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

[AuroraSaab]

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.

Gender identity is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act. Gender reassignment is, but it seems unlikely that a school age child under 16 could be said to be meeting the criteria for having reassigned their gender.

The document you linked is guidance, not law. It doesn't supercede the law. It confuses things though, which is why it's supposedly under review I expect.

When a male pupil who identifies as female is prevented from playing on the girls football team they are not being discriminated against because they are transgender. They are being excluded because they are male - which is legal under the Equality Act. If they weren't allowed to play on the boy's team because they identified as female, that would be being discriminated against because they are transgender.

 

[theclaud]

No gender critical feminist has ever said they want to reinforce gender norms. They seek to abolish gender roles altogether

BTW literally no one in the government wants to abolish gender roles. So if you're going to back their interventions, perhaps you should start paying attention to what it is they do want and what their rhetoric or policy is achieving.

 

[AuroraSaab]

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

It didn't start with trans activism, but trans activism absolutely reinforces gender stereotypes. If there were no gender stereotypes of clothing and behaviour etc., what is there to transition to? Noone can 'feel' like the opposite sex because you have no frame of reference for what that would feel like. You can only adopt the cultural stereotypes associated with 'male' or 'female' and in doing so you perpetuate these stereotypes.

Gender critical feminism seeks to do away with these sex based stereotypes. If men want to wear dresses and make up, they are free to do so. They're not women though, and performing femininity does not make them so.

Edit: I doubt the Tories care much about abolishing gender roles. They'll happily benefit from the votes Labour, Lib Dems, Greens etc are losing by saying 'Women can have penises' though, which is why it's all the more confounding that the left continue to give them an open goal on the matter.

 

[icowden]

Gender identity is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act. Gender reassignment is, but it seems unlikely that a school age child under 16 could be said to be meeting the criteria for having reassigned their gender.

And yet if you read the advice:-

Gender reassignment is defined in the Equality Act as applying to anyone who is undergoing, has undergone or is proposing to undergo a process (or part of a process) of reassigning their sex by changing physiological or other attributes. This definition means that in order to be protected under the Act, a pupil will not necessarily have to be undertaking a medical procedure to change their sex but must be taking steps to live in the opposite gender, or proposing to do so.

So, if William decides to wear a dress to school and asks to be called Wilhelmina, that should be interpreted as "taking steps to live in the opposite gender", and thus is protected by the Act.

And this:-

Braverman QC said the law stated that under-18s could not legally change their sex, enabling schools to treat all of their pupils by the sex of their birth.

The Conservative MP for Fareham said: “Under-18s cannot get a gender recognition certificate, under-18s cannot legally change sex. So again, in the context of schools, I think it’s even clearer. A male child who says in a school that they are a trans girl, that they want to be female, is legally still a boy or a male. And schools have a right to treat them as such under the law.
“They don’t have to say, ‘OK, we’re going to let you change your pronoun or let you wear a skirt or call yourself a girl’s name.’”

Is incontrovertibly wrong. Any school trying to follow Braverman's advice with regards to a child who feels that they should be the opposite gender will be met with legal challenges. She is both ignorant and dangerous, and unable to read the advice from her own Government.

The act does not say that the school has to bend over backwards, or that there cannot be protected spaces for biological girls. Schools themselves have a duty of care for the wellbeing of their students and will try to reasonably accommodate children in whatever way they need to be accommodated (some religious schools may not).

If you search on google you will find a plethora of opinions from legal minds all of whom seem to agree that Braverman is clueless.

 

[AuroraSaab]

At what age and by what criteria could a child be said to be having their gender reassigned? At 5 because they are a boy but want to wear dresses? At 12 because they want to change pronouns? This isn't gender reassignment in any meaningful way. It would be harmful to consider it so as you are affirming a child on a pathway of transition from which it might be hard to desist should they change their mind. As the interim Cass Report noted, social transitioning is not a neutral act. It sets a child on a path. The majority of teens with body dysphoria who do not go on to puberty blockers or hormones find that it resolves after puberty.

I'd rather we changed society so that kids can dress and act as they want rather than lying to them that they can change sex.

Most schools will accommodate name and pronoun changes in a show of support, but legally there is no requirement for them to do so anymore than they are obliged to change a child's name to 'Fred Flintstone' and their pronouns to ze/zey/zir if the child chooses those. There are plenty of legal minds on Twitter who disagree with your interpretation too.

We've covered these arguments a few times now so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[FishFright]

I don't want to turn this into another discussion on women's rights and transgender issues as we've done that to death. Anybody can choose their own gender identity - it's a feeling in your head, and many people, like me, don't believe in the notion of gender identity. Gender identity is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act though and schools have no obligation to accommodate pupils in their chosen gender identity. They do have an obligation under the Education Act to provide single sex spaces like toilets and changing rooms though.

There is an obligation not to discriminate against transgender pupils but this doesn't override the single sex exemptions of the Equality Act. If they want to, schools can accommodate children's wishes to change their name or wear what uniform they wish but they are not obliged to allow them to do so, or to use the girls toilets and changing rooms if they are a biological male.

