The Tories aren't serious about protecting biological sex - Spectator article.

[TheColourOutOfSpace]

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-tories-arent-serious-about-protecting-biological-sex/

Article by Kellie-Jay Keen

Everybody with half a brain, male or female, can see the Tories’ move for exactly what it is: opportunistic grandstanding. Many of them will also know that all the fine talk from Kemi about biological sex and common sense is worthless without full repeal of the 2004 Gender Recognition Act (GRA), and the removal of gender reassignment as a protected characteristic.

Quite pleased to see this published. ❤️
It's about time we are able to get to the heart of the issue when it comes to protecting women's rights. The idea that some men are allowed to insert themselves into women's spaces because a piece of government paper says they can, means women cannot have single-sex spaces and services.

Brilliant! On the nose, as usual

Gosh. She is indeed very single issue.

Given the shouts about her being right wing, does this mean she's righter than blue or politically homeless and that's why she has set up a party?

"Many of them will also know that all the fine talk from Kemi about biological sex and common sense is worthless without full repeal of the 2004 Gender Recognition Act (GRA), and the removal of gender reassignment as a protected characteristic."

One important clause in the GRA is this:

Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman).

So KB is right to say the language needs clarication and amendment

If gender reassignment is a protected characteristic as it currently is, KB is saying that should not mean transwomen have unfettered access to female single sex spaces

As per JKR, Dress however you please. Call yourself whatever you like. Sleep with any consenting adult who’ll have you. Live your best life in peace and security.

It doesn't require the full repeal of the GRA and it would be wrong in my mind to discriminate against a male who wants to wear a dress to work. Doesn't make him female though

So I disagree with the extract above

I'm more than happy to discriminate against men in dresses, because would you want a man dressed as a 12 year old teaching your child; how about one in enormous prosthetic breasts? That's already happened. It's vile.

The thing is, it's not about men wearing a nice kilt, but rather men who have a sexual fetish wearing women's clothes; we've all seen the public erections. Enough already!

and it would be wrong in my mind to discriminate against a male who wants to wear a dress to work.

Would it, though? Up until a relatively short time ago, the idea of man wearing women's clothes to work would have been completely unacceptable. Indeed, if you rocked up for interview in a skirt and a wig, you almost certainly wouldn't have got the job either. But lately we've been convinced that this bigoted discrimination. Indeed, in many sectors, it seems like the candidate in a skirt and wig has an advantage over other applicants!

We've seen plenty of examples already of men in prosthetic breasts, fishnet stockings and other fetishist and inappropriate clothing worn to work. All under the claim they have to express themselves 'as a woman'. Why are we expected to accept these men and their behaviour in public spaces including offices as part of some deluded notion of not 'discriminating' against them?

I used to think it would be wrong to discriminate against such people. I am starting to question that.
When it’s considered discrimination to fail to accept the lie being peddled than I’ll have to discriminate.
If it’s discriminatory to distinguish between men and women, I’ll discriminate.

I’m beginning to question whether many such people are in fact suitable to the work place. There are many many examples where they were not. Where customer service has been appalling, where safeguarding has been beyond inadequate, where the person’s presence seems to have little to do with work and everything to do with bullying those around them.

Does anyone know how Ginny is?

Agree, @AGlinnerOfHope .

Like others have said, it's not so much wearing a dress, it's performing a fetish and inserting everyone around into that fetish.
I do have a big problem with it.

I'm missing something?

Why do you need a law to say a man can wear a dress?
Perry grayson >> might have wrong name, has worn dresses for way longer than the gra has been a thing.

No one cares if a man wears a dress, no one.

They do care if that man is put in prison, in their hospital ward, in the refuge with them. The dress isnt the problem.

Indeed, but we do have a law and I very much doubt it's going to be repealed. KB is talking about clarifying/amending it

For me, it's about clear red lines: single sex spaces, sports. I'm not so fussed about what people wear. As for pronouns I'd go along with that as long - a big proviso - people aren't required to do so

I think you have to be careful with assuming that men are only wearing dresses etc in public because it's a fetish.

A lot of criminals now know that they can get more lenient sentences if they claim to be trans. They're not doing for fetishistic reasons, they're doing it to get preferential treatment and so that's why we're seeing a lot dress up for their court cases.

