Best Amazon Prime Day deals: Mumsnet favourites

Best Amazon Prime Day deals:
Mumsnet favourites

Shop now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Stella Creasy

132 replies

Arran2024 · 03/06/2026 22:58

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
6
RedToothBrush · 04/06/2026 13:53

IwantToRetire · 04/06/2026 01:23

I think in some way it is just an extension of what has been happening every since the Supreme Court ruling.

Any number of people, politicians included, have been saying we dont agree with this ruling, it is anti trans (and who cares about women's rights) and as this is the stage of implementing it practically are just saying that the guidelines are anti trans because the judgement was.

So if they actually think, which obviously some of them did, that because they dont like the ruling therefore they dont have to abide by it, obviously they are going to attack anything that is part of implementing it.

Its not that they dont understand, but somehow in the Rainbow world created by years of Stonewall training (indoctrination) they really do think you just need to say enough times it is unkind to trans people and the whole world will agree with them.

That is what is so staggering. Not that some businesses etc., were a bit like what are we meant to do, but that politicians are actively saying we dont like the outcome of this court case, so we are going to obstruct its implementation.

And nobody says anything.

With Labour becoming more and more of a comedy routine, you would think someone would be monitoring what they say and do and how this then portrays them to the public.

After all it is within their power to re-write the EA.

Not all these empty gestures.

Which I suspect they all think is a vote winner.

It's not a phenomena restricted to this subject.

It's a shitty political dodge.

BeKindWisely · 04/06/2026 14:23

TheHereticalOne · 04/06/2026 12:30

I tend to agree except that this is not an issue only coming up for the first time. Not only must she have stumbled across the actual reasoning of 'Terfs' by now but, given who she is, it must actually have been plainly explained to her more than once.

At which point it is either true-meaning-of-the-word stupidity at play (does not have the intellectual ability to grasp the points) or motivated reasoning whereby she prevents her from allowing her brain to examine the lines of logic for fear of where it will lead her.

I think the latter is very common.

If you are afraid of the consequences of expressing an heretical opinion but also don't like to think of yourself as a the type of person who will say things you know aren't right just to fit in/be successful/be safe, you simply stop your thought process before it can even consciously recognise the logical flaws in orthodoxy that would lead you to an heretical view. And you do that thought-stopping as sub-consciously as possible so that you're not even fully conscious of doing that.

George Orwell wrote very clearly about it and I thought I understood what he meant when I was younger, but it has taken this issue for me to see the theory in full technicolour practice.

If I were a betting woman, I'd say that's what's going on here. Her apparent inability to hold her hands up to an error about even a minor technicality suggests to me that the motivation of preserving her own self-image (while doing the safe, orthodox thing) will be pretty strong.

George Orwell wrote very clearly about it and I thought I understood what he meant when I was younger, but it has taken this issue for me to see the theory in full technicolour practice.

Yes!

Your hypothesis makes immediate sense to me as I have been following along and grappling to form the thoughts myself.

Thank you👏

FriedGold32 · 04/06/2026 14:40

I find Creasy's performative "I'm an amazing moral person" schtick so utterly tedious.

HenriettaSwanLeavitt · 04/06/2026 14:46

Thank you for all the information on this thread everyone, and for the interesting theories about how avowed feminists can end up dismantling women's rights while sporting smug, RSOH smiles.

Also, good to know that Bailey talks AI bollox.

OpheliaWitchoftheWoods · 04/06/2026 16:35

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the poster's request.

CornishDaughteroftheDawn · 04/06/2026 16:44

Shortshriftandlethal · 04/06/2026 12:16

Yes, i know, but i suspect that sentiment is what drives Stella Creasy.

Edited

Yes, I see what you’re saying. I have seen this creep more widely in society.

I think in attempting to empower our young women and to be less restricted by their sex it has spilt over into denying the female specific needs and conditions.

For example, a few years ago I had to point out to DD (and she was quite affronted) that me saying that could not take on a boy in a fight. This is partly my mistake - her brother has never manhandled her (partly because I set boundaries and he’s a respectful boy anyway) so she has never tested herself against the overwhelming male strength that she couldn’t possibly fend off.

She has also absorbed countless ‘empowering’ movies that show fight scenes between men and women and the women holding their own and not being completely pulverised.

It has become unacceptable in many circles to admit that women are generally physically not as strong as men and have different needs because of our bodies.

OpheliaWitchoftheWoods · 04/06/2026 17:00

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the poster's request.

FlirtsWithRhinos · 04/06/2026 17:10

This reply has been deleted

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the poster's request.

I work with a lot of very clever people.

The trap for the very clever is to be not quite as clever as they think they are, and to underestimate how clever other people may be. And so they dismiss issues they don't personally see as the other people just not being smart enough to see past the problems.

Combine this with the subconscious blinkers as previously discussed, and....

FlirtsWithRhinos · 04/06/2026 17:23

CornishDaughteroftheDawn · 04/06/2026 16:44

Yes, I see what you’re saying. I have seen this creep more widely in society.

I think in attempting to empower our young women and to be less restricted by their sex it has spilt over into denying the female specific needs and conditions.

For example, a few years ago I had to point out to DD (and she was quite affronted) that me saying that could not take on a boy in a fight. This is partly my mistake - her brother has never manhandled her (partly because I set boundaries and he’s a respectful boy anyway) so she has never tested herself against the overwhelming male strength that she couldn’t possibly fend off.

She has also absorbed countless ‘empowering’ movies that show fight scenes between men and women and the women holding their own and not being completely pulverised.

