Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions
Thread gallery
35
CassieMaddox · 04/06/2024 13:20

Helleofabore · 04/06/2024 13:16

Discussing what? What you consider reasonable?

When you have just posted this, yet again:
How did Kemi Badenoch selling out GC women with her "this is about stopping businesses being sued, of course they can still offer inclusive services, noone wants to exclude trans people, legal sex exists so TW are legally women" show she understands the issues?

That's a summary of what I heard her say yesterday.
You telling me I'm wrong, it's just Kemi can't possibly be expected to communicate clearly and I should know what she meant because its Kemi and she loves women's rights, is not a discussion and I'm bored of it.

MagnetCarHair · 04/06/2024 13:20

Helleofabore · 04/06/2024 13:19

But apparently, Labour is more supportive of women we should believe. And fully open to discussing this issue and hearing all views.

Like the women who were told that if they believed that male people are not really women, they should cancel their membership in the Labour Party because they were not wanted. Something I was rather surprised when it heard it, and something that really does not back up what some posters are trying to tell us.

Yes, they should go and support another party, was the reflexive jibe to the heretics.

Making clear that no space would be afforded to those people who wouldn't get on board the gender train.

MagnetCarHair · 04/06/2024 13:21

CassieMaddox · 04/06/2024 13:20

That's a summary of what I heard her say yesterday.
You telling me I'm wrong, it's just Kemi can't possibly be expected to communicate clearly and I should know what she meant because its Kemi and she loves women's rights, is not a discussion and I'm bored of it.

🤣🤣🤣

CassieMaddox · 04/06/2024 13:22

MagnetCarHair · 04/06/2024 13:21

🤣🤣🤣

Quite! 😂

MagnetCarHair · 04/06/2024 13:23

CassieMaddox · 04/06/2024 13:22

Quite! 😂

🤣🤣🤣

Helleofabore · 04/06/2024 13:27

BIossomtoes · 04/06/2024 13:03

Who posted a letter that actually had little relevance to this discussion to be considered as evidence of something to detract from what Kemi Badenoch said yesterday?

That letter couldn’t have been more relevant. You’d have been all over it like a tramp on chips if it had helped your argument.

Care to explain why it is relevant?

Remember it is discussing improving the previous system not this system. And there was no discussion at all about removal of the panel assessment at that time. She is not proposing any more changes than what was stated in the letter.

Plus we already know that she supported the improvements. She said clearly yesterday that she acknowledges that current law includes this legal fiction. And she has a proposal that will make clear that in the EA sex means only biological sex.

Please, tell us what the relevance of the letter is considering we already have this understanding?

Or is it that you think that she as a politician should be focused right now on repeal of the GRC? Because she is not focused on that at this time, she may do in the future though.

So, is that that you think to be fully supportive of women, she should never have backed the changes that were made? Is that what you are telling us she should have done at that time, in that political climate?

Do you believe we should repeal the GRA? When did you, personally, come to that decision? How long ago?

MagnetCarHair · 04/06/2024 13:29

I'm not a natural member of any party now. The labour party will take office and then I suppose it's all going to get a lot harder. Hopefully the work done by Cass and the legislative precedents set by brave heretical women will offer some insulation. I don't know how people doing the hard graft here manage to not lose their minds trying to cut through gender faith and blind tribalism to demonstrate the harm being done to women and girls with this game play. You all have more mettle than I do.

EasternStandard · 04/06/2024 13:32

MagnetCarHair · 04/06/2024 13:29

I'm not a natural member of any party now. The labour party will take office and then I suppose it's all going to get a lot harder. Hopefully the work done by Cass and the legislative precedents set by brave heretical women will offer some insulation. I don't know how people doing the hard graft here manage to not lose their minds trying to cut through gender faith and blind tribalism to demonstrate the harm being done to women and girls with this game play. You all have more mettle than I do.

Same. I look at the patience from some against the provocation and disparaging posts and admire the responses

Helleofabore · 04/06/2024 13:32

CassieMaddox · 04/06/2024 13:20

That's a summary of what I heard her say yesterday.
You telling me I'm wrong, it's just Kemi can't possibly be expected to communicate clearly and I should know what she meant because its Kemi and she loves women's rights, is not a discussion and I'm bored of it.

I will just repost this for anyone who missed what Kemi Badenoch said yesterday.

I have lifted it from the transcript of the interview that you, yourself, keep posting.

