gender

PC 439 A Global Contentious Issue

~ postcardscribblesblog ~ 1 Comment

In January I posted a card entitled ‘Contentious Issues in the UK’ (PC 420) as a focus to the New Year. I should have added something about the definition of a woman, as events have defined this also as ‘contentious’. After years of acrimonious debate about the ins and out of changing sex, from man to woman, from woman to man, and for those who would prefer to stay somewhere in between, some LBGT pressure groups were, in my opinion, demanding unhealthy, skewed and biased changes to societal rules.

I left the world of paid work some time ago, so this issue is one I read about, care about, but have no real experience of. I read that everyone was being forced to declare themselves I/me/moi/my etc ….. or else! Thankfully the pendulum has swung back from its extreme position. Those who wish to identify in a certain way, by certain criteria, should be allowed to do so. But it’s rubbish to assume that if you don’t declare your pronouns for yourself, you’re somehow against the whole idea. Sadly the polarisation of any topic, any issue seems to be a feature of the current times and that shuts down reasonable debate and acceptance of opposing views.

Britain has a tolerant attitude, in the main, to diversity, but it seems that, anxious to be tolerant, accepting, we allowed pressure groups like Stonewall to bulldoze their way through and into government departments’ policies, dictating their slightly skewed agenda. The threat to individuals was that if they didn’t sign up to the propaganda they would be cancelled. We have enough bullies at the moment. It really was a clear example of the tail wagging the dog (see PC 421 Not The Way to Go January 2025)

It’s not the end of the debate for sure, but on 15th April 2025 the UK’s Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a woman is defined by biological sex under equalities law. Chris Mason, the BBC’s Political Editor, headlined it as one of the most contentious issues for 2025. It’s worth just quoting one of those who got the case heard: “For years, a lot of us have felt just completely gaslit. That the truth is no longer the truth, that women cannot speak up. That we should allow anyone who wants to be in our sporting categories, our bathrooms, our hospital wards, our lesbian dating sites, that we should just allow anyone that wants to, to just come in. We’ve been told that we’re cruel and unkind, transphobic, discriminatory, that we’re breaking the law. All these things are completely untrue.”

In late April, the European Court of Human Rights (EHRC) released an update on the practical implications of the Supreme Court’s clarification, saying that in places such as hospitals, shops and restaurants, “trans women (biological men) should not be permitted to use the women’s facilities”. It is now compulsory for workplaces to provide sufficient single-sex lavatories, as well as single-sex changing and washing facilities where needed. The EHRC added that “where possible, mixed-sex toilet, washing or changing facilities” should also be offered. (Note 1)

So now local councils will have to provide ‘safe’ places, changing rooms, loos etc for the transgender community. Let’s just put this in perspective. In England and Wales 0.5% of the population, some 262,000, have a gender identity that is different from the one they were assigned at birth. And we have allowed individuals, under pressure from Stonewall, to self-identify, the idea that they are the sole authority to determine their sex, regardless of biology.  Compare their needs with those who have some form of long-term illness, impairment or disability. Shockingly, almost a quarter of the UK’s working-age population meet this criteria. It’s also shocking that 45% of those of pensionable age fit this group. There are estimated to be 1.2 million wheelchair users, who are often unable to travel due to poor wheelchair access. So when councils are asked to allocate dwindling financial resources, surely those with the greater need, the majority, come first?  Of course, in an ideal world everyone would be accommodated but it’s unlikely there will ever be an ideal world!

Even among jubilant women’s rights campaigners, there is a feeling that this is just the beginning. They want to challenge the institutions where they believe gender ideology — and specifically self-ID, the idea that an individual has the sole authority to determine their sex, regardless of biology — has taken root.

Kate Barker, the chief executive of the LGB Alliance, which made a submission to the Supreme Court about the importance for lesbians of the primacy of biological sex, argues this anger is misplaced:

“Why are they so mad at women for protecting our spaces and at gay people for protecting our rights [to same-sex relationships] and not mad at the people who have fed them duff legal advice for the past ten years?” Barker asked. “Stonewall and all those groups have spent ten years pushing the idea of self-ID, saying that it might not have quite been the law but it was practically the law. And institutions — particularly places like the BBC — were captured by Stonewall.”

So common sense will need to be applied to this judgment. Organisations will have to try to accommodate the trans community in whatever way they can, in a climate of stretched financial resources. Already many sports governing bodies have said that trans women will not be able to compete in women’s only events; surely common sense?  

We don’t live in an ideal world and the silent majority need their voice heard; not drowned out by a vocal minority.

Richard 16th May 2025

Hove

www.postcardscribbles.co.uk

Note 1 On 2nd May Stonewall posted this: ‘It’s important to remember that the ruling is not law as of yet and organisations should wait to see how statutory guidance is changed before making policy changes.” Actually the Supreme Court’s judgement is exactly that, legal clarity as to how a woman is defined and Stonewall’s advice is encouraging organisations to act unlawfully!

