Do you count GC feminists as LGBT?

[AdamRyan]

Apparently Kemi Badenoch is a bit confused about the difference, claiming wide consultation with LGBT groups but actually only meeting GC feminist groups.

https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1760281735990738972?s=20

It reminds me a bit of when Maria Miller did the consultation on trans rights and didn't consult any feminists.

I would expect MPs to be consulting both sides, but more than that I'm kind of offended to be described as LGBT for my GC stance . Seems unfair to both gay people and feminists and like the old anti-feminist "you are all hairy lesbians" trope

"Often it seems that there is very little sense of the long term, deep implications these will have, but anyone who wants to talk about them, or voices a note of caution, is accused of not supporting the vulnerable or minorities or whomever."

This is so true RTB. It's seen everywhere with people hanging onto political allegiances and advocating for at times sheer nonsense, despite all the evidence. It doesn't benefit society for political purity to replace the knowledge that life's complex.

AdamRyan
I don't support her for precisely that reason. We are all benefitting from the EA and it would be very short sighted to support its removal.

I was aware she was involved in exploring the need for clarifying ‘sex’ as meaning biological sex as opposed to legal , GRA’, sex (really gender).

I did not know that Kemi Badenoch wants to remove the Equality Act. Please would you point to a source for this?

I believe, but only from reading in these boards generally, that many of the protections in the Equality Act already existed as acts of their own for our benefits but the Equality Act sought to bring them together. But it was unfortunately completed in a rush before the ensuing election and it’s coordination and wording as regards its interaction with the earlier GRA was not well worked out. I am not sure which elements of protection were missing before the EA was created.

As I said though, I had not realised KM had ever planned to remove the EA/leave landlords with the right to say ‘no blacks or Irish’ - where has removal of the EA been mooted?

I would also like to know the source of this suggestion.

Policy Exchange is calling for a "review", as demonstrated upthread very influential on public discourse and media opinion

https://policyexchange.org.uk/publication/the-future-of-equality/#contents__accordion

Badenoch "rewriting the Equality act"
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11938341/amp/Ministers-eye-overhaul-Equality-Act-bring-clarity-trans-issues.html

https://www.werahobhouse.co.uk/news/2021/07/equalityact/
A message of support for the Equality Act Review was also sent by Equalities Minister, Kemi Badenoch.

Among people of a conservative disposition, it’s long been accepted that the Equality Act needs to be repealed...In July, Rishi Sunak told a group of Conservative party members at a leadership hustings in West Sussex that he would ‘review’ it if he became prime minister
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/what-to-do-about-the-equality-act/

“Too often, existing legislation is used to engage in social engineering to which no one has given consent.

“The worst offender in this regard is the 2010 Equality Act, conceived in the dog days of the last Labour government.

“It has been a Trojan horse that has allowed every kind of woke nonsense to permeate public life.

“It must stop. My government would review the Act to ensure we keep legitimate protections while stopping mission creep."

https://inews.co.uk/news/rishi-sunak-vows-to-review-equalities-act-if-he-becomes-prime-minister-to-stop-woke-nonsense-1770260

Who would "own" Sunaks review of the Equality act other than the Minister for Equalities, Kemi Badenoch?

Yes, it's nice, and what nice people think, therefore won't have unanticipated effects.

Many kinds of legislative change can have some immediate beneficial outcomes, but that doesn't always mean they don't also have unanticipated or problematic ones.

There can also be more than one way to achieve the ends you want, policy wise, so jumping on one approach as the only good one is foolish.

Avoiding rushing in to make these kinds of complex changes is not a bad thing, that is why we are in the situation we are in. And the Tories haven't been immune, it's the spirit of the age, it seems, to just make these legal changes without really trying to see how they will shape the bigger picture over the next 50 or 100 years. If they've realized they need to be more careful that is positive.

Thank you for the links related to the source for what you had said about Kemi Badenoch planning to remove the Equality Act.

I see Sunak/Badenoch referred to a ‘review’ and Sunak and that they would ‘keep’ legitimate protections.

