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?''

What’s with the desire to move on from this?

I don’t think anyone will be convinced that’s a good idea.

I don't want feminists to "move on" from this. I want them to do other things too and stop focusing on this single issue to the detriment of all the other things affecting women, that we could still be doing things about.

This "you can't do anything without first defining women" stance is a logical error and in fact is hindering action on women's rights in my view. YMMV which is fine of course.

You seem to be wanting to suggest that we shouldn't place so much emphasis and time and energy on the issue - the one that is so fundamental to us. Is that right? That you think other issues are more important?

Well, that's your call for your own priorities and campaigns. But you know, it is possible to care about different issues and different types of issue all at the same time. Don't you realise that women who post here work in many fields; have many different skills; experineces and interests around 'women's issues'. Some work with abused women; some work in the prison service; some work in mental health; some work in medical or related fields - such as maternity, childbirth, breastfeeding........some have daughters and granddaughters who they want to nurture and protect........

It is not either or........

If you say so.....

To me sounds a lot like mansplaining.

Noone posts on there as well you know. In fact women are adamant this is the board for all issues related to female sexed bodies - aka all feminism.

Nice try but I'll post where I like thanks.

Well posters will concentrate on what they wish I doubt anyone will respond to demands.

I find it fundamental and I want change. We are getting there, albeit slowly. And I’m grateful to all those who care enough to post or try elsewhere.

I think maybe they've not yet got to it in the HoC. Understandably occupied with Iran.

I think I might write to Kemi and thank her for her stance,

No, Adam, it is not the forum for you - clearly...which is why you spend so much time fighting, arguing and pushing against the flow, swimming against the tide......and getting yourself into endless spats with people...trying to tell them that what concerns them very much is not that important.

Ah, the rhetorical manoeuvre known as whataboutery from you Adam.

https://x.com/FrankLeeBrian/status/1620505232332701696

Oh. Are you trying to politely tell me to eff off? Why are you so keen not to have a different perspective on here?

That board was created because posters such as yourself complained that the forum was taken over by people who wanted to talk, a lot, about sex and trans ideology. And yet now that there is a board free of it - you'd still rather be here.

No. Whataboutery would be if I posted about men.

Posting about the consequences of some people's GC activism on feminism is nor whataboutery. Especially not on a thread fangirling the Tories who are doing jack shit for women.

Beacuse we don't come here for that..we come to share information and follow court cases and so on. Also, there's no 'ignore' button. If there was you'd get far fewer responses, I'm sure.

“Fangirling” is a nonsense term.

It’s a bit juvenile.

’GC activism’ is also loaded negatively.

Yes we’re aware you will fight against the clear and rational views on FWR, but since we’re getting somewhere we’ll keep going thanks

I reminded of a fly getting in through the small gap under the window and buzzing annoyingly. No amount of wafting around, opening windows wide and giving it attention will help it find its way out. So you just need to get on with whatever you were doing, ignore it, no matter how irritating the buzz, until it does work it out.

Well that's a very illustrative clip of all that's wrong. Women arguing about women's rights with no men anywhere to be seen.

Meanwhile the men are off spunking money on unworkable policies, bombing shit and generally ignoring women.

I cannot even explain how depressing it is to watch women arguing that way. Ridiculous.

Adam -are you seriously suggesting that replacing sex for gender in law and common customs has a totally neutral effect on women?

Now it is Cass.

I doubt there’s anything serious about it.

One person's "clear and rational" is another person's "reductive and unworkable".

Tell me eastern, as none of the parties are proposing repealing the GRA, so some men will legally remain women, who are you planning to vote for?

https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/d24d1ca0-217e-4b72-a44c-0d5c453a4a60 Here’s the live link.

I find the majority here clear and rational. I’ve learnt a lot from many posters and think they are playing a decent part in switching the tide on gender.

Mn FWR is one of the few places that allows the discussion. I know it will attract undermining posts but I’m relieved women keep posting despite that.

Atkins is centring girls. It's good so far.

No.
I'm suggesting that focusing solely on sex based definitions has a negative impact on women because it enables a lot of the crap facing women to carry on while useless politicians like Badenoch pontificate and navel gaze over "definition of woman".

That statement re: Cass was a masterclass of saying nothing.