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.
Even if he was correct that the public does not care about single-sex spaces and services then, given his own background as a lawyer, he should be eager to disentangle the legal mess that led us here. In the post-Cass era, a Tory candidate who does not have empathy with women’s concerns is not fit to be leader, let alone prime minister.
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.
SubscribeThe women of the UK should never forget that Labour in Scotland voted in favour of self iD and that Welsh Labour is gagging to introduce similar measures in their fiefdom. Labour is not women friendly and a few ambiguous shifts in emphasis from Sir Kier, of the uniquely favourable pension arrangement, will not make it so.
The “women of the UK” – or at least the fraction paying attention to this particular dungheap – will know that Starmer and his chums do not have a monopoly on promiscuous superficiality (to borrow a phrase from M. Baudrillard). The Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill passed with the support of every Liberal and Green MSP, all Labour MSPs who voted, 54 out of 64 SNP MSPs – and the fact that only 2 of 31 Conservative MSPs voted for the Bill does not make them even remotely “women friendly”. Then there is the inconvenient truth that 46 of 58 female MSPs either voted for or did not oppose (hello, Kate Forbes!) the Bill, making the women of the Scottish Parliament not particularly ” women friendly”. So much to remember. Where does one start, Jeremy?
The “women of the UK” – or at least the fraction paying attention to this particular dungheap – will know that Starmer and his chums do not have a monopoly on promiscuous superficiality (to borrow a phrase from M. Baudrillard). The Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill passed with the support of every Liberal and Green MSP, all Labour MSPs who voted, 54 out of 64 SNP MSPs – and the fact that only 2 of 31 Conservative MSPs voted for the Bill does not make them even remotely “women friendly”. Then there is the inconvenient truth that 46 of 58 female MSPs either voted for or did not oppose (hello, Kate Forbes!) the Bill, making the women of the Scottish Parliament not particularly ” women friendly”. So much to remember. Where does one start, Jeremy?
The women of the UK should never forget that Labour in Scotland voted in favour of self iD and that Welsh Labour is gagging to introduce similar measures in their fiefdom. Labour is not women friendly and a few ambiguous shifts in emphasis from Sir Kier, of the uniquely favourable pension arrangement, will not make it so.
It’s perfectly clear to anyone who’s been watching Starmer that even if he were to suddenly start coming out with the right phrases recommended by the author that his teeth would be gritted more assiduously than the M62* on a freezing January night.
Rather than imploring him to make what would obviously be a ‘concession’ to women, simply assume the following: that once in office, he’d use it as a safe space in which to backtrack on anything he’s uttered beforehand.
*The M62 for those not familiar with the UK road network reaches the highest point of any motorway and is prone to being closed in severe weather.
I’ll admit that I don’t like Starmer and I am not going to defend him on this issue or practically any other. But I think you might misdiagnose the issue with Starmer. He isn’t particularly woke, not particularly anything, not particularly pro trans rights or anti women-only spaces. To paraphrase Lord Palmerston:
Starmer has no eternal views and no perpetual values, only his interest in being PM is eternal and perpetual
His strategy is to say whatever the moment and immediate political calculation demands in the party or the country that inches him toward No10. He doesn’t want to do anything in particular when he gets there either. Or rather he’ll do what he finds easiest at the time.
On his route so far, he has appeared on video as an arch Republican and then waxed lyrical about the monarch, he has engaged in Corbynista Cosplay, and then chucked magic Grandpa under a bus. And while the Trans lobby appears to him to be popular in the party then he is happy enough to pretend he’s forgotten O Level biology.
Whether that makes him better or worse. Worse in my opinion. I think it better to get the diagnosis of the disease correct.
I rather think your reply supports my comment than your claim that i’ve ‘misdiagnosed’ Starmer.
I rather think your reply supports my comment than your claim that i’ve ‘misdiagnosed’ Starmer.
I’ll admit that I don’t like Starmer and I am not going to defend him on this issue or practically any other. But I think you might misdiagnose the issue with Starmer. He isn’t particularly woke, not particularly anything, not particularly pro trans rights or anti women-only spaces. To paraphrase Lord Palmerston:
Starmer has no eternal views and no perpetual values, only his interest in being PM is eternal and perpetual
His strategy is to say whatever the moment and immediate political calculation demands in the party or the country that inches him toward No10. He doesn’t want to do anything in particular when he gets there either. Or rather he’ll do what he finds easiest at the time.
On his route so far, he has appeared on video as an arch Republican and then waxed lyrical about the monarch, he has engaged in Corbynista Cosplay, and then chucked magic Grandpa under a bus. And while the Trans lobby appears to him to be popular in the party then he is happy enough to pretend he’s forgotten O Level biology.
Whether that makes him better or worse. Worse in my opinion. I think it better to get the diagnosis of the disease correct.
It’s perfectly clear to anyone who’s been watching Starmer that even if he were to suddenly start coming out with the right phrases recommended by the author that his teeth would be gritted more assiduously than the M62* on a freezing January night.
Rather than imploring him to make what would obviously be a ‘concession’ to women, simply assume the following: that once in office, he’d use it as a safe space in which to backtrack on anything he’s uttered beforehand.
*The M62 for those not familiar with the UK road network reaches the highest point of any motorway and is prone to being closed in severe weather.
Events in Wales & Scotland are a painful example of politics mired in prejudice, incapable of critical thinking and contemptuous of dissent. Neither Holyrood nor the Senedd is listening to voters, who don’t want self-ID. But then half of the electorate is female – and neither the SNP nor Welsh Labour seems to like women at all.