It has become unacceptable in many circles to admit that women are generally physically not as strong as men and have different needs because of our bodies.

I have no brothers and wasn't sporty/physical at school.

When I got sportier later in life I genuinely believed the reason I couldn't match the guys' performance was a combination of lack of fitness and lack of confidence. I didn't follow sports so wasn't really aware that men's and woman's records had such large gaps.

Heggettypeg · 04/06/2026 17:32

FlirtsWithRhinos · 04/06/2026 12:42

Well, she doesn't realise it is muddled thinking. She thinks it's all perfectly obvious, and it'll be really easy to put it all down into suitable laws.

Because it's all high level principles for her, she's able to avoid seeing the problems.

That is exactly the well intentioned muddle that falls apart when you try and codify it in law, and what the SC realised they had to unpick to have a workable reading of the EA, because the well intentioned "don't ask, be kind" muddle fell apart when tested with hard questions.

Because all the good intentions in the world don't make the fact of humans having two sexes, and therefore the social and physical consequences of being one sex or the other don't go away either.

Yes. Two very common flounce-points on here are:

Being asked to define "woman" and "man" (without reference to birth sex, or to gender stereotypes, which they deny are relevant).

Being asked to think beyond abstract nouns and slogans and discuss specific situations where rights clearly conflict.

I think a lot of people either just haven't thought that far at all, or have deliberately refused to.

BigElderflower · 04/06/2026 18:04

Heggettypeg · 04/06/2026 17:32

Yes. Two very common flounce-points on here are:

Being asked to define "woman" and "man" (without reference to birth sex, or to gender stereotypes, which they deny are relevant).

Being asked to think beyond abstract nouns and slogans and discuss specific situations where rights clearly conflict.

I think a lot of people either just haven't thought that far at all, or have deliberately refused to.

"Can't we all just be nice?" <wrings hands ineffectively>

OpheliaWitchoftheWoods · 04/06/2026 18:05

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the poster's request.

DrBlackbird · 04/06/2026 21:56

Arran2024 · 04/06/2026 13:04

Apparently Zach Polanski is considering standing for Parliament at the next election. He is considering four London constituencies, and one of them is Walthamstow ie Stella Creasy. No wonder she is worried!

God preserve us. Zachary and Nigel both grandstanding and loving the attention and parliamentary perks in the mother of all parliaments. What a mockery of our democratic system. I’m desperately hoping something nasty from Zack’s past will emerge to drag him down.

BigElderflower · 04/06/2026 22:11

This reply has been deleted

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the poster's request.

Yes, it's only the support humans who have to be nice, so as not to make the other ones angry 😬

BridgetPhillipsonIsACowardlyJobsworth · 04/06/2026 22:18

This reply has been deleted

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the poster's request.

..🎶 #NotYourMum 🎶

Are we still flouncing? That's so 2021, isn't it? You'd think that, in the interim, they would have come up with some kind of coherent argument. Instead, they're just starting to turn on each other. It would be funny if it didn't still take up too much of women's time and energy.

BridgetPhillipsonIsACowardlyJobsworth · 04/06/2026 22:20

FlirtsWithRhinos · 04/06/2026 17:10

I work with a lot of very clever people.

The trap for the very clever is to be not quite as clever as they think they are, and to underestimate how clever other people may be. And so they dismiss issues they don't personally see as the other people just not being smart enough to see past the problems.

Combine this with the subconscious blinkers as previously discussed, and....

Ok , I had to read your second paragraph about 5 times... I guess I'm not as clever as you think I am, but for goodness sake, don't underestimate how clever I think I am!

ps. I'm stealing this for my list! (don't say I never do snything for you) 😉

ItsCoolForCats · 04/06/2026 22:36

Has Stella said what is wrong with the code yet or is she still going on about statutory instruments?

ArabellaScott · 04/06/2026 22:46

Stella In Creasingly Baffling.

ArabellaScott · 04/06/2026 22:47

ItsCoolForCats · 04/06/2026 22:36

Has Stella said what is wrong with the code yet or is she still going on about statutory instruments?

The more she explains the less I understand.

I had read the page on EDMs on the parliament website and thought it seemed fairly straightforward.

ArabellaScott · 04/06/2026 22:49

This reply has been deleted

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the poster's request.

Bingo.

Hedgehogforshort · 04/06/2026 22:50

I am starting to think that Phillipson might have had the code gone through with a fine tooth Comb, and for good reason. Given her compadres are still making tits of themselves, it was a wasted effort.

BridgetPhillipsonIsACowardlyJobsworth · 04/06/2026 22:56

Hedgehogforshort · 04/06/2026 22:50

I am starting to think that Phillipson might have had the code gone through with a fine tooth Comb, and for good reason. Given her compadres are still making tits of themselves, it was a wasted effort.

But, to what purpose? I think I read somewhere that some of the more contentious additions actually came from her office. So was she combing through it to ensure it was correct, or was she working out the best places to hide things she didn't want anyone to find and question?

OpheliaWitchoftheWoods · 04/06/2026 23:06

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the poster's request.

Hedgehogforshort · 04/06/2026 23:20

The purpose being to get a more “palatable” version of the code through and avoid all this embarrassing behaviour from the twats on the back bench.

Pure speculation here as with the posters above

The left and the right were all TWAW or twats remember the Conservatives were all or se ID at one point.

i think ain stream labour are starting to realise this is not a vote winner.

Do not get me wrong, i am no fan, of the labour leadership.

Hedgehogforshort · 04/06/2026 23:22

Apols for the mis spells need to go to bed.