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

I'm interested in what YC says and does - her children are none of my business.

Anneliese Dodds wrote in the Guardian last year that Labour recognised that sex and gender are different. (Sorry can't access the link right now but it was in the Graun last summer.) What she didn't make clear - and I haven't seen anyone else do so - was whether Labour intend that a GRC should entitle them holder to access spaces and services for the opposite sex. Given that they plan to make it easier to obtain a GRC that's a pretty big deal and their silence on the matter is not reassuring.

Mea culpa, trans activist

Still a problem for YC in maintaining her family relationships.

i think almost everybody except India recognises that sex and gender are different. The crux is that defining ‘woman’ as gender leads to TWAW, and everything that we believe society provides for the female sex is labelled as being for women…. So there would be no problem with transwomen having full access.

I agree with pp’s that women’s rights and child safeguarding are about to go very badly under a Labour gov

And still a problem to use it to speculate on her position w.r.t. trans issues.
Give her some credit for being a professional woman please, this is a feminist board. I'm sure she's more than capable of separating her home life from her work life.

As usual I don't see any issue with what she said - it seems sensible.

I'm not sure if it's possible to find out whether Blake has a GRC but if they do, then news papers would have a different legal consideration around reporting which fits with how its been reported. I believe its against the law to "out" someone with a GRC.

Good case study as to why 1) we need medical gatekeeping in the GRC process and 2) it needs updating so people have to declare if they have a GRC in circumstances where its relevant, like this media reporting.

I wonder why WH interviewed Yvette Cooper rather than a current cabinet minister? Did they say? Maybe no Conservative MP would go on to discuss it.

I believe its against the law to "out" someone with a GRC.

This is incorrect, but is quite a common misconception.

It is only illegal to disclose that someone has a GRC if you have acquired that knowledge in a professional capacity.

There are exceptions when such disclosure is lawful, which includes disclosure which is "for the purpose of preventing or investigating crime".

It's in this section of the GRA.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/22

If it's mentioned in court, then unless the court specifically forbids disclosure, then the papers can report it.

I wonder why WH interviewed Yvette Cooper rather than a current cabinet minister? Did they say? Maybe no Conservative MP would go on to discuss it.

A typically uninformed comment from this poster. Yvette Cooper was on Woman's Hour to talk about Labour's planned 'Raneem's law' to put domestic abuse specialists in 999 control rooms to make sure victims are responded to urgently.

Don't you think it would be very difficult, or even impossible, for someone with a trans-identifying child to speak out against transgender ideology?

I always thought of Yvette Cooper as the best PM the UK never had.

Maybe the court did forbid it?
Maybe some media sources decided that hearing it in court was "acquiring knowledge in a professional capacity"?
It's a real hornets nest and not one that's entirely the fault of the media

Oh ok, so they just took the opportunity to ask her about Blake. Based on this and the other thread I thought it was a planned piece.
There was no need for the rudeness.

Lots of parents with trans children do. We have some on the board. Anyway it's a moot point since pp was incorrect

What possible reason could the court have for forbidding the disclosure? That's a bizarre bit of speculation on your part (expected from you, but still absurd).

If you had bothered to click on the link that I helpfully provided for you, you would know that what is meant by the acquisition of protected information in an official capacity is specified in the GRA and does not apply to just hearing it in court. I've done a c&p for you since you seem to find clicking on links too arduous.

(3)A person acquires protected information in an official capacity if the person acquires it—

(a)in connection with the person’s functions as a member of the civil service, a constable or the holder of any other public office or in connection with the functions of a local or public authority or of a voluntary organisation,

(b)as an employer, or prospective employer, of the person to whom the information relates or as a person employed by such an employer or prospective employer, or

(c)in the course of, or otherwise in connection with, the conduct of business or the supply of professional services.

What I meant (which should have been obvious from the context) was
Don't you think it would be very difficult, or even impossible, for an MP with a trans-identifying child to speak out publicly against transgender ideology? Do we have MPs with trans identifying children speaking out on here in their own name against this? I don’t think so.

It's hardly rude to describe you as uninformed. Even when information is given to you with links, you seem to be unable to access it, read it and understand it.

Well who knows. I wouldn't want to speculate about other people's family circumstances

You don't seem to have read or understood my post @AdamRyan.

No surprise, of course.

She wouldn't answer the question and she burbled a lot of stuff without really saying anything.

Vote Labour and wave bye bye to your rights and hello to utter insanity.

Of course I did. I just don't want to get into endless rounds of questions, so as to avoid criticisms of dominating the thread.
Anyway, since you are insisting, I can see a scenario where a journalist may believe para (c) applies to them:
(3)A person acquires protected information in an official capacity if the person acquires it—
(c)in the course of or otherwise in connection with, the conduct of business or the supply of professional services

Lots of orgs are quite risk averse when it comes to the law. That's not as an exciting an explanation as "institutional capture" of course.

I'm sure they could get legal advice if they don't understand the law @AdamRyan

This is your post that I was referring to when I said you didn't seem to have read or understood the post you were replying to.

This is another example of how obeisance to the trans ideology turns articulate and once sensible politicians into an incoherent mess. What Cooper said was meaningless drivel and she wouldn't have uttered it about any other issue. She's smart and intelligent but as always sounds like a fool about this.

I just thought it was a strange question and prefer not to speculate as I think its extremely distasteful to bring politicians children into this.
Like I said, Yvette Cooper doesn't have a trans child, pp got it wrong, so its an irrelevance anyway.

There is a massive difference between doing it on this board and doing it publicly and putting your own child in the media spot light in the process.

If you DID believe that there a problem with gender ideology and felt that it was often vulnerable autistic young people who were being sucked into it, you might also be well aware that they'd be ill equipped to deal with that level of attention.

If that happened to be your child, you might well be professional but youd also be damned careful too because, if you have been in politics a long time like Yvette Cooper, you'd know the repercussions pretty well.

I wouldn't assume to know what Yvette Cooper truly believes from these comments to day.

She might have 'skin in the game' as some put it, but she might also feel her hands are tied and it's a massive conflict of interests which endangers her child regardless.

That's the reality. You might think it's an awful shit show, but it's still someone you care about and no matter how any of this is ultimately handled potentially is a disaster for them regardless.

It also maybe needs a few sensitive remarks from someone 'trusted' to nudge the point that biological sex is different to legal sex and to stop pretending differently - which many are trying to do.

I have much more time for a hedged bet politicians answer from Cooper, compared to Phillips for this reason; it's more complicated for her to be fully on Gender Critical.

She doesn't have a trans child.
Why is there so much insistence on discussing a scenario that isn't real? It's weird.