Stella Creasy

[Arran2024]

Stella Creasy has been posting on X about using archaic process to overturned the EHRC guidelines and publicly arguing with the likes of Akua Reindorf KC. She is being given a pretty hard time but not backing down. Why does she want this so badly?!

https://x.com/stellacreasy/status/2062174750235845041?s=20

You didn't use the phrase "legislative authority" anywhere in your original posts so that cannot be the thing you are seeking to correct or a misstatement your are seeking to take responsibility for. Your responses to posters do not make full sense and don't engage with the substance of what they say.

I now think that this poster is either an AI bot themselves or literally posting everything into AI and simply posting the responses and have reported to Mumsnet accordingly.

As you were!

Out of interest, had anyone ever heard Stella Creasy say, "I was wrong," about anything, ever, or is that antithetical to her on a fundamental level?

If so, it may explain a lot of the X posts where she says, "no, I wasn't referring to THIS, I was referring to THAT," despite her posts - very much referring to This - still being available in black and white for all to see.

It would be a lot more convincing if she said, "sorry, I mistyped and/or wasn't clear, but clearly what I meant was X." But that seems to be something she won't contemplate doing for some reason.

Even our AI friends have that much humility when an error is pointed out!

Still going?

I used 'secondary legislation' which is legislation instead legal authority which the AI bot correctly quoted.

It has to be this ⬆️ along with a deeply entrenched belief that she is ‘progressive’ and that progressive people always support trans rights (whatever that means). It’s become her identity.

But she is also comes across as being either duplicitous and mean or obtuse when she starts that video conflating ’women’s rights’ with ‘trans rights’. For friends and colleagues I can understand (by way of explaining their position) that they just have not thought through all the implications for women and girls or looked into the impact of the gender movement on young people. However, for an MP who actively campaigns on this issue, you’d expect them to be better informed before opening their mouths.

The older I get, the more I’m recognising the lack of critical thinking skills in many many of our political leaders.

I'm still not understanding - are you typing out these AI quotes instead of copying and pasting?

AI is an overconfident sixth-form debater who will tell you all sorts of slightly (but crucially) incorrect things with utter confidence, polish and footnotes that don't say what they think they say.

To be fair, so is the average TRA.

There is a kind of personality that just cannot accept being wrong and will never apologise. A kind of narcissistic hubris. To admit being wrong would invoke an unbearable psychic insult to the self.

You've got me there.

Yes, I agree. This is part and parcel of her identity, and I think it's a waste of time hoping she will ever adopt a more moderate position. She is tying herself in knots making ludicrous arguments, rather than admit she might be wrong about some things.

The EHRC Code of Practice is legally similar to the Highway Code - summarises the law and adds suggestions on how to comply with it that road users must consider, and which they would have to be very persuasive to convince the courts are wrong. Building regulations are similar again.

Bayley isn't British nor in the UK so will be unaware of the Highway Code.

The only thing i can come up with is that she doesn't want to feel or accept that there might be anything to suggest that, as a woman, she is in any way vulnerable, or not 'equal' to men. It's about her own personal crusade not to be in any way compromised because she is a woman.

But in that she manages to ignore/over-look and fail to admit that there are occasions in which women are more vulnerable and in need of firm boundaries to protect them from some of the more negative consequences of sex based differences.

Correct. I'm Irish & coincidentally enjoy the occasional Baileys Irish Cream….with ice. I also enjoy crocheting, ping pong, collecting bottle tops & yodelling.

Is she pals with Jolyon? Might that explain her devotion to this cause?

Akua Reindorf KC

https://withinthelaw.substack.com/p/early-warning?r=1vl0w6&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true

Creasy's PHd thesis was entitled 'Understanding the Lifeworld of Social Exclusion', apparently.

She came from a very privileged background..and this was the reason both her parents and she herself became involved with the Labour party. The idea of recognising one's own privilege and in some way paying society back seemed to be the motivating factor.

She, personally, was given every opportunity in life and having had a strong mother who had her own very involved career ( and who came from an aristocratic background) She most likley doesn't like to recognise her own fallibilities or vulnerabilities - especially as a woman - except when the facts of her femaleness impinge on her career trajectory or insult her concepts of 'equality'.

