F*ck the Tories: a Thread Dedicated to Suella Braverman

[AuroraSaab]

Who has done that in this thread or elsewhere on the forum?

I think Mugshot's video link does that. It dismisses Labour's inability to define what a woman is as an insignificant matter. If you don't accept that women are a discrete class, with specific needs, and instead think anybody can be a woman, you cannot adequately address those issues which affect only women.

 

[newfhouse]

I think Mugshot's video link does that. It dismisses Labour's inability to define what a woman is as an insignificant matter. If you don't accept that women are a discrete class, with specific needs, and instead think anybody can be a woman, you cannot adequately address those issues which affect only women.

You attach more importance to the matter than anyone I know in real life. Saying so is not dismissive, merely a recognition that people view the world through different eyes and have their own priorities.

I'm happy to make my own limited and flawed contributions to the debate but may I gently suggest again that this thread is not the place?

 

[Craig the cyclist]

As I read it the thread is about another minister chosen for her ability to say “Yes Boss” rather than for any skill or competence.

Is there any other kind of minister or shadow minister?

Angela Rayner is clearly pretty dim, she didn't remember she was in an office with 30 other people for several hours eating a curry. Keir Starmer has frequently cut her out of briefings because he doesn't think she is up to it.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Is there any other kind of minister or shadow minister?

Angela Rayner is clearly pretty dim, she didn't remember she was in an office with 30 other people for several hours eating a curry. Keir Starmer has frequently cut her out of briefings because he doesn't think she is up to it.

I doubt that he cuts her out, if he does, because of her abilities but more to make a point because she does not always agree with him or blindly follow his lead on everything.

Yes, any (shadow) minister must accept the reality of their role in relation to the leader but she is not afraid to put her views over and is certainly no Dorries or Braverman, sycophantically grateful for the honour bestowed upon them.

 

[AuroraSaab]

You attach more importance to the matter than anyone I know in real life. Saying so is not dismissive, merely a recognition that people view the world through different eyes and have their own priorities.

I'm happy to make my own limited and flawed contributions to the debate but may I gently suggest again that this thread is not the place?

We aren't discussing gender identity here though. We are discussing whether Braverman's comments in the article are wrong, either morally or legally. As an adjunct to that, other posters have suggested that the issue she was referring is (a) culture war nonsense and/or (b) irrelevant or unimportant.

I've explained why, in my view, it is neither of those things. This isn't a thread on gender ideology, but it's pretty hard to discuss the article from the first post without at least alluding to the thing the article is actually about.

Perhaps we aren't meant to discuss the actual article, we're just meant to agree how awful Tories are again.

(Edited for spelling and clarity)

 

[Bromptonaut]

My intention was to highlight the fact that Braverman is, I'm pretty certain, wrong in her assertion about the law.

I think she's genuinely ignorant or misunderstands. If, as a Law Officer, she's using her position to deliberately misstate the law for political gain she's unfit for office. She's literally licensing schools where heads or perhaps religiously driven Academy trusts have a 'moral' issue with trans people to tell troubled young people that it's all in their heads and they can knuckle down as boys or girls. But then, as several commentators including the doyen of Law writer's Joshua Rozenberg state or imply she lacks the professional and intellectual heft required for the post she's unfit anyway.

The judges described her attempt to overturn the sentences of those men who killed PC Andrew Harper in terms which were Judge speak for utterly misguided and ignorant. In effect trying to plead that the distinguished sentencing judge should have overridden the relevant sentencing guideline.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Thanks for clarifying. I don't disagree that Braverman isn't the sharpest of legal minds, but I'm honestly not seeing where she's legally wrong. You can't get a GRC until you are 18, and even with a GRC it doesn't mean you have to be treated as your chosen sex in every circumstance. I think she was wrong to use terms like pandering. As this is a contentious issue she would have been better to clarify what the law actually says so schools know where they stand, but to be clear that they have an obligation to provide appropriate pastoral support to all pupils regardless of how they identify.

 

[icowden]

Thanks for clarifying. I don't disagree that Braverman isn't the sharpest of legal minds, but I'm honestly not seeing where she's legally wrong. You can't get a GRC until you are 18, and even with a GRC it doesn't mean you have to be treated as your chosen sex in every circumstance.

If only there were some sort of Government document she could have consulted so that she didn't look wilfully ignorant and bigoted:
https://assets.publishing.service.g...ata/file/315587/Equality_Act_Advice_Final.pdf

 

[AuroraSaab]

I would imagine she's aware of that document. It's guidance not law, and it certainly confuses the issue in parts.

