Kate Osborne MP: 'My NY Resolution is to block T*rfs'

[ArabellaScott]

https://twitter.com/KateOsborneMP/status/1741418883167170950

That's what she said.

What is actually wrong with this MP?

It has always been very apparent that all of the Labour members of the 'Women and Equalities committee' are activists on behalf of Stonewall.

I suspect that this means that Labour will oppose moves to make sure that sex refers to biological sex; so that those with a GRC will still be able to access single sex spaces. Of course, Labour also means to make it far easier for people to acquire a GRC.

It has always been very apparent that all of the Labour members of the 'Women and Equalities committee' are activists on behalf of Stonewall.

And are therefore drawn to anything labelled 'women' like flies to honey, in order to control it and redirect it to being centred upon men who identify as women at all times, as required by this affiliation. 'Women' is a word requiring 'search and destroy' as a duty upon the faithful.

What is the matter with that MP? Apparently a major, major issue in the kind of person who ends up getting put forward for selection - where the hell are they finding these people and wtf is it that is preventing better quality or even more normality? - and a major issue with accountability and standards.

After a year when we saw politicians grinning under a sign calling to decapitate women who argued back with men who wished to destroy their rights? When a male MP openly went to sit in the space of a female MP and bully her, right on camera in front of witnesses and a television audience, for the crime of arguing back with men who wished to destroy her and other women's rights? When an MP can share memes like this? And NO action of any kind was taken against any of these MPs. No sanctions, no public demonstration that there is any kind of professional code or even the basic standards of behaviour required of four year olds at the average primary school.

Why worry about partygate and lies at the top when this kind of behaviour is rife throughout?

The time of the professional politician really needs to be over. It is increasingly only a very specialised (to put it politely) kind of person who has the interest in local party politics and the time and capacity and money available to get into a position to be put forward for selection.

In essence to protect the confusion and lack of clarity in the EqA to in turn protect the interests of men to dominate and control without hinderance from other people's rights and equalities.

Worth noting in that article that a number of Labour women MPs wrote stating that:

'If Kate Osborne is selected, it would undermine any claim our party makes to stand resolutely against the harassment and intimidation of women in public life.'

How true that comment turned out to be.

What’s the problem? Everyone in the world agrees with blocking terfs.

The real problem is the terfs are everywhere.

One can block windows and doors but then there’s the letterbox! One must allow letters from constituents.

The only solution is to live in a castle filled with penis-minders and have a moat filled with deep water.

But then there’s that horrible terf, what’s her name? the swimmer, Sharon somebody…

She might be capable of swimming across the moat.

Never mind, a penis-minder at the turret with a machine gun will stop her.

I mean it’s ok to shoot a terf isn’t it?

Depressingly close

How much violence will be condoned by Labour MPs if they get a majority?

It’ll be like Drakeford’s misogynistic reel. No stopping them. Look out for laws that inhibit challenge.

https://news.sky.com/story/labour-women-demand-candidate-kate-osborne-is-barred-over-gun-image-11858062

'...a group of 27 female Labour candidates are calling on the party's General Secretary Jennie Formby and the ruling National Executive Committee (NEC) to forbid her from standing when it decides her fate later on Saturday.
...
In a letter, the candidates, including Liz Kendall, Jess Phillips, Yvette Cooper, Lucy Powell, Cat Smith and Vicky Foxcroft, urge the party to stop Ms Osborne from being able to run for the party.
The letter states: "The impact of such images are clear - they incite intimidation and violence against female politicians.'

Kate Osborne posted this on her Twitter, yesterday:

'Politicians have got to realise that their language has consequences. That this has happened since that meeting, with me personally, in my constituency, is a prime example of that. Ministers and politicians have a duty to protect all of our communities and not stoke hate.'

https://twitter.com/KateOsborneMP/status/1741520350276374684

So a complete hypocrite as well as stirring hate against women

Good job

Obviously it's horrible if she's had hate mail and nobody should be harassed or intimidated. But I think Kate Osborne needs to take her own advice.

And the day before:

'We must resist the divisive war on woke that Tories & far right want to drag us into, keeping us fighting each other to distract from their chaos & corruption From workers, migrants, unemployed, LGBTQ particularly trans ppl - we must stand up for their rights not join the attack'

She is the divisive one. How des she not see it? It's bloody weird self justification, is what it is. Sort of fascinating.

