Robert Jenrick on women's rights

[HerGorgeousMajestyArabellaScott]

From the webchat yesterday:

Justine MN: 'women's rights

@Ereshkigalangcleg bit of a mouthful - says: hi Robert, thanks for doing this could you explain how you would seek to protect the rights of women to
female only spaces when we need them e.g. Rape Crisis service prisons Etc she says transgender identity is one thing but biological sex is more important on some occasions for reasons of safety but also for reasons of privacy and
dignity.

Robert Jenrick:

Thank you well look let let me be very clear - basic biology and common sense matters - of course we must treat people with kindness and compassion but
we've got to be very clear about what a woman is. How we can ensure that female spaces are protected and the rights of women are properly uh supported whether that's changing rooms prisons competitive sport we've got to protect women's rights.

For my part I've always tried to do that - when I was a minister who had responsibility for example as housing secretary I changed the law so that no new public building can be built in this country unless it has female toilets, and I've always stood up uh for what has I say what I would call Basic biology and common sense. I'm a dad after all to three young daughters I want to ensure that they grow up in a country which recognizes those things and that we
don't blur the lines here and ensure that biology sometimes gets you know
falls by the wayside.

Justine Mumsnet:

'What about those who medically transitioned and have a gender recognition certificate though I mean you are you suggesting they should also be excluded on the basis of the biological sex they were born with or ...

Robert Jenrick: 'you this is where it becomes tricky. Right, well I think we have to be clear what what a woman is, and what a transman is. I think we have to treat people with kindness and compassion and it is right that people find happiness and dignity in their lives however they wish but that does not mean that a trans man should be using women's toilets, changing rooms, should be alongside women in prisons, should be competing alongside women in competitive Sports.

I take a strong view on this I appreciate that this is a contentious issue and not everyone will agree with me but that is my position. I think that is the best way that we can protect women like my daughters my wife my mum, the women that
I want to see have their rights protected now and in the future.

Justine Mumsnet:

'Okay. just to be clear I think you mean trans women not trans man yeah you mean, you know you you mean a - a woman, someone who transitioned to be a woman.'

Robert Jenrick:

'Yeah'.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/mumsnet_live_events/5197593-zoomchat-with-robert-jenrick-mp-tuesday-29th-october-5pm

He has been living in a time capsule then...! Everyone I know, of all ages and political leanings, knows what these words mean.

They don't. A year or so ago a YouGov survey was carried out which found that up to a third of people, depending on region, thought a "trans woman" was a biological female who identifies as a man.

Again, I agree the bar for understanding should be higher for a politician. But it's language I personally never use myself, because they are not a type of woman in any sense, and it obfuscates what's actually going on.

Well, they don't. Research found around a third of people have exactly the same misunderstanding Jenrick has displayed.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/06/third-of-britons-dont-know-trans-women-born-male/

https://murrayblackburnmackenzie.org/2023/08/07/clarity-matters-how-placating-lobbyists-obscures-public-understanding-of-sex-and-gender/

Murray Blackburn Mackenzie commissioned research last year which found that fewer than two-thirds of respondents properly understood what the terms 'transwomen' and 'transmen' actually meant.

Language matters.

while the trans allies will think he supports their belief that transmen shouldn't be in women's spaces.

He would be foolish to think that they would genuinely think that, from the context and how I framed my question. It depends how it gets reported and misrepresented I guess.

X-post with HerGorgeousMajesty 😊

He's been busy dismissing Kemi Badenoch, who does actually understand the issue, saying he doesn't want to get bogged down, like her, in 'culture wars'. He has never taken the issue seriously and so doesn't have a clue.

Lot's of people don't.

They read "trans man" to mean a male person who is transgender.

It's a fairly logical mistake.But so confusing you can really end up talking at cross purposes.