PC 434 Sods and Odds (continued backwards)

~ postcardscribblesblog ~ Leave a comment

My regular readers will have seen my postcards about young men, PCs 352 (About Men) and 354 (More About Men), reflecting on Caitlin Moran’s most recent book ‘What About Men’. These are hugely important issues, the development of teenagers into fully functioning adults; I have three grandsons so have an acute interest in what has influenced them already and what might in the near future. Those scribbles were eighteen months ago and today the subject has become a hot topic, in the aftermath of the first screening of the Netflix film Adolescence. The overview states: “A family’s world is turned upside down when 13-year-old Jamie Miller is arrested for murdering a schoolmate. The charges against their son force them to confront every parent’s worst nightmare.” It stars Owen Cooper as Jamie Miller, Stephen Graham as his father Eddie, Christine Tremarco as his mother Manda and Amélie Pease as his sister Lisa.

We watched all four episodes on Netflix here in Barra da Tijuca, although both Celina and I struggled with Tremarco’s strong Liverpudlian accent, often unable to understand what she had said. I am familiar with the issues that form the core of the drama; social media obsession, uncertainty about male/female relationships, influencers like Andrew Tate, parental abrogation of their crucial role in the development of their children, to name but a few. Of these ‘influencers’, Sir Gareth Southgate, the former football manager of England, has this to say: “There is a lack of role models and father figures at home and into this void step the callous, manipulative and toxic influencers. They trick young men into believing that success is measured by money or dominance, never to show emotion, and that the world and women are against them.”

The old model of an ideal family consisted of two parents and two children – the ‘nuclear’ family. Recent statistics highlight one of today’s problems; in the group classed as ‘long term unemployed’, 60% of the households with children are headed by a single mother. The centre for Social Justice says: ‘boys are now far more likely to have a smartphone in their pocket than a father at home.’

Today we sadly read a lot about Andrew Tait; writing his name makes me grimace, such is the revulsion I feel for this individual. I read somewhere that back in 2019 there was another ‘Andrew Tait’, a ‘Canadian professor, called Jordan Peterson, who was capturing the attention of young men and boys. A generation of young men who were desperate for structure and guidance read his books or watched his You Tube lectures. Research carried out in May of 2020 by the anti-extremist charity ‘Hope not Hate’ found that two in five young British men had read, watched or listened to something by Peterson.’

Beyond the basics of personal responsibility, Peterson’s message about women’s place in society was an extreme one, particularly dangerous to underdeveloped minds. He clearly had a misogynistic view of women, even suggesting that feminists had an ‘unconscious wish for brutal male domination’. Nice huh? Well, he would think that, given he also claimed that women wearing make-up to the office was “sexually provocative”. His audience soaked up the bullshit like a sponge does liquid.

Before some more scribbles about the male/female interface, a little light relief. Sometimes on my FaceBook account a poem pops up, like this one, familiar from way back. Written by Leo Marks in 1943 in memory of his girlfriend who had just been killed in a plane crash in Canada, it was used as a ‘code poem’ in the Second World War:

“The Life that I have, is all that I have, and the life that I have is yours.

The love that I have, of the life that, I have is yours and yours and yours

A sleep I shall have, a rest I shall have, yet death will be but a pause

For the peace of my years, in the long green grass, will be yours and yours and yours.”

In the middle of March The Times published an obituary of Alison Halford, the first policewoman to be appointed an Assistant Chief Constable, in her case to Liverpool Constabulary in 1983. Seven years later, at the Employment Tribunal into her sacking, her evidence ‘lifted the lid on Merseyside police’s canteen culture of hard drinking, strong language and cut-throat promotion politics’. “There appears to be a strong but covert resentment or mistrust of the competence of a woman who can get to the heart of a problem, shows creativity and innovation and manages to acquire a reputation for getting things done.”

From the standpoint of 2025 it was a fascinating exposé of the misogynistic and laddish culture found in England’s police forces in the 1960s and 1970s; I suspect Merseyside was typical. It was sad reading but what really shocked me was Alison Halford’s recollection of the initial interview process when she applied to join the force. Apparently after ‘eye, hearing and intelligence tests, the female rookies were paraded in front of senior officers and ordered to remove their upper clothing, including their bras, and answer questions.’ If it is true, as it sounds so outrageous it questions whether it was made-up to colour her autobiography, ‘No Way Up The Greasy Pole’ (1993), how no one suggested this was appalling speaks volumes about that organisation at that time. Thank God we have grown up …. a little!

During my career as an executive leadership coach one of my client organisations was Surrey Constabulary, headquartered in Guildford; today it has over 2000 police officers. I WhatsApp’d Mark, a senior officer I had worked with 1999-2000, what he thought of Alison Halford. 

          “Halford was actually the first of many senior officers of both sexes in the 1980s, who thankfully became whistleblowers on everything from the taking of bribes, turning a blind eye or stopping cases to drink driving. The 1990s were probably some of the best years for the British police service and I was so fortunate to experience them. She made a huge difference and started a much-needed positive change. I never met her but hope that I was one of the huge number of cops who admired her, carrying forward what she started – fairness, the search for the truth and serving the public with integrity and honesty. God rest her soul. Take care my friend. Mark”


Enough said!

Richard 12th April 2025

Barra da Tijuca, Brazil

www.postcardscribbles.co.uk

PS Two days ago a French parliamentary commission found sexual violence and harassment towards girls and women endemic in their entertainment sector, suggesting ‘collective denial’.