So presumably no one could start saying ‘no blacks or Irish’ when letting houses or B&B rooms; pregnant women shouldn’t loose their jobs, or women be paid less for the same work.*

*(On this last point, as an aside, interestingly, as things stand in the confusion between the Equality Act and the GRA, according to Dr Foran a legal expert who spoke at a Parliamentary Committee over Scottish GRA reform a year ago, if Lady Haldane is correct, a pregnant transman with a GRA who is legally male might end up with discrimination difficulties,as could a gay man - please see Dr Foran’s Orr’s citing these examples of current GRA/EA potential legal problems in the screen shots from the link below.)

A review related to confusions or contradictions in the EA is not therefore negative by default as you seem to suggest, nor is it the same as removing it.

https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/12639/pdf/

Speaking of Scotland, it is worth seeing the current active thread on this board if you haven’t already.

This is the sort of absurdity of the of the interaction of EA and the GRA.

To see what I mean see a horrible trans activist graphic image posted on another thread on this board here tonight of a transwoman rapist sitting on a frightened woman, boasting ‘Yes it is a penis you feel’ and with a caption ‘Welcome to the 21st Century’

A man with a GRC could rape a lesbian ( EA Sexual Orientation protected) female (EA Sex protected) by deception, but then claim it isn’t deception and isn’t rape because he has a GRC/ is legally a female for all purposes.

If only Rishi would do some reviewing of the unintended aspects of the Equality Act that are of concern.

It is on the thread about a female only lesbian members club.

Currently the Gender Recognition Act states that having a Gender Recognition Certificate does not mean a man can't be charged with rape.

When Labour get in and 'update' the GRC, they need to leave that clause alone.

20 Gender-specific offences
(1) Where (apart from this subsection) a relevant gender-specific offence could be committed or attempted only if the gender of a person to whom a full gender recognition certificate has been issued were not the acquired gender, the fact that the person’s gender has become the acquired gender does not prevent the offence being committed or attempted.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/20

Thelnebriati · Today 23:40

Currently the Gender Recognition Act states that having a Gender Recognition Certificate does not mean a man can't be charged with rape.

When Labour get in and 'update' the GRC, they need to leave that clause alone.

20 Gender-specific offences
(1) Where (apart from this subsection) a relevant gender-specific offence could be committed or attempted only if the gender of a person to whom a full gender recognition certificate has been issued were not the acquired gender, the fact that the person’s gender has become the acquired gender does not prevent the offence being committed or attempted.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/20

That is good, thank you for making that clear. (What a shame this uses the word ‘gender’ to mean sex in some places though.)

A problem is the greyer aspect of sex by deception happening in practice and the CPS being ‘captured’, and influenced no doubt by their interpretation of the EA protected characteristic of Gender Reassignment, and of the GRA.

The Gay Men’s Network have written to the CPS about that Nov 2022. (my bolding.)

“Male Homosexuals can be victims of sex by deception offences and “stealthing” (the practice of trans identified females concealing their true biological sex) is a growing issue in homosexual male spaces. We are therefore concerned to protect the interests of homosexual males against sex crime by deception and we believe that everyone should be equal before the law with no special treatment for some defendants and no second- class status for some victims”.

“We are deeply concerned that the CPS consultation document is written in the language of gender identity ideology. It speaks about sex being assigned at birth, “genderqueer” identities and imposes upon CPS staff the duty of assessing the veracity of various “gender identities” while simultaneously stating that they cannot be defined. This is incoherent. This guidance uncritically accepts and reproduces highly political and highly contested language”.

• “The proposed guidance creates a series of hurdles which mitigate against the prosecution of defendants which would have the effect of failing victims of sex crimes by deception. RASSO lawyers are mandated by this policy to consider irrelevant matters suggesting they should weigh against a decision to prosecute”.

“Specifically, this guidance would require CPS lawyers to assess whether a Defendant is successfully “living as a man/woman” or whether they have obtained a GRC. These matters depend on offensive and dated stereotypes about how men and women live and are irrelevant to the important factual question of whether a victim of sex crime has been deceived. This exercise is also completely unknown to law and there is no basis for it in Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) authority or statute”.

