre Beira’s place is open.

England Rugby has sex specific rules.

But if you don’t think U.K. law is effective I think you have bigger problems than the ECHR, and I would be looking at the people who have been in government for the last 13 years.

It goes back to the GRA and the Eq A which is 2004 and Labour

Yes I’m happy to repeal whatever

Banning meetings from public spaces would be against the law on the basis of discrimination against people with a protected belief.

I agree that there is no obligation to provide single sex spaces in most instances (eg there is no law that toilets or changing rooms must be single sex, although there is sex specific health and safety legislation about toilets in the work place).

No one is proposing repealing the GRA/Equalities act though, the PM had a chance to do that today but didn't.
Though not because of the Tories, the Trans debate has become an issue over the last decade or so, they had 13 years to address concerns but haven't, tbf Labour aren't proposing anything either.

I think the most we can do is change to biological sex as Kemi is pursuing

Repealing the GRA is an issue for the ECHR

Ie we could do it but only if we withdraw

The law allows single sex spaces but they are completely optional and nobody is required to provide them.

The law states not allowed to discriminate in the basis of sex. Where no single sex spaces are provided this can often be discriminatory on the basis of sex.

The law also requires single set toilets in schools and work places. These are not optional,

Any Govt could repeal the GRA, what on earth has the ECHR got to do with it?

The ECHR turned down Goodwins request for redress.

The ECHR don't make national law, Govts do that.

The law states not allowed to discriminate in the basis of sex. Where no single sex spaces are provided this can often be discriminatory on the basis of sex.

Which is why a rights framework is necesssary. I believe that many Conservatives are fundamentally philosophically opposed to this.

Are you sure about that? I’ve certainly seen the opposite argued with compelling claims

If we need the go ahead from the ECHR for a small change in the Eq A why not something as fundamental as allowing humans to determine their own legal sex?

You need to look at what the ECHR actually decided. They considered the right to a private life in the context of the case. There is no specific right to change sex or to have gender identity recognised. The GRA makes it more possible to hide sex, with obvious exceptions including joining the House of Lords, but ‘legal sex’ is a U.K. concept.

So a replacement for the GRA would have to consider protection of the right to a private life, but the details (particularly about the HoL…) are for U.K. legislators.

So ‘you don’t need to pretend they have changed sex but no one must know they are not the sex they claim to be’?

Culture wars start with a valid debate in a limited setting, like universities etc.

Then political factions seize upon the debate and pile in to amplify both sides. It becomes inflamed and more people are drawn in and views become entrenched and it forms a new kind of political dividing line where people are prepared to vote based on their allegiance to one side or another.

The political factions gain political support and can also sometimes exploit the divide for their own purposes, eg getting people to call for human rights to be scrapped.

The same thing happened with abortion in the US. It was not always a political dividing line. Then it got blown up and made into this massive issue that got people really riled up and entrenched. Way beyond finding consensus and a sensible way forward.

Privacy is not an absolute right, hence all the exceptions. Where sex is relevant eg sports, privacy doesn’t need to apply.

Or if you want to inherit a peerage.

Right now the situation is crazy for women and it’s backed up by the legal framework

Each time we inch forward there’s court cases and legal challenge

I have been on a long thread on repealing the GRA, with some posters batting for the impossibility

A shame they’re absent as I’d be interested to see both sides on same thread

To answer the original OP, I think for me this has to be a short term single issue vote. Unless the threats to women’s rights, the imposition of wrong think, the Orwellian need to pretend black is white and the threats to free speech are course corrected as soon as possible and by any means necessary, then we are opening up our society to a much larger longer term issue.

It has already gone so very far and pulling it back now has proven so very difficult that it is not time yet to take our eyes off the ball. To abandon mid stream after so much hard work and let it become further entrenched under is unthinkable.

That's not what happened with Queer Theory, though ( in its guise of 'gender identity theory')It was being covertly pushed by the whole of the establishment and nobody was even permitted to question it, let alone debate it.