I suspect that this means that Labour will oppose moves to make sure that sex refers to biological sex; so that those with a GRC will still be able to access single sex spaces. Of course, Labour also means to make it far easier for people to acquire a GRC.

l do not think so. Stonewall (and therefore presumably Labour) have moved on from lobbying for sex=gender under the EA. Instead they argue that the 'proportionate and legitimate' test for permitting women-only spaces sets a very high bar which is rarely achievable and definitely doesn't include toilets and changing rooms (because they are ignoring indirect discrimination against religious minorities and DV survivors).

They are giving wrong advice to partners even so, because women-only spaces are still permitted if indirect discrimination against trans people is avoided. KB has made a start on this with proposed new building regs. that would mandate both single-sex and gender neutral facilities.

GRCs are irrelevant. The EA applies to anyone with the PC of gender reassignment whether they have one or not.

Michael Foran has done one of his brilliant threads on the GRA, the EA and the impact or not of holding a GRC

https://x.com/michaelpforan/status/1741545323837763641?s=46&t=aWQLrPtVicDNf6MQpq5WVg

She's a deeply silly, unprofessional MP playing to a gallery of misogynists for cheap social media clout.

Thank you for that link. Like many people I'm sure, I struggle to get my head around this and that's a helpful and clear explanation.

welcome @Floisme its one of the clearest explanations I’ve seen about how single sex spaces absolutely do not have to be applied on a case by case basis

I have another question about Labour weasely wording. I imagine it's been raised already on other threads but I'm only just starting to grasp it and I doubt I'm the only one:

Towards the end of Michael Foran's Twitter thread (linked a couple of posts up by Theinnocenteyeballsinthesky) he talks about both single sex 'exceptions' and 'exemptions'. Sorry I can't screenshot the post (creaking old phone) but he says:

'The default is equal treatment unless you’re within the realm of an exception (which apply automatically if the facts meet the legal tests below; exemptions must be actively applied for). If you’re covered by an exception the default is that a single sex service is lawful.'

I'm not a lawyer but there's clearly a distinction between the two - you must apply for an exemption whereas an exception is automatic.

Anneliese Dodds, as far as I can see, only talks about protecting single sex 'exemptions' in both the Guardian and the HOC debate (both linked upthread). There was a time when I might have believed there was an innocent explanation but now I'm thinking, 'what's that about?'

This link should take you to the post if you're on Twitter:
[[https://twitter.com/michaelpforan/status/1741756136414396511

Thanks for spotting this and flagging it. And for the link to Michael Foran’s tweet.

Another language point is that Annelise Dodds referred to single sex spaces, whereas Section 27 refers to single-sex services.

It’s clear that there are lots of examples of where the S27 single-sex exception would apply automatically but those single sex services have been withdrawn from women and girls at the behest of Stonewall and other men’s sexual entitlement lobby groups. For example retailers providing single sex changing facilities or a bra fitting service. Single sex rape crisis services. Single sex domestic abuse refuges and support services. It’s clear that providing such single sex services would not breach sex discrimination law, thanks to S27. The question - it seems to me - is whether excluding male persons in possession of a GRC from female facilities would be sex discrimination; or whether excluding male persons in possession of a GRC from male facilities would be discrimination on the basis of gender reassignment. KB said that the Haldane judgment has resulted in a lack of clarity on that point.

Having read the 6th December debate I’m open to believing that the explanation of Dodd’s mention of exemption not exception could be what KB said when she said she fears no one on the opposite bench because she knows that none of them have done any research and are just repeating social media catchphrases. (Not an exact quote.) It was clear that the Tories had all been briefed on the issues and provided with questions to ask. Whereas the Labour and SNP MPs had only been given rhetoric. In other words the explanation could easily be that AD was/is unaware of the exceptions v exemptions and spaces v services point. Much like you and I were until this morning!!

In other words the explanation could easily be that AD was/is unaware of the exceptions v exemptions and spaces v services point. Much like you and I were until this morning!!
Yes indeed! But I will make allowances for you and me and even for back bench MPs. I'm less inclined to do so for Anneliese Dodds given that she's the Shadow Minister for Women and Equalities and might well end up as Secretary of State. I expect her to be on top of this stuff and it scares the crap out of me that she clearly isn't.

I can't stand Dodds.

But I will make allowances for you and me and even for back bench MPs. I'm less inclined to do so for Anneliese Dodds given that she's the Shadow Minister for Women and Equalities

Fair point.

I wonder how much Teresa May's hate mail increased after Osborne posted that meme of her?
And she's got the cheek to do this to her tweets? How fucking dare she.

Who can reply?
Accounts @KateOsborneMP mentioned can reply