Shadow justice secretary agrees with JK Rowling over gender critical views

[IwantToRetire]

The Labour shadow justice secretary has said she agrees with JK Rowling that “biological sex is real and is immutable”.

Shabana Mahmood, the shadow justice secretary, expressed support for women who express gender critical views, saying that they should not be “stigmatised” for saying them.

Ms Mahmood, who took up the role last September, used her first major speech to warn of the dangers of “the rule of the mob” when “the rule of law fails”.

“Hashtag movements are sometimes used to shut down debate and often many women have had to go to court, usually in employment tribunals, in order to clarify their rights to free speech.

“To clarify their right to believe that for example because you referenced JK Rowling, clarify their right to say that biological sex is real and is immutable – a position that I also agree with.

“But they shouldn’t be in the position of losing their jobs for having views that are perfectly legal, and that they are perfectly entitled to express.”

These are extracts from an article on MSN based on an article in the Telegraph. Not had time to compare copy.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/shadow-justice-secretary-agrees-with-jk-rowling-over-gender-critical-views/ar-AA1ntt5J

Yes, it is but one manoeuvre in a long, protracted ground war. But the ground offensive is being pushed back - bit by bit.

Of course not. But how can I vote for a Labour Party with a Justice Minister who is the equiv of a trans racist? A Health Sec who endorses Cass - which will kill some trans kids? The Party is full of GCs - and they seem ok about it

Wow! It's a scandal, an outrage! How very dare some MPs hold perfectly legitimate, legally protected, reality based opinions? We must silence them immediately, even though it's illegal!

Willyby really is utterly detached from reality, isn't they?

He is utterly bonkers.

Here is an article in the Times covering much the same ground. But interesting as it would seem this Party approved that's she allowed to go on talking about this, presumably because (unless behind the scenes) Labour TRAs didn't go into meltdown.

But the bit in this article that is interesting is that I didn't know she is the "election chief" and that she talks about keeping everyone in line on contentious issues.

Which does make me wonder, is she allowed as Starmer's BF to say vaguely GC things, in which case it is total hypocrasy both by the Party and her, given the treatment of over women in the LP.

So signs of a change in the LP? I think not.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/labour-party-urged-to-take-gender-stance-by-elections-chief-shabana-mahmood-svnnddlc9
Article can also be read at https://archive.ph/3d2ec

Good for her as she seems to have been broadly GC all along. But generally with Labour it's see a bandwagon approaching and climb on it. I have the square root of zero trust in Labour on this issue.

Labour’s policy is that it backs reform of the Gender Recognition Act to enable gender self-identification, but to continue to support the provisions in the Equality Act that would guarantee single-sex spaces where appropriate.

Has she said what will be the situation regarding men with the legal sex of female? Even more important if Labour does reform the GRA and there are more of them.

Also, what about "hate crime" legislation?

‘Where appropriate’ is the key part

Clarity would be good for where that is

Not so much a screw loose, as nae single one fully tightened.

@EasternStandard and indeed the meaning of "single sex" - biological or legal sex?

"where appropriate". Hmm. I would have preferred her to have said "single sex spaces as provided for in the Equality Act" or something similar. Her phrase might be shorthand for that, but I'm taking nothing on trust.

Crucially, it seems they are still wedded to self-ID. And what is the point of self-ID if it doesn't open up women's single-sex spaces to male people, one might ask? That is the reason TRAs want it.

I've depressed myself now.

Excellent point, Chersfrozenface. Single gender and self-ID go together neatly in a way that single (bio) sex and self-ID do not.

Weren't we being told that Labour had dropped self-ID as a policy?

the provisions in the Equality Act that would guarantee single-sex spaces where appropriate.

In quoting the EA she is in fact saying single sex ie biological females.

The problem is / are

1. particularly in Scotland some people have been trying to say the act doesn't say that but a quick google will find the words clearly spelt out but there is a lot of de-transing to be done in captured institutions (and as we know some women's groups)
2. where proportionate ie this means being able to say why in whatever instance it is that biological females need a space that is only used serviced by other biological females, from toilets to changing rooms, to hospital wards to WA & RCC.

The type of cultural programming that has been going on over the past few decades means that there are many people who really do think that sex and gender are the same thing, so even starting a converstion about single sex means having to start a re-education programme.

An example of this on YouGov chat today - see https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5061439-todays-yougov-daily-chat-is-about-gender-exclusive-spaces

Mahmood said the danger was “trying to either say there is no clash, or we’re just doomed to perpetual conflict”, but [Mahmood] added: “Actually, if you are looking to be the people that make the law of our land, you have to be able to articulate how you’re going to either draft a new law or use the law that we currently have to resolve conflict and to make decisions in contested areas, like women’s sport, for example, or access to domestic violence refuges, rape crisis centres, and so on.”
It's good that she recognises there is a clash and that Labour need to spell out what they are going to do.
However:I would feel a lot better if she said she was going to support women's rights to single sex for all of the above "contested areas". When they talk about updating the Equality Act, they had better not be planning to compromise on women's behalf.

That interview's from August 2022 so it predates Anneliese Dodd's article in summer 2023 when they rowed back on self ID. I assume it's from their 2019 manifesto.

It does remind me what an unworkable proposal it was though, and how I voted for it because I was still desperate to support Labour. I won't be fooled so easily this time.

Ok, thanks Floisme.

When they talk about updating the Equality Act, they had better not be planning to compromise on women's behalf.

It could be something we could use (if not before) when canvassing starts for the GE.

Bring up the fact that outstanding is the "we will look into" end to the HoC debate on the 2 Parliament petitions, one saying clarify the EA to say the word sex means biological and those saying the EA doesn not need to be reworded.
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4800027-debate-relating-to-the-definition-of-sex-in-the-equality-act-2010-will-be-in-westminster-hall-on-12-june-2023-430pm
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4826403-post-westminster-hall-debate-what-are-the-next-steps-to-ensure-the-sex-based-rights-of-biological-women

I'm very encouraged. There have been sex realists in the leadership all along, but until Cass they kept an extremely low profile. Which meant that Rayner, Dodds, Nandy, Lammy made all the noise, the leader impaled himself on the fence, and all the bandwagon jumpers aligned themselves to the TRA position.

I trust Shabana Mahmood on this more than I do Wes Streeting. But Wes knows how to read an opinion poll. And Yvette Cooper now has cover to say sane things. Rachel Reeves is the one to watch.

But still nothing from Starmer himself. He's at least now allowing realists to speak. But I'm not convinced he's willing to face down his TRA faction. Not least because several shadow cabinet members have trans-identified children, and we know what a chill factor that can be.

I still suspect that if left to his own devices, Starmer will do his usual thing when faced with a difficult issue, of coming up with a word salad that's designed to placate everyone but satisfies no one. So we'll have de facto self-ID but just not call it self-ID. We'll have single sex spaces but based on legal sex not biological sex. And he's arrogant enough to think we can't see him doing this.

Keir's feet need held to the fire.

Yes it’s eye opening to see that language which is so confidently stating self id

Thanks to Isla Bryson’s photographer

Has she said what will be the situation regarding men with the legal sex of female? Even more important if Labour does reform the GRA and there are more of them.

You have asked an important question.

This is the detail under which the Devil is lurking.

100% this - let's hear him speak on this issue properly without the eye rolls, irritated sighs and word salad. I am so looking forward to this issue coming up in the debates.