It took a grassroots movement of mainly women to start pushing back; and keep on pushing until it was finally taken up in parliament and in the media.

It was incredibly toxic long before the media got wind of it.

Looking up stuff and found this in reaction to the proposed biological sex definition

I don’t see how privacy part gives men what they want which is this, entry into female spaces

‘It is not a new idea or novel suggestion to try and insist that trans people should be treated in line with our biological sex at birth by services, public bodies, and when we participate in public life.

And courts knew it didn’t work – not only that it didn’t work, but that it breached our human rights or meant that we faced discrimination. So many of the legal rights we have today come directly from court judgements – that say we have a right to live our lives and be recognised in line with our gender identity, and that it is not ok to treat us as our biological sex at birth all the time, as to do so greatly reduces our quality of life, our right to privacy, and our right to simply be recognised for who we are.’

This is what they think is happening

‘it clearly breaches Europe-wide equality law. It is also incompatible with the international UN gender equality treaty (the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women) which the UK has signed up to, and which is clear that gender equality is wider than just “biological sex”. It may also breach the European Convention on Human Rights, which the UK is still a signatory to’

I’d be interested to see what challenge would be brought if we were to Repeal the GRA

I mean I’m all for it but these rights they feel they have, once given are hard to change

Rishi Sunak at the Tory conference has just stood up and said men are men, women are women, people need to know what their children are being taught in schools and the NHS needs to be clear about which sex people are.

If in the next few months he and Kemi implement policy changes and announce an intention to abolish the GRA and strengthen the Equality Act to make it clear that sex=chromosomes and not feelings, then I'll give the Tories my vote — because they have listened and they deserve it and Labour have just pissed away my many years of support in order to virtue signal.

It took a grassroots movement of mainly women to start pushing back; and keep on pushing until it was finally taken up in parliament and in the media.

I’m concerned that the Conservatives are getting their lines from American far right populists, not women. They are not interested in feminist lawyers patiently explaining human rights legislation and fighting and winning cases. If they were we wouldn’t have had so many years of Miller and Mordaunt pushing self ID and calling women raising concerns ‘so called feminists’. However I think it’s those feminist lawyers who are responsible for progress on this issue in the UK.

When Lee Anderson talks about why he, a man, doesn’t want to meet Eddie Izzard in the toilets in Parliament it’s clear that he doesn’t understand the issue, but the party is following his lead.

Yes. Once given, no matter how blindly, stupid, ill informedly, they are HARD to retrieve. And these aren't legal 'rights', they are selected bits ignoring other bits, and snatched/encouraged breaches that are now seen as entitlements. The whole 'getting ahead of the law' plan was always to just do it, make it established and then work on the law validating it.

But what is missing from all this angsting and emoting is any capacity to see women as equally human or to take on board any of women's needs and issues. Which dismisses women's equality of access, women's inclusion, women's rights under multiple articles of the EHCR.

It is not all and only about TQ+ people, there are other people on the planet and they are all equally important, and their needs are equally included under law and legislation. Women are equal humans to TQ+ men, which lets face it is the group in question, not TQ+ people in general, and their needs and rights are incompatible with this male desire.

Women keep talking about 'middle ground' - it would be for male TQ+ people to accept that SOME facilities and resources can be 'women' but mixed sex and some must be respected as female only. But there is not the capacity to accept that. I don't think there will be from the hard core political group and they are the ones with the voices, the power, pushing for policy. And so like someone who has no capacity to respect that they can't mug you for your wallet, or steal your car, there has to be legal gatekeeping to define and protect other people's rights.

that say we have a right to live our lives and be recognised in line with our gender identity, and that it is not ok to treat us as our biological sex at birth all the time, as to do so greatly reduces our quality of life, our right to privacy, and our right to simply be recognised for who we are.

I know many people believe it so, but I don’t think there is any specific right to have a gender identity recognised.

Freedom of expression, right to privacy and right not to suffer undue discrimination are relevant, but those are all qualified rights.