She says:

"if you as an organization say this is the service we provide it is only for biological women, you can't be sued by someone with a gender recognition certificate"

She then goes on to discuss 'legal sex' and how legal sex has not changed Biological Sex. She then says:

”I said we clarifying the law to say that the equality act where it refers to sex is talking about biological sex”

Sure, she is confusing. But once you understand that she also seems to be attempting to escape the flak from activists in repeating that in some instances that male people will be still allowed into spaces designated for 'Biological Sex and those with gender of woman', you cut through some of the confusion.

It also helps to not go into listening to this interview viewing it as something to mock and denigrate, and to actually listen to what she is and isn't saying.

She is quite clear in the part of the interview that you keep posting and pointing to as if it is saying something that it isnt. She keeps repeating that biological sex and 'legal' sex are different and should be separate if an organisation states that they are saying they are biological sex only . She is very clear that legal sex should refer to gender and that 'within the equality act, 'sex' means Biological Sex'.

That she mentions preventing organisations being sued, well, she says that she is hoping to prevent people with GRC from suing organisations that exclude them. It is right there in the longer interview. So, even when she is discussing organisations being sued, she used 'by those with a GRC' when they are excluded.

Ed Balls is trying to mischaracterise what she is saying and she is not giving in to that mischaracterisation.

He is saying 'I read the newspapers and I assumed you were saying the opposite I thought you were going to to legislate to say that people cannot change their sex at Birth where you're actually telling us you're going to clarify the law to say that somebody can change their legal sex which is very different.'

She then is clear and says:
“I’m sorry Ed, that's not that's not what I said we clarifying the law to say that the equality act where it refers to sex is talking about biological sex . You can change your gender, uh of course, you can that is why we have uh transgender people. But we want transgender to mean transgender. Sex is immutable. Biological sex is immutable, it doesn't matter what a piece of paper says. You cannot change your sex”

The full interview is here, and there is a transcript which I have copied and pasted so that I hope that you can see that you have indeed misunderstood.

Tories to 'End Confusion' Over Gender

The conservatives today will promise to amend the Equality Act to ensure the protected characteristic of sex is defined as biological sex.Ed Balls questions ...

https://youtu.be/QfG9cI4_FBI

RebelliousCow · 04/06/2024 13:33

CassieMaddox · 04/06/2024 13:18

Yes Confused
You do realise Miriam Cates wanted to vote against male MPs suspected of rape being barred from the HoC, because she worries about false allegations "vexatious complaints", don't you?

You do realise that Kemi Badenoch called the uproar about Liz Truss appearing on a far right platform to be interviewed by a man who made misogynistic rape comments about Jess Phillips "trivial" and "unserious" don't you?

You do realise the Tories allegedly paid for medical treatment for a member of staff assaulted by an MP, but didn't investigate the MP, don't you?

You response to every critique about Labour is immediately to divert to talking about the Tories. You won't be able to do that soon.

ResisterRex · 04/06/2024 13:37

I don't trust the Tories not to fuck around with disability and maternity protections

They haven't been when going through retained EU law and had the chance to.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-equality-act-2010-amendment-regulations-2023

CassieMaddox · 04/06/2024 13:37

RebelliousCow · 04/06/2024 13:33

You response to every critique about Labour is immediately to divert to talking about the Tories. You won't be able to do that soon.

It's a thread about the Tories. You and others are keen to divert to Labour.

Kemi Badenoch was appalling yesterday. She can't cope with live questions, she gets arsed when challenged and she isn't on top of her brief.

She herself says the proposal is simply "a clarification of the status quo". The status quo needs changed. The fan girling on here is hilarious.

EasternStandard · 04/06/2024 13:39

CassieMaddox · 04/06/2024 13:37

It's a thread about the Tories. You and others are keen to divert to Labour.

Kemi Badenoch was appalling yesterday. She can't cope with live questions, she gets arsed when challenged and she isn't on top of her brief.

She herself says the proposal is simply "a clarification of the status quo". The status quo needs changed. The fan girling on here is hilarious.

‘Fan girling’

Pointless giving credence to these posts and views.

