Phillipson criticised over women’s rights stance in sex and gender debate

[impossibletoday]

Phillipson accused of putting career ahead of women’s rights in trans war

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/bb0dee47182826e1

She’s bang on. Good to see the Baroness isn’t holding back.

I love Baroness Faulkner.

Pretty revolting comment from the 'Government Spokesperson'.

She is putting her personal ambition ahead of her role as the minister for women and equalities, and that is a very sad and sorry state of affairs for our country in terms of the message it sends about this Government.”

It is often not easy to see the naked ambition of politicians but in the case of BP it's crystal clear.

This article sums up the issues the UK faces, politicians will not do the right thing because their position means more than the good of the country.

Baroness Faulkner is a brave woman. I hope she doesn't suffer too much from the labour party backlash which will undoubtedly, go for her. I hope she knows how grateful women are for her heroic stance.

Agree, despicable comment. They should be named

"She is putting her personal ambition ahead of her role as the minister for women and equalities, and that is a very sad and sorry state of affairs for our country in terms of the message it sends about this Government."

Starmer's Labour's entire raison d'être is in making people's lives better through muscular, rule's based strong governance. It locates Labour's previous miscalibrations with expanding the state without applying the rule of law fairly. The trans debate perfectly illustrates just how hollow and cynical that rhetoric was. It was never about applying the rule of law fairly, it was about bullying and using legal compliance to pursue ideological ends. It's thoroughly shameful and has hollowed out the coherence of the Labour project for the next generation.

2 years ago these threads were full of posters telling us that Labour was absolutely no threat to women and that it was our duty to vote for them. Yo ho fucking ho.

weren’t they just.

In the interview, Lady Falkner, now a fellow of the Policy Exchange think tank, also revealed that she had felt threatened by the abuse she faced while she was in charge of the EHRC from 2020 to 2025.
She said it helped make her more resilient and that if her opponents had hoped they could have forced her to quit, they “picked the wrong person”.

She’s wonderful.

Gosh has it really been a year since the Supreme Court Judgement. How happy we all were …..

Why's there a load of "Mothers against COVID jabs" signs in the second pic in that article? Hardly the intended point of the protest surely (that's got nothing to do with men in female spaces etc), and rather controversial/potentially divisive?

It's obvious that either Labour don't want to write the code or are so inept, they can't.

And these people have 'ambitions'. I hope every single one of them involved lose their seat in the next election, they have no right to be in politics.

I spotted that as well, and I thought oh god now I'm aligned with anti-vaxers, can it get any more repulsive and bonkers.

My thanks to the Baroness for continuing to speak out and up for women, and the Labour source (who should indeed be named) are just showing their true colours.

"Labour is doing things properly, providing the sober and grown-up leadership..." that's completely delusional, how does failing to do one simple thing for a whole year add up to any sort of leadership.

I'm not convinced that Phillipson is sitting on it because she doesn't want to spoil her chances of getting promoted, I think's she a 'believer'.

Piss or get off the pot Phillipson.

Here’s the interview referred to in the article:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/bba078431e188b61

Bloody hell, who is the Labour source? Their comment is disgraceful

A Labour source hit back against the claims and said: “Baroness Falkner has yet again demeaned the office she once held with these disgraceful personal comments.“Far from upholding the principle of equality and uniting communities, these comments seek only to further stoke the culture wars that have inflamed and divided our country.“Labour is doing things properly, providing the sober and grown-up leadership on these issues needed to ensure organisations and businesses need to uphold the law and everyone is treated fairly and compassionately, with dignity and respect.”

Probably a "Labour source" who said "these are my views, but you mustn't name me".
Why won't they name these people? Don't make a comment for the media to quote, if you aren't brave enough to own it.

by 'everyone' they mean 'men'.

The Government and Government departments have standard lines that have been approved for topics they regularly get media enquiries on. Those are the lines they should be feeding the media. So i think the nonsense line about grown-up leadership is one of those standard lines as it aligns with Labour messaging.

The personal snark about Baroness Falkner isn't one of those standard lines, or at least i hope it isn't. If that's a new line, someone has added it without the required approval or it has been approved at a senior level within the Civil Service and possibly up to minister level.

A "Labour source" is not anyone in government or they would have been quoted as a "government source". This must be a quote from one of the usual TRA nutjobs like Nadia Whittome. TRAs aren't normally shy to be named so it's interesting that this is an unattributed quote.

This isn't a standard line from a "government source". They quote is from a "Labour source" which means this is not anyone in government just some random Labour party member who likes dissing Baroness Falkner but is too cowardly to identify themselves..

The comments don't hold back about Phillipson's fuckwittery 😂

Ah yes I misread. But there is clearly use of standard lines in the latter part of the reply. Media enquiries are usually handled by the appropriate government department and are unattributed to any individual. I suppose going to one of the more TRA adjacent MPs will get a 'better' line for the story.

Whether it's a Labour source or Government source, it's still as disgraceful personal attack.

Good, I saw there was a massive amount, 1800 or so, but I'm not a subscriber so couldn't view them. It's a shame government ministers don't read the comments under article's that mention them either.

If Phillipson thinks that resisting implementation of the Supreme Court judgment will suit her ambitions in the longer term, it suggests to me there's an expectation at senior levels in Labour that the judgment might be undermined by changing the law. With Phillipson wanting to be positioned favourably should that happen.

Agree. It’s the King’s speech on 13th May so they could be planning to amend the EqA2010. I wouldn’t put anything past this government. I’ll be very surprised if we see the statutory guidance published before then.

Attempts to change the law is what I fear. My only consolation is the thought that Labour would be too cowardly to grasp that particular nettle. Mind you, their stupidity might well overide their cowardice.