How dim is Stella Creasey?

[Sausagenbacon]

Today she tweeted about how great the Milad ad Nabi march was in Walthamstow.
Of course, it's segregated and the women get to march afterwards or celebrate in halls.
According to Stella, the Garrick Club is problematic because it only allows men to join. But this is fine.
I know that she is pandering to her constituency, but she really seems to have no awareness.

Try to read it again. You're missing the obvious. And for the record - I've never started a thread and I wasn't even reading Mumsnet in October, never mind an active member.

"Should they be forced to mix with men who you say define them as less than?"

They're married to some of the men, so I don't think they're going to shun them. Their religion doesn't allow them to anyway - only men are allowed to shun women for disobeying their husbands.

Sure, lol.
Your failure to answer the questions is very instructive.

I've answered your question. You not liking the answer is indicative of your failure, not mine.

I think religious segregation and modesty rules generally have problematic roots, but I believe in a pluralistic society that has a high level of tolerance for different beliefs and I also don’t want women from these communities to be segregated further because there is no reasonable single sex provision.

I am therefore interested to know why Creasy wants service providers to ignore the rules that enable this provision.

It doesn’t make sense to me.

Pretty much exactly my position.

She thinks people can change sex. That’s about as stupid as it gets.

What about when the segregation means that only the men get to decide the ‘rules’ of that religion, eg Sharia laws? Is that ok?
There are many situations where people should be able to congregate based on their sex, but when it’s one sex determining the rights of the other that’s not ok.

That’s a problem with many religions. There are no female cardinals for example. Religions are patriarchal isn’t exactly news.

But we all know that if it was a white Christian sex segregated march Stella would not be eulogising about how much she loved it.

Have you ever heard of the word ‘indoctrination’? I too have worked in schools that are overwhelmingly Muslim. I too have been told that the wearing of certain garments is fine and necessary because that’s what ‘makes me a good Muslim woman’. If a young girl is wearing a headscarf because her parents have told her to wear one to be a good Muslim girl, that’s not free will - that’s indoctrination. That’s the nature of religion - it’s all indoctrination.

Possibly not, but they would have the same rights to freedom of belief as any other religion.

On the subject of sex segregation for religious reasons, I thought this story was interesting:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyenxp540vo

Good on those french women.

Yes they would. Thats not in dispute. What’s being pointed out is that Stella is a hypocrite.

You could equally argue that ‘we all know’ that if it was a different group holding a sex separated event that some of the people commenting about this wouldn’t say anything. There are hypocrites all over the place.

Not in countries in which all activities and occupations tend to be open to both sexes.

Private spaces that are intended for the dignity of one's biological sex are a different matter.

We all know that the reason for most men only spaces was to keep all power and influence in male hands.

A male only support group, a gay club, or a 'men's shed' is quite a different matter to some occupations being open only to men, or women not being permitted to occupy public spaces.

Not without severe penalty. I met a young woman once who was working on the reception of a hotel in my city. We got talking. She saw Ayan Hirsi Ali as her heroine, and she had left her religion. ( she also worked P/T in a refuge for muslim women). She said her family had completely cut her off, and she no longer was able to see any of her siblings. The punishments for rejection of the religion are very punitive.

Of course theye are choosing, but only within the context of their wider family and cultural situation. But the context within which they are choosing is one in which males and females have very different value, and in which women have fewer rights than men - in a way which goes against our own established laws and protections ( in the U.K)

That we have seen fit to honour the dignity of female people when it comes to public spaces in whch they may be undressed or pre-occupied with biological function ( and therefore more vulnerable to predatory male behaviour) is a positive, not a negtive. We can recognise that males are bigger, more muscular etc and and provide spaces in which females can compete and engage in physical/sporting activities on a level, safer playing field. That is not the same as exclusion or public segregation.

I just don’t think the Garrick Club is a smart angle to attack Creasy for this on. ( @MyThreeWords outlined why) It’s much more pertinent to say to SC “you respect the right of these people to separate themselves in public, yet lobby to remove the EHRC guidance that would protect them in more private spaces”.

This also isn’t the same as the charity run discussed previously, which described itself as inclusive, while explicitly prohibiting women and girls over 12 from participating (and wasn’t in any way religious). For the more recent event you’d need to demonstrate that women were told they couldn’t take part in a particular way, rather than it being some loose agreement within the community.

I think the difference is that Creasy, like you, knows that her constituents' faith is a metaphysical belief system, which a secular state attempts to accommodate as best it can whilst mitigating harms to its adherents and to others (not easy, and not just a problem for Islam).

But, she doesn't recognise that her own faith is a metaphysical belief system, which in a secular state must not be imposed on others. She thinks it is in some sense a fact that TWAW and therefore requiring Muslim women to share intimate space with them is objectively just fine. If they object, they are bigots against transgender women.

Lots of clever people have unfalsifiable metaphysical beliefs. It seems to be a human thing.

In this case it would be interesting to know who decides that the main event, the one in the video that Stella posted, should be men only and what parts were women allowed to attend. The second video just looked like a few women who had been rounded up to save face.

She was telling people that everyone was welcome at this event but it is obvious that not everyone was welcome at all parts of the event

Is it really?

The discrepancy (or hypocrisy) as I see it is that in situations where women want single-sex spaces or activities, whether that's changing rooms or sports, Creasy believes they must be forced to accept men. But when men want to exclude women, as in this religious march, Creasy is fine with that.