Do you think a 16 year old male bodied pupil should be allowed to change with the girls for PE or sleep in the girls dorm at school camp? Or play on the girls rugby team because their gender identity is female?

You can be whatever gender identity you like. You can't expect other people to be obligated to recognise it, though they can support you if they wish, which is what most schools do.

We've done this to death and yet you've learned the square root of feck all .

 

[AuroraSaab]

I've learned a lot about you though. I think we all have.

 

[icowden]

At what age and by what criteria could a child be said to be having their gender reassigned? At 5 because they are a boy but want to wear dresses? At 12 because they want to change pronouns? This isn't gender reassignment in any meaningful way.

Of course not. But from a legal point of view it doesn't have to be. Can a good lawyer present a case that Wilhelmina is in the early process of needing gender reassignment - the answer is "yes", given that this advice is given:

This definition means that in order to be protected under the Act, a pupil will not necessarily have to be undertaking a medical procedure to change their sex but must be taking steps to live in the opposite gender, or proposing to do so.

So the fact that Wilhelmina wants to wear a dress and no longer to be called William - that's enough, as they are "taking steps". If they change their mind a year later. That's also fine.

Realistically there won't be an issue anyway as most schools will try to be as accommodating as they can. That doesn't mean however that Wilhelmina will be welcomed into the girls showers and changing rooms. What it might mean is that the school try to offer Wilhelmina a safe space to change and shower etc.

The key point is that Braverman has not read the advice posted by government and has little legal acumen. She is widely regarded as being one of (if not the least) competent Attorney Generals ever appointed.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Well I concur with your last sentence, but not much of the first two paras.

Thanks for your thoughful responses though. Obviously, I've learned the square root of feck all, which is disappointing, but Dr Michael Webberley's been struck off this week though so there's still lots to be cheerful about.

 

[theclaud]

At what age and by what criteria could a child be said to be having their gender reassigned? At 5 because they are a boy but want to wear dresses? At 12 because they want to change pronouns? This isn't gender reassignment in any meaningful way. It would be harmful to consider it so as you are affirming a child on a pathway of transition from which it might be hard to desist should they change their mind. As the interim Cass Report noted, social transitioning is not a neutral act. It sets a child on a path. The majority of teens with body dysphoria who do not go on to puberty blockers or hormones find that it resolves after puberty.

I'd rather we changed society so that kids can dress and act as they want rather than lying to them that they can change sex.

Most schools will accommodate name and pronoun changes in a show of support, but legally there is no requirement for them to do so anymore than they are obliged to change a child's name to 'Fred Flintstone' and their pronouns to ze/zey/zir if the child chooses those. There are plenty of legal minds on Twitter who disagree with your interpretation too.

We've covered these arguments a few times now so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Alternatively you could stop talking to people as if they actually hold the caricature set of opinions you ascribe to them, and listen to what they're actually saying. Children already grow up and make sense of who they are in a relentlessly gendered environment, and you are supporting (in this instance) gender-conservative politics aimed at perpetuating and increasing institutional segregation and difference-marking between boys and girls. You say you want kids to be able to dress and act as they want - that's emphatically not what Braverman wants (or even pretends to want), and it's certainly not what has ever happened in most schools (or families). Whilst I don't disagree with your point about (trans) gender affirmation often reinforcing stereotypes, so does (cis) gender affirmation - which is both the status quo and the political aim here.

[Edited to add] It seems to me a good thing that dubious practitioners like the Webberleys face scrutiny and sanction, but there's no inevitable pathway from schools providing gender neutral toilets or addressing children by their preferred name to mass prescription of puberty blockers and sex hormones. Do you not consider it possible, or even likely, that institutions railroading children into prescribed forms of dress and formally segregated environments might make them feel more alienated and more likely to believe that they have been assigned to the 'wrong' category? I can't recall a single instance of being persuaded of anything by authoritarian measures as a child or teenager, except perhaps the necessity of hiding things from said authorities...

 

[AuroraSaab]

We obviously agree that gender stereotypes are harmful. How is saying boys and girls should be able to dress and act as they wish reinforcing the separation of the sexes? It's what we need to do to abolish gender roles altogether. It's Mermaids and Stonewall who promote the regressive idea that if you like 'girl' stuff you might be a girl. It was on the Mermaids website for years that liking the toys and clothes stereotypically associated with the opposite sex was an early sign of being transgender, along with the unscientific 'born in the wrong body' narrative they used to peddle.

I've no idea what Suella Braverman's wider aims are but gender critical feminism works to abolish all gender stereotypes, wherever they originate. It certainly doesn't support increasing separation between the sexes, except in those few instances where your physical sex is relevant. What it does promote is the acceptance of gender non conformity amongst children, rather than seeing that as a sign of a child's body being 'wrong'. Trans ideology encourages kids to disassociate from their body rather than understand that, for example, there are a thousand different ways to be a girl, none of which ever tip you over into being a boy.

As for social transitioning not leading to a medicalised pathway - it isn't inevitable of course but social transition isn't a neutral act. It would be quite a brave child who after 3 years at high school being regarded as a female decided to detransition, having invested so much in their gender identity.