As I understand it, that guidance is under review but in any case it doesn't override the legal exemptions allowed for single sex spaces that girls and women have under the Equality Act.

 

[theclaud]

I don't think any of the gentlemen here have done any waving away in the sense of airily dismiss.

There is though more nuance to the issue than either the 'GC' feminists or the militant trans wing would have us believe. It would also help if the media, or at least those wanting to be taken seriously didn't try and kebab politicians by asking them what a woman is.

This. I'm the least likely person to leap to the defence of (e.g.) Starmer when he's put on the spot by interviewers, but the only reason politicians are repeatedly asked this question is because it's a wedge point or shibboleth. Answer it in one of the ways demanded (the permissible choice in the culture wars is something like 'a woman is an adult human female' v 'a woman is someone who identifies as a woman') and you are fuelling the antagonism and the idea that it's a truth/fact question rather than a question about gender politics, context and legal rights or protections. Hedge your bets and you risk looking weak, stupid or evasive.

Braverman is attempting to reinforce social customs and institutional practices that treat boys and girls differently, because the political goal here is to uphold gender norms. She says the quiet bit out loud when she mentions gendered uniform rules, which have no rationale except to produce difference where none of any consequence exists. Can so-called feminists invested in the moral panic about transgender issues please stop being taken in so easily by obvious gender conservatives, homophobes and outright anti-feminists, please? I know the sport thing is complicated, but this sh*t is simple. If you can't get your head round this, I know a lounge bar in Compton you might like to visit for a Cinzano or a half of mild.

 

[AuroraSaab]

It is pretty simple, I agree. Your sex doesn't matter 99% of the time, but sometimes it does. And pretending that this is a minor irrelevance or dismissing those who think it does matter as gullible shills for the right wing is nonsense on stilts.

There's nothing more conservative, regressive, or homophobic than telling kids they might be in the wrong body or telling boys who like dresses that they might be girls. And there's nothing more patriarchal than thinking men should get what they want because the word 'woman' is stripped of all meaning other than being a feeling in your head that anyone can have.

 

[theclaud]

It is pretty simple, I agree. Your sex doesn't matter 99% of the time, but sometimes it does. And pretending that this is a minor irrelevance or dismissing those who think it does matter as gullible shills for the right wing is nonsense on stilts.

There's nothing more conservative, regressive, or homophobic than telling kids they might be in the wrong body or telling boys who like dresses that they might be girls. And there's nothing more patriarchal than thinking men should get what they want because the word 'woman' is stripped of all meaning other than being a feeling in your head that anyone can have.

Has anyone here said any of that? What does Braverman's interference do for boys who just want to wear dresses, or for girls who just don't? Is it OK with you if a school decides that football is for boys and 'home economics' is for girls? Because that's the world these people want. Gender dysphoria is a product of, er, gender - you can't wish it away by making it easier for institutions to enforce gender norms.

 

[icowden]

I would imagine she's aware of that document. It's guidance not law, and it certainly confuses the issue in parts.

The Equality Act 2010 provides a single, consolidated source of discrimination law. It simplifies the law and it extends protection from discrimination in some areas

The article I linked to is advice as to how the act should be applied in the context of education. If you read the Act itself it is very clear that schools are not allowed to discriminate based on gender identity. That is the law whether you like it or not. Thus, as I stated, it is clear that (as usual) Braverman is in ignorance of the law. This is not unusual for her. It is unusual for the Attorney General not to have a clue about the law as it's their actual job to advise the government on the law. But - as we know from Gove - they don't like experts.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Has anyone here said any of that? What does Braverman's interference do for boys who just want to wear dresses, or for girls who just don't? Is it OK with you if a school decides that football is for boys and 'home economics' is for girls? Because that's the world these people want. Gender dysphoria is a product of, er, gender - you can't wish it away by making it easier for institutions to enforce gender norms.

No gender critical feminist has ever said they want to reinforce gender norms. They seek to abolish gender roles altogether. It's transactivism that reinforces gender stereotypes by suggesting that 'boys who just want to wear dresses' are somehow not the male sex.

I disagree with Braverman on uniforms - anything on the uniform list should be free to be worn by pupils of either sex - but she is not legally wrong on single sex spaces. As the interim Cass report noted, social transitioning is not a neutral act. Schools have a duty of pastoral care towards all children, but that doesn't always mean giving them what they want. It's possible to support children with body dysphoria without impinging on the rights of others.

 

[theclaud]

It's transactivism that reinforces gender stereotypes by suggesting that 'boys who just want to wear dresses' are somehow not the male sex.

LOL if you think that started with trans activism you have not been paying attention to the patriarchy.