• “More worryingly, the guidance engages in “victim-blaming” mandating CPS staff to ask whether a victim of sex crime by deception “closed their eyes” to the obvious. This has deeply disturbing parallels to saying, “she was asking for it”. We consider this sort of rhetoric deeply unfortunate particularly in the context of this category of offending”
. The
© 2022 Gay Men’s Network 1 November 2022

That's a disgusting graphic and I hope was deleted. You are incorrect about the law though; rape is a crime of penetration without consent with a penis so no a TW couldn't do that to avoid being charged with rape.

This is why I get so frustrated. That statement is incorrect and therefore the fact you are posting it means you are either scaremongering or have been scaremongered.

I see we've moved on to the threat from labour (not based on fact) rather than the threat from based Conservatives (based on their own stated views).

Is there any particular reason we shouldn't be discussing both?

Other than the fact you clearly have a massive anti-tory agenda which is totally blinding you to the actual subject because you are more concerned about bashing party politics?

Just y'know. Curious.

Fwiw having just read Dennis Kavaughs breakdown of the proposed conversion therapy bill, which is a total and utter car crash as it stands and has learnt nothing from the ambiguity that poor definitions in the Equality Act has produced I find in insane the Tories are proceeding at all with it without settling the EA first due to the number of cases.

However since Labour are fully committed to the bill, regardless of whether it passes this parliamentary session or not and this is generally a huge issue across multiple parties, I can't for the life of me work out why we are singling out Kemi on this thread other than because she is a woman and wears the wrong colour rosette.

It's total bullshit.

There's a lot of murky stuff happening in the CPS isn't there in relation to gender identity? I'm sure I've read something somewhere about individuals with an agenda and weak management unable to manage them?
I always thought the toxic anti girl "school guidelines" the CPS produced and then withdrew rather than face legal challenge was a classic example of what out of control capture looks like in an institution.

Haha. I'd say the reason people don't want to discuss it is the fact most posters on this have a massive pro Tory agenda, but apparently that makes me "captured".

1. she's the equalises minister so going to be the person who "reviews" the EA that apparently is allowing the wokery that Sunak wants to get rid of
2. she claims GC feminist groups fall under the LGBT umbrella (where the thread started)
3. she appears to have a flexible approach to telling the truth.

The only reason I can see for the cheerleadering is there are a lot of supporters of the right wing factions of the conservative party on this board. Otherwise most posters would engage with what was being posted, instead of throwing insults and personal attacks.

Sarah Philimore has also written a very good analysis of the interplay between Parental Responsibility & Gillick that has either been misunderstood or ignored by the drafters of the bill.

https://twitter.com/SVPhillimore/status/1761649500370649382

I just tried but the last few pages are just slagging off one particular poster and suffragette coloured dinosaurs so it's a bit cliquey. Could you summarise why you think I need to read it?

You've not been on MN long have you?

Tilts head.

Cos if you had youd have seen the lengthy comments about how women here feel politically homeless, all the parties are a bunch of pricks who deliberately refuse to engage on how sex matters and how the law works (or doesn't work) and at BEST it's a least worst option argument.

I told you I've been on here a very very long time.
I was on the very first Brexit thread, that turned into westminstenders with you in 2016. We agreed.
I've posted and made Mx Jack Monroe question her NB gender identity (in 2015 iirc).
I was here when rickroll dug out the true nature of Tara Hudson and her 7 inch surprise.

I know the debate. I just disagree with you. In my opinion "politically homeless" has been weaponised on MN, along with "they are all as bad as each other", "But Jeremy Corbyn..." and "Keir had a beer..." to confuse people and mean they either vote Conservative, or not Labour so the Conservatives get in.

I have every sympathy with genuinely politically homeless, but most posters on here who say that are also very pro Badenoch/Cates/Braverman so I don't think they are being transparent about their actual intentions.

For clarity I'm talking about an overall impression of a group of posters, rather than one in particular. There is very much a "party view" on this board.

Utter bullshit!

This is totally made up disengenous nonsense.

Nothing further to say.

I can't for the life of me work out why we are singling out Kemi on this thread other than because she is a woman and wears the wrong colour rosette

This about covers it.

Ha! OK then. I can tell you my user names. I've been very prolific on FWR for a long time. Had a break when I got divorced because had other things to do.

Why on earth do you think you know who I am better than me? I can only think cognitive dissonance. It's pretty ridiculous as an argument TBH