But she has talked at great length about MP rights to maternity leave.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/nov/25/baby-banned-parliament-women-politics-stella-creasy

"This is not about me. It’s about the rights of all women and the obstacles that stop us playing a full role in our politics"

Even if she personally doesn't care about single sex services, she doesn't seem to understand the consequences of removing sex from the Equality Act.

Yes, because she resents that she, as a woman, is impacted more than men/her partner by the facts of pregnancy and childbirth. It is all about her, her self expression and her career -when it comes down to it. She refuses to acknowledege that her sex , in any way, might have a perceived negative/different impact on her at all.

That's how i see it, anyway. How else can you explain why she puts herself forward as being all about women and their equal rights, but does not/will not recognise that women have certain vulnerabilities due to their sex?

Baileyonice · Today 08:38

Apologies I meant 'legal authority" not 'legislative authority' as I already linked upthread:

Baileyonice · Today 09:15

I used 'secondary legislation' which is legislation instead legal authority which the AI bot correctly quoted.

Why did you say you incorrectly used the term 'legislative authority' instead of 'legal authority' if in fact you didn't use this term at all, and used the term 'secondary legislation' instead of 'legal authority'?

It's very odd to apologise for incorrectly using a term that you didn't in fact use at all (but perhaps something AI would do?)

Ok, I’m going to take one for the team and have a look at Creasy’s PhD thesis today, ‘Understanding the lifeworld of social exclusion’ (2006).

Meanwhile, 83 tragic backbenchers have signed the EDM now, presumably so they can fob off their angry, frequent-flyer-at-the-office ‘young trans constituent’ [copyright:Lisa Nandy] with an example of something that they really, really DID for them. Woo hoo.👏 Go them. I’m sure they’ll all be so grateful up in the Orkneys and Shetlands, Alistair, that you STILL think so little of women. I thought we talked about this after all that other unpleasantness, Alistair, with your support for dodgy colleagues. Oh deary me.

The EDM: https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/65938

So you incorrectly quoted the also incorrect AI summary. You have been corrected by actual people who understand this stuff, I hope that satisfies your enquiries.

I get the same feeling from Creasy as I do from from Caroline Nokes. She resents, and sees the facts of her own female body and biology, as some kind of curse - which gets in the way of her sense of personal invulnerability and self confident expression. That is what motivates her brand of 'feminism' and 'women's rights'.

Maybe the guidance should be withdrawn, if MPs can’t understand it (and hopefully they are not all as stupid as they come across), then maybe it’s a bit too wordy for the wider public.

I’ll volunteer to rewrite it for them.

1. no men in women’s spaces or services
2. no men in women’s spaces/services even if they call themselves women
3. no men in women’s spaces/services regardless of their penis count, outfit or hairstyle
4. Everyone has the legal right to call a man a man
5. Nobody is allowed to conceal their sex on documents or id for the purposes of using spaces or services intended for the opposite sex.
6. organisations must provide suitable single sex spaces as they have done since women achieved public provision in Victorian times. It’s not a good look to deny modern women the rights that even Victorian women had.

End. Job done. Hope that is clear enough for Ms Creasy

I think she is arguing that to make parliament more accessible to women, the functioning of parliament needs to be organised around their needs.

But she can't do that if she can't make a link between data on participation of women in parliament and the specific sex related things that impede female MPs.

Using TWAW logic, her pregnancy had absolutely nothing to do with her being a woman. It's just a lifestyle choice.

I hope she develops a bit more empathy for her daughter if she experiences exclusively female challenges like painful periods or lack of personal safety etc.

They don't see single sex provision as a positive right, I suspect... a freedom to do this that or the other, but as a negative right.......freedom from etc

Being free from something suggest an inherent vulnerability, victmhood or weakness - and clearly they believe that women are no longer vulnerable...so let's move on to the next vulnerable grouping ( men who 'identify as' women).

Those Victorians were so prissy after all; they even covered the legs of tables and chairs lest they induce sexy feelings. We've moved on since Victorian times. Women are no longer weak or vulnerable and they can take care of themselves.