The same with women's sport, the men are doing it to win medals and money easily.

Yes, some are doing it for fetishistic reasons, but others are doing for other wrong reasons. If you just ban the fetishists, you're still not fixing the rest of the problem.

Remember the Canadian man.who wore huge prosthetic breasts to work in a.primary school.?
Parents were furious that kids were having to look at that but the authorities told them he was only expressing himself which was allowed.Then some enterprising journalist caught him after school, breasts discarded for going out in public. Was he getting his jollies on if he wore his falsies in front of children? Or was he afraid of expressing himself in front of people big enough to express themselves violently?

Indeed.

While I would like to support people's right to wear whatever clothes they want, it's rather like how can we tell the difference between a 'genuine' transwman which means no harm and just wants to pee in peace, and an abusive man who is claiming access to vulnerable women. How can we tell the difference between a man who just likes wearing a dress, and a man who is turned on by wearing a dress, or even a man who is turned on by the discomfort of others around him?

So, just as all males have to stay out of women's spaces in order to keep out the abusive men, it looks like we're going to have to revert to some sort of 'gendered' dress code in order to keep out the men who want to make us unwilling participants in their kink.

At some point it will have to be repealed. It wont be the first law to go. It's really not needed now at all.

You posted

It doesn't require the full repeal of the GRA and it would be wrong in my mind to discriminate against a male who wants to wear a dress to work. Doesn't make him female though

I'm asking why does there need to be a law (the gra) to allow a man to wear a dress?
I already posted the grayson person who has worn dresses since a child, well before the gra. If he didnt need a law, no one needs a law.

I'm asking why does there need to be a law (the gra) to allow a man to wear a dress?

Because of the perceived need to legislate against discrimation for doing so

I already posted the grayson person who has worn dresses since a child, well before the gra. If he didnt need a law, no one needs a law.

Doesn't follow, see previous answer

Grayson Perry is on record as saying he wears women’s clothes in public because it sexually arouses him. He wore a dildo to a children’s charity fundraiser - this is behaviour that I would say contravenes public decency. He’s lucky that for some reason people in his social circle view him as an eccentric rather than a pervert.

There are laws that regulate sexual behaviour in public places and men wearing women’s clothing used to be recognised as contravening these laws; somehow society seems to have forgotten about fetishitic transvestism and the fact that it’s a sexual behaviour that tends to escalate as the men involved need increasing levels of shock to get themselves off.

Unfortunately I dont think KJK has explained this well.

Although welcome the issue of repealing the GRA into the public agenda!

The issue is that under the SSE you can have groups / services based on it only being for those of the same biological sex.

The problem is no enough people, not just men but some women as well, think thinks having single sex services is important.

Lets say that somehow the EA is changed to say sex means biological.

This is not going to create a huge rush of people, businesses etc., rushing forward to provide them.

If she wants the impact I assume she and some of us want, then there need to be laws saying that single sex services MUST be provided.

Dont think anyone is proposing that.

Forgot to add for those who actually want to read the article and seems to be behind a paywall it can for found at https://archive.ph/dAqzs

Then make a different law that 'allows' men to wear a dress.

Back to grayson, he has definitely not been discriminated against for wearing a dress even with his arousal on full show under said dress.

Beckham wore a sarong eons ago, much was made of this in the press, but he certainly hasn't been discriminated against.

Izzard is now wearing a dress part time, also not discriminated against.

A man who is discriminated against for wearing a dress could surely make a claim on the basis of sex discrimination if a woman would not have faced discrimination for wearing the same dress

The Tories are using women to try and desperately gain any shred of credibility. It's bullshit. Their policies have historically been appalling for women. They care not about women, children, the poor, sick, elderly, non white population. The only people they support are rich tax dodging middle aged men.

If the GRA was abolished or the Equality Act amended so that sex means bio sex then I think a law requiring single sex spaces to be provided may not be required . (There's already legislation requiring single sex toilets in workplaces and schools I believe ). A shop would either have to have single sex changing rooms or unisex. Changing rooms based on "gender" would be discrimatory as the single sex exemptions of EA cannot be used. I can't believe that most customers would be happy with unisex changing rooms so the shops would have to bring back single sex facilities.