You still haven’t grasped the basics

CassieMaddox · 04/06/2024 13:40

ResisterRex · 04/06/2024 13:37

I don't trust the Tories not to fuck around with disability and maternity protections

They haven't been when going through retained EU law and had the chance to.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-equality-act-2010-amendment-regulations-2023

I don't think the retained EU law process involves MPs reviewing the replacement legislation or updating it.
Got anything to say about what (some) of the Tories were doing with the "decriminalisation of abortion" amendment? Including Miriam Cates, incidentally

CassieMaddox · 04/06/2024 13:41

EasternStandard · 04/06/2024 13:39

‘Fan girling’

Pointless giving credence to these posts and views.

You still haven’t grasped the basics

Edited

I could say the same of you

Helleofabore · 04/06/2024 13:41

Is discussing what was actually said, and what she seems to support and not support and finding accuracy in that, reduced to 'fangirling'?

And this poster wonders why we question what has been 'reasonable' views on this thread.

BackToLurk · 04/06/2024 13:44

I still think proposing to amend the equality act to define ‘sex’ to mean biological sex is a really simple proposal to understand. I also think anyone who follows this understands that the concept of ‘legal sex’ would still exist, it’s just that it will no longer be relevant to the pc of sex.

Then I look at the thread and wonder if I’m in some parallel universe

MagnetCarHair · 04/06/2024 13:45

BackToLurk · 04/06/2024 13:44

I still think proposing to amend the equality act to define ‘sex’ to mean biological sex is a really simple proposal to understand. I also think anyone who follows this understands that the concept of ‘legal sex’ would still exist, it’s just that it will no longer be relevant to the pc of sex.

Then I look at the thread and wonder if I’m in some parallel universe

Right. It's a simple proposal to sharpen a pencil and return the meaning of the act to the intention of the act.

EasternStandard · 04/06/2024 13:45

CassieMaddox · 04/06/2024 13:41

I could say the same of you

Yet you choose to post ‘fan girling’ instead of trying to understand what pp are explaining to you

Also why do you think TRAs are so against the change to the EqA?

ResisterRex · 04/06/2024 13:46

I don't think the retained EU law process involves MPs reviewing the replacement legislation or updating it.

Good Lord

CassieMaddox · 04/06/2024 13:49

EasternStandard · 04/06/2024 13:45

Yet you choose to post ‘fan girling’ instead of trying to understand what pp are explaining to you

Also why do you think TRAs are so against the change to the EqA?

Why do you think they are? Confused

CassieMaddox · 04/06/2024 13:53

BackToLurk · 04/06/2024 13:44

I still think proposing to amend the equality act to define ‘sex’ to mean biological sex is a really simple proposal to understand. I also think anyone who follows this understands that the concept of ‘legal sex’ would still exist, it’s just that it will no longer be relevant to the pc of sex.

Then I look at the thread and wonder if I’m in some parallel universe

I don't have a problem with it.
The reason I find it funny is because when Starmer talks about "legal sex" (and the consequence of that, which is 99.9% of women don't have a penis) the anti-Labour posters were getting aerated and saying he was lying and they trusted Kemi to fix it.

She's just come out and said basically the same thing about legal and bio sex, protection of women only spaces, with the resulting same confusion being inspired in people who don't follow the debate.

It's just that. I'm basically being a bit obnoxious and doing an online "told you so".

EasternStandard · 04/06/2024 13:53

CassieMaddox · 04/06/2024 13:49

Why do you think they are? Confused

Are you just missing stuff relevant to this

Helleofabore · 04/06/2024 13:55

BackToLurk · 04/06/2024 13:44

I still think proposing to amend the equality act to define ‘sex’ to mean biological sex is a really simple proposal to understand. I also think anyone who follows this understands that the concept of ‘legal sex’ would still exist, it’s just that it will no longer be relevant to the pc of sex.

Then I look at the thread and wonder if I’m in some parallel universe

Yes.

A good thing that interspersed in all this is discussion about what we can and should expect from this. Whether it goes far enough. What should be the end goal and what stages we should expect.

The thing is. Christmas 2022 we were getting this petition over the line. Now is this the best solution? Will KB be able to present the changes in the next parliament?

CassieMaddox · 04/06/2024 13:55

Helleofabore · 04/06/2024 13:41

Is discussing what was actually said, and what she seems to support and not support and finding accuracy in that, reduced to 'fangirling'?

And this poster wonders why we question what has been 'reasonable' views on this thread.

Maybe you could return the favour and discuss what Labour actually said instead of scaremongering about what they really meant when they said "places for biological women only".
To all intents and purposes its the same as what Kemi said.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread