Paul O’Kane: I regret turning off my critical thinking on gender reforms

[IwantToRetire]

O’Kane, who is now the party’s education spokesman and previously held the equalities brief, told Holyrood: “There is a lot that I regret about that whole process of the gender reforms. I regret sometimes turning off my critical thinking and allowing that thing to be something that somebody else would deal with, because I've got a view and my view’s fine.

I've since tried to take time to engage and I understand that we're going to have to try and find a way through that recognises the very legitimate concerns that women have and understanding where that comes from, because very often, for a lot of women, it comes from the deep-seated place of their own trauma and I regret not recognising that at the time.”

He also admitted that as Labour’s first openly gay MSP he felt “pressure” to “act in a certain way” when it came to the debate.
He said: “I think as the only gay member of the group, the Labour group, and the first gay man for the party elected to Holyrood, I did feel that there was a whole weight of pressure on me, on a whole range of issues. I think I did come in with a set view of who I needed to be within the Labour group and candidly, I probably didn't do a huge amount of critical thinking at times on the GRR bill and perhaps didn't engage until the end.”

From https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,paul-okane-i-regret-turning-off-my-critical-thinking-on-gender-reforms

Fatted calf, anyone?

I'm glad he's done it and I'm glad he talked about trauma - because that will get through to his target audience much more effectively than arguments that can be misconstrued as bio-essentialist nitpicking or conservative prudery.

Trauma might not be universal but it is real, particularly in contexts like prisons and DV refuges. Nothing wrong with getting people to think really hard about what 'inclusivity' means for women in those situations.

I've read the article now. He is awful. He talks as if everyone lives in a labelled box. Nobody is a human being, they are 'defined' as Labour / gay/ Catholic / etc.

"he added it had also taught him to “take time to engage” with a range of views during consideration of legislation."
And this from an Equalities Minister!!! It's a very Labour mindset, isn't it. All top-down power. He thinks it is his Party's job to tell the little people what to do. He doesn't think that it is his job to represent them.

Trauma might not be universal ,,,
True, but the potential for trauma is universal.

Unusually for FWR, I'm going to centre the menz here.

Women need single sex spaces, support and rights, and to maintain the truth of our history and our language, because of the bad behaviour of men.

If we somehow got to nirvana where no men, not a single one, rapes, pervs on, assaults, exploits, marginalises, talks over, encroaches on or sidelines a single women because of her sex, and where no woman has that experience in her past, and where men treat shared spaces with the same respect as women, then sure, we'll not need single sex anything.

Until that day, we do. Not because of something fundamental about women or because trauma makes us irrationally sensitive, but because of the ongoing and normalised bad behaviour of men.

Even in the perfect world lesbians might like some bloke-free spaces.

He's a gay man and in the interview he makes a thing about being a gay man. OK, so he didn't think about trauma, maybe that's just being a bloke. But he also didn't think about hurling lesbians under the bus. Never mind we could have LGB without the T - he's G without the L. And he's an Equalities Minister? WTAF.

My fatted calf is remaining resolutely unslaughtered. OK, maybe I'll put out a wafer-thin slice of beef for him.

Yes that seems to be the rationale, if you can dignify it with that word. As the only gay man on the team it behoves me to back any policy which is manifestly unfair , unscientific and bonkers. Otherwise what's the point? I may as well be a boring straight.

Very insulting to gay men as a whole I think.

I think the trauma issue is an entry point for some people - my daughters are adopted and did suffer early trauma and my awakening on trans demands was due to realising that men could use the women's toilets and changing rooms and they were expected to be fine with that.

Then, once you accept that, you start to realise the other implications.

100% this.

So much this. Not trauma, mate. BAU in the patriarchy. But still important.

I'm intrigued by the notion that adherence to gender woo is a Labour vote-loser in Scotland. Be nice to think so.

Agreed MDG, whatever words they need to say to change sides. Just do it. The safeguarding of kids, and women’s privacy, dignity and safety is more important than trying to humiliate those who are willing to admit they were wrong.

That's good to hear but we have been shouting about this FOR YEARS. Why has it taken him so long to listen to women??

