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

@LadybirdsProcessing true - the only thing that all women have in common with each other, and not with men, is our biological sex. That's it. No lady-brains, no love of housework or pink dresses, nothing but our bodies.

Sex matters and sex must remain a meaningful legal category. We are fighting for women's sex-based rights, not trauma-based exceptions to legal and social codes based on self-determined gender identity rather than objectively determined sex.

I completely agree with this. We need sex-based rights because society is set up for men and women are disadvantaged. Part of that is violence against women and girls.

Unlike many others here, I think it's good that some men are finally recognizing some of the ways that violence affects us, including that many girls and women develop trauma responses as a result of male violence.

According to a leading charity, 1 in 5 women and 1 in 20 men in England and Wales are victims of rape or sexual assault. . . .

[T]here has been a growing understanding that unwanted sexual acts can also include activities such as ‘upskirting’, non-consensual image sharing and prolonged sexual harassment. Also, stalking behaviours can include a threat of sexual violence.

Any of these things can create a trauma response and therefore result in PTSD or C-PTSD and it’s often debilitating symptoms. Statistics from the UK are limited, but in the USA, close to 30% of cases of PTSD are due to sexual violence alone.

It’s estimated that up to 94% of survivors of rape or sexual assault develop symptoms of PTSD in the first two weeks after the event, leading to around 50% of victims suffering long-term symptoms. This is even more pronounced with child victims, who often don’t know how to seek the help needed,

www.ptsduk.org/what-is-ptsd/causes-of-ptsd/sexual-violence/

I think that society needs to understand that VAWG has serious longterm consequences, both for the girls/women involved and for society itself. It's been swept under the rug for far too long.

If 20% of women in the UK experience sexual assault and 50% of them have PTSD symptoms, that's 10% of the women and girls. That's just for rape/sexual assault and doesn't include other potentially traumatic experiences like stalking or upskirting, so the percentage will be higher. We deserve to be considered every fucking time a policy affects us. I get so angry that the rules were changed for a tiny minority of men while the consequences for a much larger group of women were completely ignored. It's another way of ignoring or minimizing VAWG.

O'Kane might also like to reflect on how women with 'deep trauma' came to be traumatised -because men violated their physical and psychological boundaries - and how failure to provide single-sex spaces automatically, to all women, makes such violations more frequent.

Yes, instead of saying ", it comes from the deep-seated place of their own trauma", IMO it's important to make it clear that most of that trauma comes from male VAWG. That puts the blame on men, where it belongs, as well as showing why women need their own spaces.

You can't fix a problem if you refuse to talk about it.

Rather than criticise O'Kane for his previous support for gender woo, I would rather welcome his admission that he got it wrong.
Yes, of course we can be sceptical about political opportunism as the tide turns, but let's welcome the politicians who step back from the gender woo rather than criticise them for their position in the past.
We are going to see a lot more of these reverse ferrets. I think it's better to show forgiveness (while never forgetting how easily people were swayed by the mantras) than it is to rub politicians noses in their past mistakes.

Welcome to what?

He gives no indication that he now grasps the issues or agrees with women who have concerns.

It would be premature to accept lukewarm expressions of sympathy as evidence of anything other than an upcoming election.

Not enough. Not nearly enough.

The fact that it is politically opportunistic to take the GC view is, in itself, a huge step forward. That wasn't true a few years ago, but politicians are waking up to ordinary people's opinions.

I find it helpful to disengage with politicians on a personal level. Their own opinions/morals/moral consistency is (most of the time) immaterial. They generally don't act as normal people do on these points.

But as they shift with the wind, it's because they see advantage in doing so, and that is a positive development, even if it shows up their ethical shortcomings

I do worry the reversing ferrets are still going to look for an "in the middle" solution where some men can be women some of the time. Which is still accepting the underlying lie that what makes a person a woman is something in their mind, and therefore still leaves us without the language and the legal and cultural framework for addressing the sexist treatment of the people who have female bodies.

I'll bet. It seems obvious 'middle ground'.

It all fails though the minute you start to talk to the ferret about ok, which men? How will anyone know whether this is an ok man or a not ok man, will there be someone on the door of all women's spaces to check whatever ID? Who makes the decisions on what is and is not an ok sort of man, and on what criteria? How is this going to affect the men who are not deemed ok for this? How will this not be some form of prejudice to say yes to some men but not others? What about the sincere transitioners/full post op etc men whatever criteria is needed who have a criminal history against women? What about the ones who are driven by sexual excitement and are using women and their spaces as non consenting participants in a man's sexual experience? When is a woman allowed to decline this edifying experience? Can this special pass be withdrawn?

And obvs, what do we do with all the women who will be excluded from any space so that some men can have their desire met to be with women, in a women's space, using their bodies as a personal resource? Who will obvs also have diversity needs, protected characteristics, equal human rights to the man and are tax payers entitled to have accessible services? And about the fact that sex based protections are intended to meet the whole, inclusive diverse needs of people with female bodies rather than be a therapeutic provision for men?

And what about that 'middle ground' merely looks at how MUCH equality and sex based protections is it reasonable to take away from women to give to men? And that this is fixing male supremacism of right and interest over women as acceptable policy?

The SC went through all this and explained it in very small words, but apparently the SC is just a kind of influencer now rather than having any meaning in law.

An excellent post.
"We are fighting for women's sex-based rights, not trauma-based exceptions to legal and social codes based on self-determined gender identity rather than objectively determined sex".

Yet again women are placed by powerful men in a position where we have to explain, beg, wheedle, cajole in order to "be granted" the right to remove our clothes without a man being present.

No means no. That should be enough. Time to read the room lads.

Until politicians commit to no men in women's spaces, no boys in girl's spaces, no children sterilised, I have nothing to say to them. That is the law and its the bare minimum to expect.

Once the basics are established, we can talk about reparation.

Before the last election we were assured over and over that Labour would protect women's 'safe spaces'. They eventually shifted to 'single sex.spaces'. Even Starmer of the bepenised women.

And they got in and they gave us Bridget Philipson. And WESC stuffed with trans activists. And Streeting gave us the puberty blocker trial.

Which is to say, fuck all.

Fool me once, etc.

This is so well put:

Yet again women are placed by powerful men in a position where we have to explain, beg, wheedle, cajole in order to "be granted" the right to remove our clothes without a man being present.

And this is seen as ok. Appropriate.

Those men really need to be coached through a bit of metacognition there. What values and beliefs are they acting from that this seems reasonable? Are those values and beliefs really as lovely and progressive as they identify as being?

Yes. Minded of Sandie Peggie's judgement, wherein the judge suggested if a woman had a trauma history she may be entitled to complain about men in her changing room.

That's so true. They are weather vanes, and O'Kane senses the wind in turning. That has to be a good thing.

Reminds me of that delightful man who explained to lesbians that it was their duty to provide their bodies to men who wished to identify as lesbians, to provide .... well, basically free sex work, and train themselves to tolerate it. He very kindly discussed how he would permit a short period for a traumatised woman to work on herself, but how she needed to get back to providing sex to men with interesting inner lives asap. Homophobia, misogyny and disturbing sexual attitudes towards women were getting it on there like a house on fire.

It really is a belief that a man has 'needs' and a woman's body is something a man has an entitlement to in order to meet said needs, and that women being allowed to prevent access is something men should only permit in limited and special circumstances. I often want to ask such men how they feel about marital rape being made illegal, I'm fairly sure it would be interesting. In an extremely grim way.