The thing is, for Jenrick, he's openly going after what he imagines is the Reform vote - and in my view over simplifying the reasons why many people voted Reform. He thinks it is all about illegal immigration. It isn't. For many Reform voters knowing and understanding what a woman is is important. They know that men cannot become women, and they also don't like Drag Queen Story Time.

A number of working class Reform voters have removed their children from state education and are home schooling. They don't trust schools not to teach children that there are 100 genders and to permit boys into girls facilities.

Yep. #JustSayMen

Lots of people get the terms muddled. But he's basically on the tracks we'd all want so I can't get too hung up about that. Rest of it looks alright. Most important thing is to have a functioning opposition as we've not had one of those for over a decade.

This illustrates exactly how important language is. And how dangerous and non-trivial it is to be expected to use this confusing language, to call men "women" and women "men" according to their inner feelings. Even sticking the word "trans" on the front still leads people to say the opposite of what they mean. It's not because Jenrick is especially stupid or ignorant.

The obfuscation is calculated (though probably not by Jenrick himself) so as to confuse people and to make people like Jenrick say things out of politeness that are wide open to (convenient) misinterpretation.

When politicians don’t know about stuff they really should know about (that Dover is an important port for our trade, that UK citizens aren’t automatically eligible for Irish citizenship just being two examples), it’s hardly surprising that they don’t necessarily understand this. Also, listening to Anita Anand presenting (I think) PM on radio 4, I realised that she didn’t understand the difference between income tax and VAT.
We assume that people with high positions and influence are at least as well informed on many things as we are, but they’re mostly not, perhaps being blinkered by their overweening ambition.
However, this does does not excuse Jenrick for being an ignorant and obnoxious specimen of the worst sort.

Perfectly put.

I think some of us are being a bit hard on him. He's on the right track. The difference between his response and KB's response is the level of understanding of the whole picture and all the ramifications, the detail, etc. And the fact that it matters clearly a lot more to KB than RJ.

I'm not a Tory voter but I do actually hope KB wins the leadership race. She is smarter than RJ and a hard worker who is on top of her brief. She would do a much better job of holding the government to account. More substantive criticism and less point-scoring is what I want to see. I also have a feeling that she is one of those people whose least attractive qualities are on the outside, IYSWIM, and the more you see of her the more you like her, at least as a person. And although I might struggle to get on board with some of her policy positions, I am always interested in hearing someone's reasoning and she is always happy to explain herself. Everyone respects an honest politician.

They re both right-wing Tories, so I don't see Mumsnetters have much to worry about on the narrow issue of gender. Jenrick is clearly much dimmer, and probably much lazier, than KB, who takes the trouble to understand her brief.

I recall Honest Bob saying during the General Election campaign something along the lines that he didn’t think this was a primary concern for most voters …..

I'm not sure I understand your point?

Surely Mumsnetters want someone who understands the issue of gender and who will interrogate Starmer on it?

That could be an attempt at plausible deniability? Its hard to believe he has never been briefed on the subject or terminology.

Yes, which is why he has neglected it,

The problem for him is that he and his team have been briefing against Kemi Badenoch by suggesting she gets too involved in 'culture wars' by which he means, primarily, the issue of gender ideology.

I recall Honest Bob saying during the General Election campaign something along the lines that he didn’t think this was a primary concern for most voters …..

Yes me too.

It's worrying that so many years into this people still aren't understanding transwoman = man and transman = woman.

It makes him seem like he's just had a quick briefing in case he's asked something, during which he was only half listening!

I know he got the language wrong. Many people do as the whole issue is so bloody batshit it's bound to happen.

But he's clearly saying that males shouldn't be allowed in female spaces no?

At least he is saying his opinion on this publically. Something most will not.

I agree, and KB is clearly the better candidate. But I don't think RK would support males in female spaces either, as that's part of the 'lefty woke bollix' most Tories naturally oppose. And he's made it his point of difference from KB that she is 'too tied up in culture wars' (as opposed to the important stuff, like packing refugees off to Rwanda), so he doesn't want to parrot exactly what she says.