Hi Emerald

I’m very much aware that there are many lesbian and gay people who do not support transactivism in its current form. Within parliament however, both in England and Scotland, some of the loudest and most powerful pro-trans activists have been gay men, which was what I was referring to. There are also many young lesbians and gay people who do support this cause. If some of these loud and loyal allies are deserting, it is quite significant.

Medical needs explanation: it was generally understood, when the push for men to enter women’s spaces began, that this was a small group of transsexual patients who needed our patience in allowing them access to women’s spaces because they had a genuine medical need for their mental health.

There are some who still believe this and some who still believe it wouldn’t be fair to ask these men to use women’s spaces on the (incorrect) assumption that all these men have had orchiectomy and penectomy.

Back when the IOC required this surgery for men who wanted to enter into women’s categories in the Olympics, it was obvious that the number of men taking advantage was so small that it did not cause any noticeable harm.

So when I came to this, which was a long time ago, I assumed women’s spaces were being opened up for a small number of male medical patients, who genuinely believed they were women and needed compassion because they were genuinely distressed.

Since then, it’s become obvious that the small group of patients who originally campaigned for the GRA, for example, always fully intended to open the doors wide for all the current cohort. I can’t describe the current cohort because Mumsnet would remove my post, but it’s perfectly clear that something that originally did look like a genuine civil rights movement for a small number of individuals undergoing a genuine process of medication and surgery, has now been revealed to be something very different and entirely unreasonable.

We need more people standing up and admitting they were complicit in the dismantling of women's rights. Ok, it's a mealy mouthed 'my bad' but it all helps.

It does I suppose. I resent having to appreciate the most meagre of crumbs, particularly when the ferret is reversing for its own interests rather than due to any genuine gain in insight or regret. And particularly when the offense is being in fact compounded by a man demonstrating, once again, the worst thing about his harming women is how it made him feel. And then the exciting tour of his inner life, his challenges, and examining his possible motivations.

I wish he'd find himself less fascinating and spare some genuine thought for the people he's identifying as this being about.

It's rather like your ex wanting to sit down with you and discuss in detail his inner feelings and conflicts about whether to come back to you or crack on with the OW, because it's so hard for him.

Aye. He plans to sadface and then continue as before, I take it?

I still just cannot fucking fathom how some men are unable to hear women. Its almost spooky.

I'm not interested in humiliating anyone. I just want to tell them to fuck off.

If someone cannot conceive of why women don't want men in their spaces and are genuinely unable to join the rather large dots between MVAWG and this topic, then they are not fit for holding any kind of office. IMO.

Women shouldn't need to air their personal trauma histories to convince dimwits.

Paul actually appeared canvassing at my door in the middle of Sandie’s tribunal last year. After questioning him on the state of the entire place I tentatively asked if he could tell me if there were any interesting tribunal’s ongoing. He was well versed in Sandies case and did apologise for not knowing enough previously. He was able to confirm what a woman was and didn’t mention trauma, I spoke to him about worrying for my 2 daughters as they grown up and actually I thought he was alright.

However, I later e mailed his colleague MP Johanna Baxter, MP re EHRC and the sex matters campaign and received absolutely zero response. So I’m almost back to not believing any party particularly care about women and girls.

Labour appear to have twigged this is an election issue at last.

We all remember their assurances pre WM general election.

We can all see Bridget Philipson and Wes Streeting.

Frankly, Labour, I'm at this stage:

@PriOn1 thank you for your reply. I appreciate you taking the time to explain that.

re the medical and mental health thing. I had a lot of correspondence with the local MP and other people prior to the 2004 legislation. I heard a lot of crap, but that actually isn't something that came up in explanations from officials, at least not that I can recall.

A couple of friends mentioned it to me and I did explain why I thought it was nonsense, but they did not take that well.

I think an apology is better than "i didn't do anything wrong, it's all your fault". so by that count he's 100x better than most.

But I don't know this guy and how weasely he is

It’s an “I’m sorry I wasn’t able to persuade you you are wrong” apology. Almost as bad as an “I’m sorry if you were offended” one.

Ah then sod him