Kemi Badenoch on Cass - calls for review

[ArabellaScott]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/148061a7-bcea-46c7-84e6-be6ee29d7ce2?shareToken=2f582f76ec269e6e20578142389f9472

'Over three decades, politicians of all parties have outsourced power to so-called independent institutions. They were meant to take the politics out of decision-making but have themselves become politicised often with little to no ministerial oversight. They are no longer impartial. As politicians ceded control, many institutions became captured by a minority of ideological activists. When ministers raise the alarm or intervene this is demonised by Labour MPs such as Yvette Cooper as engaging in “culture wars”.'

...

''It is also time for an in-depth review of decision-making across the public sector. How is it that senior leaders ignore the law and allow groups like Stonewall to make up what it should be?''

If you look at some bigger organisations the WHO, UN and so in it’s easier to see the trend

None of this is unique to the U.K.

You could probably map it all somehow with where countries are, some have stopped puberty blockers including UK which is good, others probably don’t have the equivalent of Stonewall in schools - which is no longer a good thing

"From the narrow prism of women’s wants for single sex spaces whenever and wherever they choose"

Fixed that for you!

"Womens rights" is not a "narrow prism".

And Labour have far more female friendly policies than the Conservatives:

• halving VAWG
• treating repeat sex offenders and domestic abusers as serious criminals with the same police response
• affordable nursery places, especially in poorer areas where there is very limited provision now
• standard protections for workers, including those on zero hours contracts who are disproportionately women

Here's Emily Thornberry's conference speech:

https://www.emilythornberry.com/shadow-attorney-general/2023/10/10/making-the-law-work-for-women-my-labour-conference-speech-2023/

And that must include renewing our fight against the most widespread, most historic, and most entrenched injustice of all. Our society’s treatment of women.

We walk in the footsteps of the Legends. The Giantesses, the Vivionns of the past, Who fought for Equal Representation. The Right to Vote. The Equal Pay Act. And the Abortion Rights Act.

We pay tribute to the women in recent years who have fought to extend maternity rights. To eliminate the Tampon Tax. To outlaw Upskirting and Revenge Porn. And to bring reproductive freedom to Northern Ireland.

We applaud Anneliese, Bridget and Angela, who right now are leading the fight to get misogyny treated as a hate crime. To tackle the poison of ‘rape culture’ in our schools. And to close the gender pay gap.

I haven't seen such unequivocal statements about womens rights from any of the other main parties. So I think a Labour government is the opposite of "terrifying"

Not convinced. I won’t be alone.

I watched an interview with Jo Bartosch yesterday and she articulated how I feel about the need for an inquiry, and if you look on the other threads here, it seems that those that want an inquiry, want it very strongly and urgently. I wonder if there is a way, apart from signposting the petition, that one of the organisations like Transgender Trend or Genspect could facilitate the expression of that feeling en masse. A petition doesn’t quite cut it. There’s a will to see criminal prosecutions.

The use of “culture wars” and ‘no one is talking about it’ shows Labour’s stance, it’s deflective and not useful to women

I know people are keen to look past it but it reflects badly on this issue

I’m very relieved the Cass review has happened and 2022 legislation covered getting the information required

I meant to quote @Needmoresleep

Many things that have happened go beyond bureaucratic terms like ‘ideological capture’ or ‘systemic failure’ and into ‘law-breaking’, ‘grievous bodily harm’ of children, etc.

Yeah of course you won't be. Badenoch has quite the fan club on here. Goodness knows why because she does nothing apart from "mull", write think pieces for the right wing press and exaggerate her success in getting trade deals. She's also not entirely truthful about various things.

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/kemi-badenoch-thin-ice-post-office-spat-2918335

Yes. So it would seem an enquiry would be needed, and as noted upthread, a statutory enquiry. A problem is that these can - and usually do - take years, and in the meantime there is the risk of more harm being done.

I do wonder whether some slightly misguided Labour Party social media initiative has interns shilling for the party across MN.

The assumption that insult = debate is rather wearing and risks having the opposite effect.

