Emma Barnett and Gillian Keegan.

[heldinadream]

Today prog R4 now - Emma holding GK to account!
16/05/24 8.45 been going on about 10 minutes really worth listening to!

Emma could've done it though

You make a good point; I hadn’t considered that she was reluctant to describe the problem in detail because then she’d have to take responsibility for it happening on her watch.

I'm pretty sure there are videos of parliamentary committees where Miriam Cates brings up specific examples. She should know, she doesn't. This is an extreme level of incompetence that would get anyone in a real world job fired.

I'd love to know what she has on Sunak that keeps her in post because it's not being good at the job.

It's very far from 'I'm on top of my brief' Kemi Badenoch. Whatever you think of KB, she does know what she's talking about. Why are we so willing to accept such utter incompetence among some ministers?

I'd love to know what she has on Sunak that keeps her in post because it's not being good at the job.

Maybe "isn't actively plotting against me right now" is good enough for Sunak?

Spectacular Keagan said TW are in fact women, no they are not, they are still men, that cannot change.

If Starmer had said this, instead of a Conservative, we'd be up to 40 pages by now, which does kinda show that some aren't really GC but Labour Critical.

Bit like with maternity services, pretty much ignored by the GC's, despite it killing 100s of women and babies each year, what matters is toilets & parkruns

Plenty of stuff about maternity services in this folder. It's possible to care about more than one thing at once.

And even if it were the case that some GC posters were critical of Labour why would that be a problem? People with conservative views (both GC people and otherwise) exist. Just because I hold leftwing views doesn’t mean I want to ban or silence people with conservative views.

Posters on this thread have criticised Keegan (me included) and there is a multipage thread on FWR discussing birth trauma caused by inadequate maternity services.

Keegan didn’t say TW are women, she said that men who have had reassignment surgery (and have a GRC) have a characteristic that is protected under the Equalities Act and are legally considered to be women. Not once did she say they are women, nor did she say she personally considered them to be women despite Emma’s persistence on that point. It felt very much like a politician’s answer.
What she said is a fact. She did not once say that TW who have had reassignment surgery are considered to be biological women.

Yes this is the law we have thanks to the GRA in 2004

Yes she did, she just said a man who has transitioned is a woman, she never mentioned "characteristic" she also said it in 2020 as well.

Its bloody obvious which side of the fence she sits and thats fair enough but lets stop this idea there is any difference between the 2 parties.

All you need is a GRC to be legally a woman, no surgery required.

I didn’t hear it that way at all!

With the gender ideology ban today and puberty blocker ban earlier I feel like all the backlash against women has been worth it

We spoke up and got stuff changed

Folks can listen and decide for themselves I feel she was evading the specific question about whether TWs are women.

www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001z6p6?partner=uk.co.bbc&origin=share-mobile

2hrs 40.

GK did differentiate between TW with surgery and those without but I felt she left the answer ‘hanging’.. more political waffle
If she really thinks having surgery makes a man a transwoman then I think she sounds a tad transphobic with regard to those who don’t want surgery
Not a good look
I thought Emma was great and think she should have pushed the point more!

There's still the obvious question of if a man has a GRC and no penis, can he get a job as a teacher and share the single-sex spaces of little girls?

Parents need to know so they can properly safeguard their children.

Safeguarding is an absolutely key concern of schools and education departments.

And they also need to know that the criteria for a GRC does not preclude being a sex offender. And nor does surgery.

And that men with an extreme fetish will often gravitate towards surgery as part of that fetish.

It's this idea that men who have surgery must have completely different motivations from those who don't. Likewise obtaining a GRC.

There's no way a GRC should entitle a male holder to anything reserved for women. It's not exactly difficult to get one. And a lot of people would be quite surprised, as it's always billed as being some kind of humiliating ordeal.

The nitty-gritty of these issues is autogynephilia, what surgery does, or doesn't achieve, what's necessary to get a GRC and what exactly would preclude a man from getting one?

it's about time this was all aired.

I don't think, legally, there is any difference between a man who has had surgery and someone who has a GRC is there?

96% of GRC applicants get their certificate and the costs are now just £5 (thanks Mr Johnson)

But a GRC doesn't really 'entitle' anyone to do anything they couldn't do before, does it? It's not required prior to changing names on driving licences or gas bills, is it? As far as I can see, the only real purpose of a GRC is a bit of validation for the holder, isn't it? Or is there more to it than that?

They can change their birth certificate. The actual recorded fact of their birth.

So you're left in a position where an obvious man says he's a woman, and he's got the birth certificate to prove it, and what can you do about it?

Plus he's legally a woman.

But yes, I completely agree that you shouldn't be able to change driving licenses or passports either.

It does kind of make an utter mockery of what one thinks of as national security, when you can simply change your name and sex on your bloody passport with a letter from your doctor.

It's the privacy clause in the GRA that causes a lot of problems for women/orgs/businesses. Stupidly it was decided that nobody can ask for proof of a GRC because that would be discriminatory. Even if the person in front of you is clearly male.

So many businesses/orgs decided that means you have to work on the basis that all men with any degree of identity might have one...but you can't ask so you have to let them all in!

With hindsight this was clearly a trojan horse move that most of the 2004 government probably couldn't see.

Thanks. But I'd say, and I expect many would agree, that no-one should be allowed to change their birth certificate anyway. Amend it, possibly, but a certificate should always show birth sex and given name.

With hindsight this was clearly a trojan horse move that most of the 2004 government probably couldn't see

Thats irrelevant, 20 years has passed, plenty of time to amend the law, yet there is no intention to do this.

Keegan was talking crap about the sex education changes. She has no idea what was already in the curriculum. Spouting about changes like parents seeing what's in the curriculum when that's been the case for years.

It's not irrelevant. It's part of the explanation as to why 10- 15 years down the line we started facing problems because of it. Not everybody is aware of the history.

I agree there's no appetite even with the Tories to repeal it yet and it's even more unlikely Labour will because it was their government that brought it in. Politicians on both sides of the house like to refer back to it because they think it makes them look like they are 'reasonable'. Any of them that were truly on top of their brief would understand the GRA is a big part of the problem.