Perfectly acceptable to have unisex facilities, as long as it's in addition to single sex facilities. Apart from PE, most schools aren't separated by sex for any subjects. Girls do better academically in single sex schools funnily enough, though I'm not generally in favour of them myself.

 

[theclaud]

We obviously agree that gender stereotypes are harmful. How is saying boys and girls should be able to dress and act as they wish reinforcing the separation of the sexes? It's what we need to do to abolish gender roles altogether

Braverman's own words in the interview, below, with the most obviously relevant bit highlighted. You're backing someone who is both doing and saying precisely the opposite of what you say you want!

A male child who says in a school that they are a trans girl, that they want to be female, is legally still a boy or a male. And they can be treated as such under the law. And schools have a right to treat them as such under the law. They don’t have to say ‘OK, we’re going to let you change your pronoun or let you wear a skirt or call yourself a girl’s name’.

 

[AuroraSaab]

I would have thought it was obvious that I meant that anyone should be able to dress and act as they wish in general. I've already said I think uniform regs should be the same for both sexes and that schools should provide appropriate pastoral support for all pupils, which might include allowing them to change pronouns/names. I don't believe they are legally obliged to let them change pronouns/names. I don't think you can extrapolate from that that I, or Braverman for that matter, are in favour of some wholesale segregation of the sexes either in schools or everyday life.

This is an issue which cuts across left and right. The Tories will use it to gain points over Labour and Labour are floundering on it.

 

[theclaud]

I would have thought it was obvious that I meant that anyone should be able to dress and act as they wish in general. I've already said I think uniform regs should be the same for both sexes and that schools should provide appropriate pastoral support for all pupils, which might include allowing them to change pronouns/names. I don't believe they are legally obliged to let them change pronouns/names. I don't think you can extrapolate from that that I, or Braverman for that matter, are in favour of some wholesale segregation of the sexes either in schools or everyday life.

This is an issue which cuts across left and right. The Tories will use it to gain points over Labour and Labour are floundering on it.

I'm not quite following what you are and aren't in favour of, TBH. If a school policy, backed by government, and often by family, sends the message to children that boys cannot be boys and wear dresses, then it's hardly surprising if boys who want to wear dresses* conclude that they might be girls. It's almost as if the problem is not actually caused by a woke onslaught but by the gender norms that were there all along. Fancy that.

*In case it's not clear, wearing dresses here stands in for any kind of behaviour or expression that is culturally or socially coded as feminine. I'm flogging it to death because it's such a ubiquitous and institutionalized gender marker, and because Braverman let slip in her interview that she's threatened by the prospect of boys in frocks.

Yes, the Tories will use it, and yes, Labour are floundering on it, but then Labour are floundering on everything under Starmer, on account of his being the worst leader ever and standing for nothing at all. He could just come out in favour of boys in frocks and sensible things like gender neutral toilets with private cubicles, and be more circumspect about trickier stuff like fairness in sports and treatment / therapy pathways for minors. But he'll choose, as he always does, to fight the Tories on their own territory. I say 'fight', but you know what I mean.

 

[AuroraSaab]

If a school has a uniform policy that says a male pupil cannot wear a skirt, that would be discriminatory to boys and thus illegal. It has nothing to do with how that male pupil identifies. Same goes for girls who want to wear trousers. It's sex discrimination and your perceived gender identity is irrelevant.

Society does indeed tell children that certain things are for boys and certain things are for girls. Toys and clothes are more sex coded than ever. The answer to this is to work towards eradicating sex stereotyping of these things.

https://www.letclothesbeclothes.co.uk/
https://www.lettoysbetoys.org.uk/

It's gender critical feminism that is doing this work. Transgender ideology does the opposite. It tells gender non conforming and gay kids they might be the opposite sex because they like dresses or like toy cars not dolls. Even the blue and pink trans flag is regressive. There's no trans ideology without stereotyping because otherwise how do you show everybody you are the other sex? The whole thing hinges on regressive stereotypes.

We should be telling kids they can wear what they want and play with whatever they want, but you can't change your sex, and you don't need to. Nor do you need a lifetime of drugs or surgery to do any of the stuff that is stereotypically associated with the other sex.

Labour are floundering because they are afraid to articulate the truth. I don't for a minute think that Starmer really believed it when he said 'It's wrong to say only women have a cervix'. I don't think Stella Creasy really believes 'Women can have a penis' as she said the other day. They have simply gone down the Let's Be Kind route without thinking through the implications and can't backtrack now.

We are past the point of bring circumspect about these issues. Teenage girls are having mastectomies and doing irreversible damage to their bodies with testosterone. Gay boys are being told they might be girls because they don't like 'boys stuff'. Starmer telling the electorate he favours unisex loos but isn't sure whether Veronica Ivy is a woman isn't going to cut it.

The thing with the sport thing is that if politicians admit that men can't be women in sport (and they can't, obviously) then it means they can't be women anywhere and the whole thing is exposed as the polite fiction that it is. You can't be a male on Tuesday for football but female the rest of the week. This is why trans activists fight so hard on the access to female sports issue.

Trans ideology demands that you are all in or all out.