The above is the last paragraph of Joan Smith’s article on UnHerd in February this year. It seems to me that ALL politicians have a problem with this concept. It seems that politicians want the votes of a group – but which group?
I have a theory. In the UK today there are about 15 million old people and the number is increasing fast. The number of young people is going down just as quickly. People in government seem to be catering for an idea of — this is what young people will want; if we have policies like this it will please young people; we need to have policies like this to keep up with the times; old people won’t vote; old people are almost dead anyway.
This is similar to the BBC’s idea of having a panel of under-30s having approval of future programmes. On the BBC, tried and tested programmes with millions of viewers/listeners are ditched for a vague notion of what young people will want in the future. Also, a church near to me has ditched hymn books to be replaced by screens in the aisles – without approval from the congregation who are all old people. Apparently, young people (who never go to church) will prefer screens.
So the Welsh Labour politicians have been discussing for months now, the idea of new legislation for THEORETICAL females of the future, focussing the already thin NHS onto mental illness because that WILL be the big thing with young people, not building new roads nor improving power supplies because the new generation want to live rough (presumably). But they ignore the wishes of their voters now. As does Keir Starmer.
To me, this is an unofficial disenfranchisement of over-70s. By ignoring millions of people they are trying to sideline their votes.
I think you’re setting that age bar too high!
I see it as the disenfranchisement of anyone over 45.
Re the BBC – I wonder if there are any figures on the age of licence fee payers because I’d wager that the demographic least likely to pay the licence fee is the one they appear to be focussing on.
I think you’re setting that age bar too high!
I see it as the disenfranchisement of anyone over 45.
Re the BBC – I wonder if there are any figures on the age of licence fee payers because I’d wager that the demographic least likely to pay the licence fee is the one they appear to be focussing on.
Events in Wales & Scotland are a painful example of politics mired in prejudice, incapable of critical thinking and contemptuous of dissent. Neither Holyrood nor the Senedd is listening to voters, who don’t want self-ID. But then half of the electorate is female – and neither the SNP nor Welsh Labour seems to like women at all.
The above is the last paragraph of Joan Smith’s article on UnHerd in February this year. It seems to me that ALL politicians have a problem with this concept. It seems that politicians want the votes of a group – but which group?
I have a theory. In the UK today there are about 15 million old people and the number is increasing fast. The number of young people is going down just as quickly. People in government seem to be catering for an idea of — this is what young people will want; if we have policies like this it will please young people; we need to have policies like this to keep up with the times; old people won’t vote; old people are almost dead anyway.
This is similar to the BBC’s idea of having a panel of under-30s having approval of future programmes. On the BBC, tried and tested programmes with millions of viewers/listeners are ditched for a vague notion of what young people will want in the future. Also, a church near to me has ditched hymn books to be replaced by screens in the aisles – without approval from the congregation who are all old people. Apparently, young people (who never go to church) will prefer screens.
So the Welsh Labour politicians have been discussing for months now, the idea of new legislation for THEORETICAL females of the future, focussing the already thin NHS onto mental illness because that WILL be the big thing with young people, not building new roads nor improving power supplies because the new generation want to live rough (presumably). But they ignore the wishes of their voters now. As does Keir Starmer.
To me, this is an unofficial disenfranchisement of over-70s. By ignoring millions of people they are trying to sideline their votes.
Starmer is the (less flashier) UK version of Trudeau. Claims to be a feminist but will throw women under the bus to achieve his goals-power
Starmer is the (less flashier) UK version of Trudeau. Claims to be a feminist but will throw women under the bus to achieve his goals-power
Anything Starmer says about women’s rights is indeed “very, very clear” – it’s entirely meaningless whilst he maintains his position that “transwomen are women”.
Until he u-turns on that nothing else he says makes any difference at all; it’s all more weasel words just like “safe spaces” is.
Anything Starmer says about women’s rights is indeed “very, very clear” – it’s entirely meaningless whilst he maintains his position that “transwomen are women”.
Until he u-turns on that nothing else he says makes any difference at all; it’s all more weasel words just like “safe spaces” is.
“We need new and better ways to pull the wool over women’s eyes” is not the argument this fool thinks it is.
“We need new and better ways to pull the wool over women’s eyes” is not the argument this fool thinks it is.
It is clear the Starmer is happy to terrify women and to see women attacked and worse – rather than say male bodied people should not be allowed in women refuges, wards etc.
It is clear the Starmer is happy to terrify women and to see women attacked and worse – rather than say male bodied people should not be allowed in women refuges, wards etc.
Is Starmer an Identity Marxist?
I am pleased to see this columnist interrogating the language manipulation of pronouncements, for example, the term “safe spaces”.
Is Starmer an Identity Marxist?
I am pleased to see this columnist interrogating the language manipulation of pronouncements, for example, the term “safe spaces”.
Keir Starmer is living, walking, tedious, droning, but neon lit shining testament to the extreme end of the dangers of social mobility…… Ah … Starmer…. the ladies are withdrawing… bring the port and cigars…..
Keir Starmer is living, walking, tedious, droning, but neon lit shining testament to the extreme end of the dangers of social mobility…… Ah … Starmer…. the ladies are withdrawing… bring the port and cigars…..
Sometimes this seems a bit like the eugenics movement of the late 1800s. The best people should do the deciding: that means politicians and the Arts; elite; the rest of us are the ones who should be stopped from breeding different ideas.
Sometimes this seems a bit like the eugenics movement of the late 1800s. The best people should do the deciding: that means politicians and the Arts; elite; the rest of us are the ones who should be stopped from breeding different ideas.
Geoff Norcott does a great Starmer impersonation.
Geoff Norcott does a great Starmer impersonation.