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

It appears Ed Gein was a transexual. Says it all really.

Love the gear shifts on MN.

Chakrabarti supports the GRA because its a left wing law and human rights issue.

If it had been Thatcher policy, introduced because a right wing old guy Norman Tebbit knew didnt want to be seen as gay or wanted to be in a womens sports team, she wouldnt support it.

She comes up with bonkers reasoning because she doesn't believe the ideology, she needs to protect the the GRA, HR and politicans who were involved.

I'm not so sure. Watching her body language, her world weary, almost self deprecating "oh, my lanyard states Baroness, so I guess that must make me a female" maybe suggests she really does buy into the ideology.
In the past, feminists saw the barriers to women, and how hard it was to become a woman (biology, societal pressures), and worked hard to make the world a more legal playing field between the sexes to reduce the pain and effort needed to survive and thrive, Germaine Greer the perfect example, Barbara Castle too.
Today, the lanyard class feminists have done a bait and switch, and said that gender allows one to wish away the pain of a girl becoming a woman, one can bypass the biological struggle and societal glass ceiling by simply categorising oneself out of it. Ditto boys who toil against alpha male standards, can simply bow out and become a new classification.
Biology ie puberty an ssue for girls? Well, there's medication and surgery.
Societal demands an issue for men? Well, women will gladly welcome you to make your collective pain ease.
Those who say no to re-categorisation? Those who oppose the modern miracle of medicalisation? They're the ones to be resisted and in the final analysis, defeated.
Chakrabarti seems unhappy in herself, as she physically shrinks into her statement of defeat.

This. It cannot be said often enough.

I think a lot of lefty women like Chakrabarti really did buy into the ideology from a 'feminist' standpoint. They just didn't reckon with the fetishists and predators.

How can you buy into this from a feminist standpoint? The whole concept of men cosplaying as women is anti-feminist.

I will have to refer you to the esteemed Judith Butler, to answer that one.

Ah, the Hamas supporting esteemed feminist Judith Butler, you mean?

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.

Yes didn’t she get her seat in the HoL because she whitewashed the antisemitism report into Labour? Jacqui Smith’s another Labour woman letdown. She kept quiet on trans to get back in the government and HoL.

😂
Butler is definitely not a feminist.

Can one of Chakrabarti's legal colleagues from the Criminal Bar sit her down & explain in very small words what the DNA swab taken from all arrestees can tell us about their sex?

Jesus wept, I missed that. Do you have a ref for it by any chance? I'll trawl through the Google slop if you don't but hoped you might, search now being so banjaxed.

I guess her "argument" is that, yes, a DNA swab will ID sex, but it's gender that trumps sex, and this can't be assumed or ascertained, dependent purely on what choice the individual has made.
She'll argue that DNA tests are intrusive, akin to profiling, one step away from a surveillance state.
I know this sounds crazy, but the moment you diverge from physical reality and common sense, the only arguments that can be made are circular definitions and subjective truth/lived experience.
That a highly intelligent woman working for decades in the law can make this argument defies belief.

She wouldn't get anywhere with that &, on the basis that her career has been (by her lights) spent arguing for individual liberty & against inappropriate State actions, she wouldn't try. Remember Andrew Malkinson, or Stefan Kiszo? Those wrongful conviction decisions hinged on DNA evidence. It's a baby that even she couldn't risk throwing out with the gender bathwater, try as she might to pretend it's not there.

What I mean is that she can't deny the veracity and objective truth of sex and DNA, but that gender identity trumps this re the individual's control of their life, and their right to enjoy that life and have privacy for their gender identity.
I'm not arguing this because I agree with it, but because I genuinely think this is where she's going with her line of (il)logic.
The nearest analogy would be the person's soul as having an identity different from the corporeal being. That the physical body may very well be one thing (time to check that lanyard again), but the soul may be a very different animal indeed.
Soul, animal spirit etc.
Trying to jam the square peg of subjective temperament into the round hole of observable truth and physical reality.
And it's only at these exalted levels, where the crazy noise of TRA is stripped away, calm discourse in Parliament, in front of judges (SCOTUS hearings) that in quiet hushed tones, we clearly hear batshit insanity laid out so plainly.
There's nowhere else to go with this craziness, if Chakrabarti really expects us to go along with her reluctantly accepting she's a woman because her lanyard tells her and others that she is, yet she might disagree with that lanyard depending on how she feels.

Black-letter lawyers are especially vulnerable to treating the law as if it were magic & able to rewrite reality.

It’s reported by posters watching a speech of hers at Bristol University in this MN thread from 2018

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3431422--BristolUniWomen-Shami-Chakrabarti-event-tonight?utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=app_share

The speech was FB live streamed so it might still be on the Uni FB or YT feed.

A relevant post from the much earlier MN thread:

Shami's response to the GC comment and criticism of the shenanigans at the Free Speech Society (I wrote before that it was another panel member, but it was actually someone from the audience):
"I know that this is a very sensitive issue for a lot of people, and I'm going to plug my book now, cause I try to… Of Women in the 21st Century… (shows her book)
How can I put it - I am not the sex police. I don't want to police the borders between these segregated sexes and I'm not going to say to any refugee or migrant to my sex that you don't belong over here. And you know what, if you lock the house too tightly, you might just die in the fire. And what I want is not to be more segregated but to be less so, and I want us, in the end, to all be human. And I know there are difficult issues around the transition to that place we're heading to, but let's try to have the conversations in a different climate, and when we do disagree let's just please all try and disagree with sensitivity and disagree well."
She paused for a moment before she said "you might just die in the fire". Not saying she meant it like that, but it's a notable pause so she clearly considered her words carefully.

Barmy. She is in that category of people (see also Nadia Whittome) who will never see sense on this issue. Her views are too entrenched.

Even as a metaphor it's ridiculous, isn't it?

We shouldn't lock our houses because we might die in a fire?

She'd be better off explicitly saying why not accept men as women could be dangerous, rather than suggesting it, because i cant think of any reason.

God, I've been doing my best to couch my words diplomatically re her being an "intelligent" person, but those comments are extra-special levels of dumb.

I never liked her. She always seems to have had a massive chip on her shoulder and won't admit that this country provided her the opportunities to further her career and she always comes over as smug and condescending.