Baroness Chakrabarti in the HoL - biological sex and police data

[ItsCoolForCats]

Here is a clip of Baroness Chakrabarti speaking in the House of Lords about the impossibility of police being able to establish someone's biological sex because it would be too intrusive. She doesn't seem to consider that the best way to solve this problem is not to allow people to change their official records in the first place.

She makes a passing reference to VAWG but doesn't really seem to consider the impact on women and girls. She is more concerned about people who she says have "changed sex". She also said she has read some concerning things about women with mastectomies being challenged in changing rooms, suggesting this is happening up and down the country, rather than being a suspiciously-timed allegation from Jolyon Maugham's wife.

I know people have lost their minds over this issue, but it still floors me how intelligent women can come out with this stuff. Have she ever stopped to think critically about any of this? Or are people so ensconced in their echo chambers that that they are no longer able to do this?

https://x.com/i/status/2016209187919819168

She did great harm to equality, by making one equality more equal than others. Apparently, as a student, she had noticed one wheelchair- using fellow student was excluded and unable to access most aspects of the university, simply because the campus was designed without any thought for disability access. So she began to think equalities should be included in law.

But she herself wasn't a wheelchair user, so, why should she care about disability discrimination? So, to hell with them.

Now, what equality could she benefit from personally, campaign about, and make a tidy fortune out of? Skin colour was pursued to the exclusion of all else, to the point she has a place in the Lords, and Keir Starmer drops to his knees at the sight of black footballers.

And, 'equality' has a bad name, distorted as it is; Ageism is, virtually, government policy, and widely accepted by the public. There is no space on record keeping crime forms, for reporting rape of older women. The organisation previously called Action Against Elder Abuse (now name-changed to Hourglass) commissioned a Rowntree survey and discovered that a large element among the general public don't think it is a crime to steal from or beat old people. Nobody will catch Keir or anyone else taking the knee in respect for old people, will they?

Apparently, as a student, she had noticed one wheelchair- using fellow student was excluded and unable to access most aspects of the university, simply because the campus was designed without any thought for disability access. So she began to think equalities should be included in law

Wiki says that she graduated in Law from LSE in 1994. So did she go through her degree without realising that: the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, Race Relations Act 1968, Equal Pay Act 1970, Sex Discrimination Act 1975 already existed?

The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 came in the year after she graduated, I remember the excitement of the first case through court. No thanks to her. Whatsoever. She wasn't even on the sidelines of it all. So that's a load of virtue signalling crap..

Compare and contrast.
Conservative Peer, Baroness Cash, tables amendment to Crime & Policing Bill to require police forces to accurately record sex. Outstanding speech, unarguable logic: 'Sex is a foundational principle in crime ... If data is unstable at point of entry, everything downstream is compromised' 1/

https://x.com/i/status/2016478799597093108

Me too. I used to think she was an eloquent, sincere defender of rights but it turns out that it was all show.

Today’s EDP front page:

https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/25791208.criminals-allowed-self-id-gender-norfolk-police/

Sh struck me as someone who managed to sound clever and say the 'right' things without indulging in too much independent thought. Independent thought can be dangerous, as it leads heaven-knows-where.

Ah, too intrusive to ascertain sex, but not too intrusive to allow a TiM police officer, nurse or prison guard to perform an intimate inspection on a woman, with the added cherry on cake being that the woman is transphobic if she argues, effectively that would be too intrusive on the TiM.
It's like the toxic partner to the SCOTUS Title IX hearings answer to the Q "what is a male or female?" being "well we don't really know".
No, we don't know, and we can't possibly work it out. Yes, really. That's what these planet sized brains think we should all accept like rabbits or drones.
And this is what a woman of Chakrabarti's age and experience of the law brings to the table...we don't know, we don't know how to know, and that's how it's gonna be.
She is the very definition of the theory that the most intelligent people are very often the ones with the most inflexible mindsets and the most overconfident of the veracity of their "truth".
Way more than "normies".
What a time to be alive!

For a person promoting one of the most aggressive cancelling cults of all time, Chakrabarti always cuts a strange figure.
Watching her here, a total humour free zone, trying to make a joke and falling totally flat
"Oh, my lanyard says Baroness, so, I guess I might be IDd as female, I don't know.."
Literally shrinking into herself as she says guff that is so far removed from anything that a vaguely intelligent, vaguely adult person would have said or believed just a couple of decades ago.
Her performance here is almost the ultimate expression of this cult belief/self appointed cultural caste. Forget the heat and anger of performative TRAs, it's the quiet intellectual ones, the ones who've been embedded in polite society for decades, those that have acted to get legal structures like the GRA into law, that police the moral tone on the IDentarian technocratic left.
Her, Harriet Harman, Lord Hermer, Sir Keir himself.
And so to watch Chakrabarti, her whole adult life as a female, female barrister, head of the major civil rights organisation, mover and shaker in the Lords, shrug her shoulders and shrink into her seat, and say "well, I guess I'm a woman, that's what my lanyard suggests", and this empty feeling washes over you.