I hope that wasn't at me? I'm not a shill. I'm just not a fan of the more right wing elements of the Conservatives and find the constant Badenoch love "rather wearing" myself. But each to their own.

Yet you complained about my defining support for Badenoch as through the prism of women's rights. For most of us, she is a good Women's Minster. And....it is a woman's rights board. Lots of people here are thankful to her for her understanding of the problem, and her willingness to speak up, but have every intention of putting their ballot box cross against Labour.

As far as I can see your argument is that Kemi got something wrong on the Post Office, ergo she is unreliable on any subject. It is not an argument that will work when most people are saying "Hallelujah, a senior politician gets it."

It feels like spamming.

And with the Post Office, it seems like there should be charges of conspiracy to extort, falsely imprison, etc. The mistakes are grave and criminal. People died waiting for the inquiry.

So it is with this conspiracy to perpetrate grievous bodily harm of minors, etc. There needs to be an inquiry into the way that well intentioned organisations with Statutory influence or powers like Stonewall and the NSPCC are targeted and captured by those with ignominious motives which subvert their mission (is their weakness greed? ‘We can rake in loads more dough if we introduce homophobia to a gay rights org, or undermine child safeguarding in a children’s rights org’). There also needs to be some legal culpability in the short term too. We need to get these people and their ignominious motives out of all of these organisations now.

Well you should all tune in at 4.30 when Atkins is likely to communicate the next steps on Cass.

I complained about using a very narrow definition of "womens rights" that doesn't actually equate to "womens rights" in totality.

Kemi obviously says things that appeal to some GC women but she does very little. Actions speak louder than words for me. Women are demonstrably worse off across the board (including in respect of "sex based rights") than they were in 2010. The buck stops with them in my opinion.

Just get ON with it fgs, Kemi, for once in your life do the right thing!

What do you mean by women's rights in totality.

If TWAW then obviously biological women can be described as a very narrow definition. But...

Women need to be able define themselves and use language of their choosing. That is fundamental, not narrow. Everything else follows.

Tune in to what?

Commons statement on the Cass review. Atkins will be putting forward the position on the NHS and Cass.

This Emily Thornbury , the one who thinks it's in accurate to say only women have cervix's

It is a great relief to have a politician regardless of party who really understands the issues and is not afraid to articulate them. How many others can we say the same about? I can only think of Rosie Duffield.

Actually during the Westminster Hall debate a few months ago there were some surprisingly well informed Tory backbenchers, and obviously Miriam Cates.

Chris Loder MP from West Dorset is leading the charge on some specifically Dorset concerns about council funded youth groups and people who go into schools. (Quick summary..."what is it with the LibDems".) I assume that there are other good constituency MPs who both get it and are doing their bit. Kemi is Women's Minister, so it is quite right she should lead the charge.

I mean all the human rights that cunty people should expect to have regardless of their vaginas, and currently don't.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/universal-declaration-of-human-rights/#:~:text=The%2030%20rights%20and%20freedoms,to%20life%2C%20liberty%20and%20privacy.

E.g.
Article 2 - women don't have the rights to bodily autonomy enjoyed by men and our rights are constantly under threat e.g. threat to further restrict abortions or contraception for certain women.

Article 3 - women currently are harassed and abused by men and can't "live in safety". We can't go out safely and walk alone at night.

Article 8 - women currently can't get justice if they are raped.

Article 23 - women don't have equal pay at work and our protections are at risk if the EA is removed/altered. More women than men work zero hours/flexible contracts and therefore have fewer protections.

Article 25 - women are at far higher risk of living in poverty. The government exploit the population to provide free care of elderly, children, disabled and this disproportionately affects women.

This trend of saying "womens rights" or "womens sex based rights" when you mean "womens rights to single sex spaces" is narrow and means it is possible for political parties to avoid the issues above but still claim to be "pro women".

But when its in governments, we vote in that ideology. And we can, and do, vote it out in favour of a different ideology.

The point she is making is that we the public cannot vote these other institutions out of power.

@RebelliousCow im having a tea break and noticed that the Tories are announcing tomorrow the return of single sex care in NHS hospitals, fingers crossed it happens