Yvette cooper - bio sex & gender v separate

[TwangBoob]

Don't know if this is news, but I'm debating whether it's safe to vote labour next time so was slightly cheered to hear Yvette Cooper on R4 make it very plain that to her at least sex and gender were separate things and scarlet blake is rightly going to a male prison & hopefully the crime will be recorded as a male's crime.

Are we safe to vote labour? 🤔🤔🤔 rushi is equally clear but also likes to pull our pants down financially far too much imo

It wasn't that plain. Especially as she appeared to be under the impression that Blake had a GRC. And she seemed to be suggesting there might/ought to be a way (undefined) to record the crime under both categories.

Oh, i didnt get that from it 😅

Transcript is here

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5017811-womans-hour-scarlet-blake?page=2&reply=133376232

She seems to be making it clear that Labour considers there to be a biological sex and a legal sex.

Remember, her child is trans identifying. She has skin in the game.

It appears an unusually high number of Labour MPs have trans activist or trans identify youth in the family.

Apart from the obvious of preventing them from being objective, have none taken a step back to think why so many privileged middle class (mainly white) teens and 20 somethings are going down this road.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5012545-ashley-dalton-labour-shadow-minister-for-women-and-equalities-this-evening?page=1

Sorry OP, I’m not getting that impression from the Labour Party atm. I wish!

Thanks all ... :(

Very non committal and avoiding answering Emma Barnett's direct questioning.
Typical politician reply. Lots of words and no further forward. I used to have some time for Yvette Cooper but she's pretty unconvincing on this topic.

If yvette cooper is keen to distinguish sex from gender, surely the easiest way to achieve that is to stop reissuing birth certificates to people with a GRC. And stop allowing people to change sex on id.

Thats where the switch is made.

People can still be protected for having a gender, or changing their gender. Just remove the confusion around sex and gender.

Another fudge. And surely she absolutely have known how these crimes by males are classified. The fact that she didn’t know says a lot about her interest in her brief.

She has skin in the game. Yes.

But interesting to see her say that there's biological and legal sex, and not that transwomen are biologically women like a lot of activists too.

It's easy to assume she's ok with all of the ideology and doesn't see a problem.

She might not, but she's also walking a fine line between the politics and the personal here. She may well harbour some pesky thoughts still...

Even admitting that there is a difference between biological and legal sex is relevant and interesting. Especially pending a ruling over whether the Equality And refers to biological sex in certain contexts.

I wouldn’t trust Labour as far as I could throw them. They will fudge this issue throughout the election campaign and when they’re in power they’ll revert to type.
Too many with skin in the game and too many holding seats in university towns.
We’re doomed.

Unfortunately even Peter Tatchell seems to say that there is biological sex and there is gender identity. And then he talks about there being two different ways to be a woman.

My hunch on this is that she's lining up the Labour approach for self-ID by the back door: yes, a GRC is needed but getting one will be made easier (while also making it more difficult for wives of trans identified men to divorce them as men). If Labour brings in all the things it's talking about - including the conversion therapy Bill - we're on a pathway to a) men who identify as women being allowed access to women's spaces and b) parents and therapists being criminalised for supporting distressed children who need a differential diagnosis and mental health support.

It’s pretty clear that even if she’s distinguishing between sex and gender, she thinks gender (identity) is the more important thing.

@BonfireLady i too think it is about asserting that inner gender essence is the most important thing and ensuring that people’s self-identification is all important.

That argument requires a distinction between gender and sex - so they can denounce anyone talking about sex as bigoted dinosaurs obsessed with genitals

But interesting to see her say that there's biological and legal sex, and not that transwomen are biologically women like a lot of activists too.

I'd say she only said it because the man in question was a sadistic killer. She knew she was on the hook and that this man needed to be cast out out the gender inclusive grouping of women/"women", and not to do so would have possibly attracted press coverage and could have landed her in the shit.

Reading what she said, its as if she sees sex as female/male, and gender identity as woman/man.

Maybe thats Labours vision?

Politicians are going to have to start getting to grips with the 'gender reassignment' process. Its of no use to allow any man to transition and become female/woman, and only look at the safeguarding and statistical implications once hes convicted of serious crime that recieves publicly.

It would be great to record crime under the two headings (sex and gender). We would then have clear visibility of just how many men who claim to be women are commiting different sorts of crimes.

I think because of the distributed way statistics are collected (i.e. police forces initially classify and then those details get added to the CPS and court files and sent on to the Home Office) it isn’t necessarily that simple to work out what is actually recorded for an individual crime because different state bodies might have different policies (esp police who are supposed to operate at some distance from the government). And while good data collection ought to have consistent guidelines on how to record, until trans activists tried to fudge things and override sex with self-ID gender, it was plain as day what to record so no one bothered before it was too late.

To put this on her specifically seems unreasonable because the system has been compromised and it’s likely hard for any MP or even the Home Office to know without some irregular enquiries.

Is that true? I can't find any reference to it. I can see they are a trans rights activist but that's not the same thing. And something sits wrong with me about bringing people's children into a debate

It's relevant though. How easy would it be for an MP with a trans-identifying child to speak out against the ideology?

But like you, I haven't seen anything which confirms that her child is trans-identifying.

Transactivist rather than trans-identifying?

https://www.lbc.co.uk/watch-videos/nadhim-zahawi-protest-warwick-tories/

This.

She risks her relationship with her child if she has a trans identifying child but is gender critical.

I have no idea what the situation is, but I don't think you can assume shes definitely on board.

Talking to a friend whose son has come out recently, she's outwardly very supportive but she's definitely questioning and more worried than she lets on even to us in her safe circle. The point is this guilt and pressure to be accepting even though your gut says it's a car crash waiting to happen.