Sorry, but I just can't stand her. If I ever heard her saying something that didn't benefit her clique of bien pensants I'd drop dead with shock.

Does she truly believe she can't be sure whether she's a woman, having to rely on a lanyard?
I mean, the Lanyard Class has become the new catchphrase (snappier than Professional Managerial Classes), but this is nuts...a Lanyard Class Elite looking at her lanyard to check her sex!

I like and respect her. She’s done more for women’s rights than most of us.

I sure she has, which makes the tragedy of her burning social capital and reputation on the biggest lie currently permeating the West all the more striking

Genuine question....what has she done? Yes she headed Liberty, but did it achieve much during her tenure.

She has always struck me as more of a Baroness Hunt, willing to make the right noises to the right people, than a Baroness Falkner.

I often bump into Patricia Hewitt at local music events. When Blair was changing the country, she was very prominent and even I as a Tory had to be quite impressed with her track record. Chakrabarti was in the same mould. Harriet Harman as well.
Of course since, seeing the fallout of the GRA which I'm sure these three were key to getting in the statute book, and then the Big Kahuna, hearing how Harman was instrumental in pressure to tone police political correctness around PIE, has all gone onto me making a 180 on how I once admitted these women for selfless social justice legal activism in boosting the rights of women in the UK.
Who is the "next generation" of Chakrabarti Harman Hewitt who will keep pushing the TRA agenda?

Nadia Whittome?

One can only wish.

I heard Whittome being interviewed about a political issue she favours the other day, I forget what is was, and when she was asked an obvious critical question about her position, she flailed around for an answer giving the impression that although she strongly held to it, she'd never spent any time examining it.

That about sums her up.

Politicians who have no actual thoughts or briefs of their own, but just download pre written phrases from twelve year old 'advisors'. Who are usually downloaders themself and have never read anything important or that might question their 'right' views. So the verbiage is spilled without ever having actually passed through the brain of either on the way.

I'm not sure whether your second point is a genuine question or your irony meter is spinning at twice the speed of sound 😁
So just in case...the first time someone is arrested a DNA sample is taken for profiling purposes (usually by means of a cheek swab, but can also routinely be done by hair root). In addition to producing a DNA profile to load onto the National DNA Database the sample also establishes (and reports) the sex of the donor.

Yes, but that doesn't explain Chakrabarti's speech here.
Who was it in the SNP or Scottish Greens who when talking at Holyrood said their gender was unknown to them, they didn't check to see which, that they were so much more than what was between their legs, and no-one should be judged as such?
Chakrabarti's speech says pretty much the same thing.
When you add the testimony of the ACLU lawyers at the SCOTUS Title IX hearings that they couldn't say what a man or woman is, and that the whole area defies easy explanation, yet men have advantages over women in sport, we're both getting into the weeds, but also the inherent limits of the ideology in a world where concepts and language have to be precise, otherwise worst outcomes are guaranteed.
By Chakrabarti saying we can never tell objectively, only the person can declare they're male or female, plus other highly legally qualified persons say we can't tell what makes someone male or female, we're seeing the ultimate expression of "ones lived experience".
Chakrabarti and the ACLU lawyers, individuals who spend their whole working lives parsing the syllables in words, teasing apart nuance, holding individuals and bodies and govts to account for the merest deviation from precise language and intent, are happy in the area of transgender individuals to throw all definitions overboard, hell, not even bother with definitions full stop.
The equivalent of prosecuting a fossil fuel polluter, and they ID as Milliband approved, then go on to claim one can't talk about pollution because one can't define pollution.
For me, Chakrabarti is doing us a service, a peek into the cloistered luxury beliefs mind of someone who's views mirror so many more of the elite lanyard class, not even in a place you could start to argue or reconcile.
Because if Chakrabarti says she has to refer to her lanyard to conclude "well, I must be a woman", there is no language in common to even start a conversation.
Reminds me of the Millennial woman I spoke to once. On picking up that I am GC, she said there were hundreds of ways to define women, none of which included my definitions. Conversation over.

It was a genuine question. I thought that cheek swabs generally needed to be sent to a lab for processing. Was wondering if there was or could be a rapid test like home COVID tests.

So when those cheek swabs are routinely taken the first time someone is arrested are the results immediately available or is the test sent to a lab for processing?

They are sent away, but the results are available in a day or so - it's not like you submit it and wait months for the result. So Baroness Chakarabati (SP) claiming to think it is impossible to find out has not even got as far as establishing that it already is found out on a routine basis, and finding out doesn't even cost anything extra.
Maybe if her complete lack of research / critical thinking / competence one day leads to an accusation of misconduct in a public office she can be arrested, her DNA taken and she'll finally know if she's a woman or not!

Might even correlate with her lanyard. Why are the cleverest people often the stupidest?

Thanks. So my initial post stands really as my question related to an individual being taken into custody and possible issues relating to who could search them etc. If as the Baroness seems to argue that sex is oh too difficult to ascertain and of course we cannot expect a TiM to just tell the truth a test would assist.

Shame it’s required and wouldn’t be necessary if folk were not allowed to change their sec marker on official documents.