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 they can't define themselves and don't have access to their language, and indeed don't have the right to single sex spaces, none of the above can be delivered.

Emily Thornberry may be wonderful. (My brother thinks she is fab, though I never saw the appeal.) However has she confirmed her belief that women are adult human females. If not she is talking about men and women, not women.

You know she's right. In law, some people defined as women have ppenises. It is impossible to be factually accurate and say anything other than what Starmer and Thornberry have said.

No parties apart from the SDP or Reform are planning to change that. When Sunak says "a man is a man and a woman is a woman" he's either 1) lying or 2) obfuscating the legal situation intentionally.

This is such an obvious smear of Labour because if not posters would be demanding the Conservatives (in power with a huge majority) change the law rather than endlessly posting that picture. And they aren't.

Badenoch has had a year to "mull" strengthening the EA to protect women. She's done nothing. Hence why I'm posting about her on this thread about her.

Thanks, I shall!

I'm hoping that will get a statuary review on how all this started now the Cass report is out Even if it takes years, it should be a warning

Yes. Announcing a review/enquiry will certainly be a good start.

shot across the bows and make people think twice about their ideology based activism

Of course it can. You are applying TRA logic that women are "erased" if they don't have a definition.

Our biological reality exists regardless of the name people use for us. Women would still be unable to get justice after being raped if we were renamed Sporcles tomorrow.

Action to jail rapists will benefit women. Action to improve childcare provision will benefit women. Action to tackle poverty will benefit women. Regardless of the "sex based rights" debate. That's my entire problem with the narrowing of the debate to focusing on defining woman before anything else.

Because this has been a social justice driven ideology, the left have been the ones driving it through.

But it’s not in the least about social justice, nor about anything left wing.

Its proponents call it ‘social justice’ in the same way that men call themselves women.

‘Social justice’ is the pretty wrapping paper on a deeply misogynistic male-supremacist agenda that is both antisocial and unjust.

Trojan horse of massive proportions

As I see it, if you can define women, you have men in women's sport, men in women's prisons and girls, especially same sex attracted girls, believing they would happier if they were boys.

Adam, are you a woman? You argue like a man, making the same point over and over again as if brute force will win the argument. Can you please stop tagging me.

Self ID was proposed by Maria Miller and Theresa May in 2015, because TRAs did a very good job of persuading lots of people of their cause, meanwhile there was an explosion of gender distressed children which is terrifying for medical professionals and parents alike. Because noone knew how to treat those children effectively.

This is not, and should not be, a left/right issue. It should be a cross party issue, being approached in a grown up way.

I was just reading the Rwanda scheme is going to cost £5bn. I'd far rather that was invested in figuring out how best to support teenagers mental health so this kind of thing doesn't happen again.

I'm not tagging you at all

I am a woman, so I argue like a woman. Interesting that you expect women to argue differentlythough - what does that mean? Are you giving me pushback for being "too aggressive"? Amyway, advanced search me if you are in doubt and see what you think. I find it very fascinating that my UN confuses people so much.

I agree with you. The legal basis for women is fundamental.

I see it as central to what most of us are arguing for on FWR

All the way through there has been an undermining of a clear position. Including pre-Cass when many of the arguments turned out to be correct.

I think we’ll always have that side bar of working against clarity and legal basis.

You are applying TRA logic that women are "erased" if they don't have a definition.

Well of course something is erased if you can't define it or if you expand the definition such that group is hidden or subsumed. This is really, really basic. It's why the ONS got handed their arse by FPFW. It's why all the other Nations which have expanded (queered?) the definition of "woman" are showing as being far, far worse for women. This cannot be either a serious train of thought, or a post in good faith.

All of the above that you reference result from the facts of sex and the sexed body; or the consequences of living in a sexed body.

Until you recognise the first base ( that 'women's rights' are the rights and protections that have been achieved or granted on the basis of female biological sex) then the rest is very precipitous and uncertain.

This is why so many women who consider themselves feminists place so much weight on the issue of 'gender and sex' ( that this board is dedicated to discussing and exploring).

It's really important for sex based definitions to be in place, but it is not the only factor in protecting womens rights and its not even a precondition to making progress on a lot of issues affecting women.
For example, being able to say "woman = adult human female" does nothing to stop most rapes of women. What will stop rapes of women, is action against rapists.

So not a serious train of thought then.

What of the woman working in prostitution in Brazil who was murderded by two transwomen - but whose death was not recorded as a 'femicide' because the the two male murderers identified as women themselves?

When you have no definitions, no ability to differentiate, discriminate or categorise then you can have no firm legal rights.

And what if those rapists you mention are put into a female prison because they identify as women.

When 'a woman' means nothing in law, when the meaning and definition is eroded - then women's rights cannot be protected.

Being able to name or not the "sexed body" is not what causes many of the negative consequences of being the owner of a female sexed body in society.

For example, like lots of women I have some physical issues caused by childbirth trauma. I cannot get adequate recognition or treatment for these on the NHS because "it's just part of having babies".

That would be my experience if I identified as a trans man. And it would be my experience if the NHS insisted on calling me a "birthing parent" in place of a woman.

I want the NHS to do something about birth trauma. It is a huge feminist issue. To me it's a bigger issue than arguing about their use of "birthing parent".

Nobody is suggesting it is the only factor - but you are on a board dedicated to discussing the sorts of issues in which transgender ideology is paramount. If you want more general discussions of 'women's rights' then there is the 'chat' forum on which to do it.

Perhaps this is not the forum for you then?

For many of us - the most fundamental women's rights issue facing us in the erosion of sex based reality and the denial that it even exists., or if it does that it is not important.

Before we can put rapists in prison we have to prosecute them. Which is not the case for 98.4% of rapes.

We have a situation now where the awareness of the potential for male rapists in female prisons is well known and being actively raised and discussed. Yet the vast majority of rapists are still getting away with it and the vast majority of victims don't see justice. Let's do something about that, rather than arguing about which politicians best define what a woman is.

https://commonsbusiness.parliament.uk/Document/86716/Html?subType=Standard

3.30

but not up on Hansard yet and I'm buggered if I can work the live parliament feed, it just jumps about all over the place.

https://whatson.parliament.uk/event/cal47782

It's a feminist forum, to discuss feminist issues. If you don't want to discuss any of the consequences of having a female sexed body, maybe it isn't the forum for you?