Main Edition
US
FR
September 4, 2024 - 10:00am
Robert Jenrick, the Newark MP and candidate for the Tory leadership, believes that protecting single-sex spaces is not a priority for the public. In remarks made last month during an online meeting, which were leaked this week, Jenrick told a group of young Tories that he is “as concerned as the next person” about matters relating to sex and gender but “that is not what 90% of the public are thinking about […] I don’t want the Conservative Party to just be a one-issue party, or to just go down a rabbit hole of culture wars.”
What would drive a politician campaigning for senior office to make such a tin-eared remark? Not a week goes by in which sex and gender are not part of the public agenda. From the intrusion of men into women’s prisons to the imposition of athletes with XY chromosomes into female sport categories, as well as the evangelising of “gender identity” ideology in schools, no sphere of public life is left untouched.
If mealy-mouthed politicians had their way, we would not be having this conversation. Indeed, when Maria Miller — then the Conservative Minister for Women and Equalities — introduced the proposed reform of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 which would abolish the Equality Act 2010’s single-sex protections, the political establishment expected indifference from a compliant public. But there was a backlash: women’s rights campaigners agitated by holding meetings up and down the country with experts in sex and gender, passing out leaflets, producing reports to raise public awareness and in some cases even challenging institutions that trampled their rights.
As someone who campaigns to protect sex-based rights, I understand how exhausting this work can be. Yet the ruckus we caused became so unavoidable that politicians have been left with no choice but to address our concerns. During this year’s election, the protection of single-sex spaces became a hot-button issue for both sides of the aisle — with the consensus among the two main parties’ leaders being that these spaces ought to be protected.
Within the Tory Party, both Kemi Badenoch and Suella Braverman, the former of whom is also in the running for the leadership, have come out in favour of further protections. What part of the base does Jenrick think he’s appealing to by dismissing such a vital matter? All the Tory leadership hopefuls will need a firm line on gender ideology, and they will be skewered if not.
Even Keir Starmer, a politician so obtuse that until recently he was still arguing that some women could have a penis and that male people can have a cervix, has been forced to retract his comments and reassure the public of his government’s commitment to upholding sex-based rights. Jenrick’s position is wrong and the polling shows it: the protection of single-sex services and spaces clearly matters to the public.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeWhat hope can be found in Tory leadership?
Political leadership is not just about winning the arguments. It is about shaping the political environment so that the arguments you can win are at the forefront of the electorate’s mind. If Conservatives continue to allow the progressive Left to shape the political milieu, and in particular the one in which younger voters inhabit, they can never win. If Jenrick can’t see that after 14 years in which Conservatives were in office, but failed to reshape the political environment, then he is just another Sunak.
That, of course, is what sunk the Conservative Party at the last election. Too many conservative politicians thought the issue as being a side issue where broad minded conservative people would be content to accede to the passionate ideologues. They probably felt that it was in any case largely a bunch of left wing women who would vote Labour anyway ( as indeed they mostly did) who were getting exercised about the subject and that it wasn’t a hot button issue for actual and potential conservative voters. They were misled by the likes of Maria Miller and Penny Mordant who had drunk the kool aid of trans ideology and thought they were on the right side of history.
The conservatives under Thatcher argued the conservative case unfortunately in the Con-Lib coalition and subsequently there was a failure to roll back all the leftist rules and regulations and enforce a conservative agenda.
“That, of course, is what sunk the Conservative Party at the last election. Too many conservative politicians thought the issue as being a side issue where broad minded conservative people would be content to accede to the passionate ideologues”.
.
It’s a basic moral issue: Should we ignore women, the most important part of the population, or should we protect them from psychopaths like Talia Perkins?
I agreed with every word of this article until this: “Jenrick’s position is wrong and the polling shows it”
With respect, the polling can only show that his position is unpopular; not wrong.
But it’s wrong regardless of the polling 🙂
Well his position is politically wrong if the polling strongly opposes it, because it is a bad way to get elected. This is true even if Jenrick is logically correct, which he isn’t.
Thatcher ended up losing 10 Downing St by doggedly pursuing the Poll Tax, which is a good example of something that’s logically defensible, but which was so unpopular that supporting it was politically wrong irrespective of its technical merits.
You are, of course, correct; those downvoting have probably misinterpreted your point.
Good point!
On what basis can we decide if anything is objectively wrong, I wonder?
Clearly Jenrick is just a Cameron, May, Johnson, Sunak retread, in other words a waste of space.
Electing him as leader would just perpetuate the faux Conservative Party that people so soundly rejected a few months ago.
Jenrick is of course wrong on this, but it hardly matters given that Kemi Badenoch has a solid track record of opposing the nonsense of radical gender ideology, and she’s the frontrunner for the leadership anyway.
The reason she’s the frontrunner, of course, is partly that she has a track record of taking the principled stand on the subject in the first place.
Whilst i agree about Badenoch, i don’t think it does any harm for articles to appear spelling this out. Your general point that “it hardly matters” isn’t one we should simply acquiesce in.
If this author, who has a significant track record herself in braving the culture wars whilst at university, is an addition to the Unherd team of writers i welcome it and hope it might lead her to consider a career in politics, for whichever party she feels most at home in.
She has her finger on the pulse of what people on the street are thinking and doesn’t bend to ideology.
This attitude from prospective Tory leaders is what sank the Tories in the first place. They didn’t want to take sides or upset anybody or cause factions to get visibly angry – so they didn’t, in fact, do anything. Meanwhile Labour has a plan, albeit an unpopular plan.
So which is better, no plan or an unpopular plan?
Well, that’s probably a false dichotomy, but If it’s Labour’s plan or no plan, I’ll go for the latter. It’s really a case of b—dy awful or even worse, so stick with b—dy awful.
It is possible to hold more than one thought at a time and also to prioritize those thoughts. Is the gender issue on more minds than immigration, the attacks on free expression, or the push toward world war? Probably not, which means it’s still important but outranked at the moment by more pressing matters. If immigration is not solved, then gender concerns will be irrelevant. You’ll be ruled by people who are fond of permanent solutions to temporary issues.
Women are over half of the population, so our issues are important. A significant majority of women don’t want men in our locker rooms while we’re naked or in our sports. We don’t want children to be medicalized into the opposite sex and we don’t want gender ideology in classrooms. These are easy fixes. Yes, there are important issues like immigration, but the government is capable of walking while chewing gum.
“he was still arguing that div > p > a”>some women could have a p***s and that male people can have div > p > a:nth-of-type(2)”>a cervix”
It is true div > p:nth-of-type(2) > a”>some women could have a p***s and that male people can have div > p:nth-of-type(2) > a:nth-of-type(2)”>a cervix. That is because the gender of a person is the determining factor, not the genitalia. The gender of a person is sexually dimorphic tissue the ears, and if you’ve forgotten, the brain is supposed to be in charge.
Let me enlighten you a little.
First, the brains of men and women are irreversibly different even before birth.
Second, you are a crazy idiot.
deleted
It is not true that a woman can have a p***s and a man a cervix. I sincerely hope that you’re not a biology teacher or a medical professional. Biology and medicine being two areas where reality matters and the gender nonsense ignored.
I don’t know what all those punctuation marks are for but let me put you straight on one point. I am a bloke. I have a Cervix. I suffer from Cervical Spondulosa. Ladies/Females/The Distaff have TWO cervixes (Latin scholars will probably put me right on that.) Cervix is Latin for neck – I think we can all agree on that? As a Bloke my afliction can only affect the bits that stop my head falling off when I sneeze.To be pedantic as sometimes you must when arguing with fools perhaps you Ladies could use another part of the lower body when pointing out a major difference between Blokes and Ladies. The most polite word in normal use begins with the letter V. That way even Sir Kneeler would understand as a more common i term for that area may be used to describe his behaviour on this subject.
If anyone thinks their brain is in charge of their body, they should try telling any of their internal organs to suspend operations. You can’t. There is a disconnect between the conscious mind part of the brain, and the physical body. I can’t “will myself dead” because my body is intricately and wonderfully made and exists without my conscious will.
Therefore the things I believe about my body based on feelings cannot be relied upon as fact. The conscious mind is totally ignorant about how the body works (except via external knowledge). How can the mind say, “I am in the wrong body”? It knows nothing of its body. All it knows is by hearsay from others.
Glad you could understand her. Couldn’t make head nor tail of her nonsense.
I’m trying to figure out the sexually dimorphic ears.
Do you know what proofreading is?
Jenrick is the best of the lot on the existential subject of mass immigration He wants a statutory cap of not more than 100k per annum.
The gender issue, although important, is not of the same existential significance. That I think, is what Jenrick is getting at Just a shame that he expressed himself so clumsily.
His chief rival, Badenoch, although sound on gender, is the very reverse on immigration. She has refused to commit to a cap saying that they had such a cap before but it didn’t work. Well, of course it didn’t work – it was never a statutory cap, merely a manifesto pledge which the Tories never implemented!
So a Tory party headed by her would just be more of the same old, same old waste of time. If Jenrick doesn’t get it, it will merely confirm that they really are the stupid party – and a massive boost for Farage
Can’t agree that the gender issue is not of existential significance! It’s not just about women being free to have same sex spaces, even though that can be a life and death issue. It’s also about making people lie about the sex of others, depriving free speech. And about children being conned into thinking normal difficulties of growing up, fitting in and becoming adults can be changed with magical healthcare.
I am just bemused by the apparent self-contradiction in Jenrick’s statement.
He is “as concerned as the next person” about matters relating to sex and gender but “that is not what 90% of the public are thinking about”.
So he’s not very concerned then?