Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has launched yet another attack at the trans community by saying that people “can’t be any sex they want to be.”
He made the remarks during his closing speech at the 2023 Conservative Party conference on Wednesday (4 October) afternoon.
At one point, Sunak said that people shouldn’t be “bullied into believing people can be any sex they want to be” as he made clear his stance on trans people.
“We are going to change this country and that means, life means life. That shouldn’t be a controversial position. The vast majority of hard-working people agree with it,” he began. “We shouldn’t get bullied into believing people can be any sex they want to be. They can’t,” – Rishi Sunak
“It also shouldn’t be controversial for parents to know what their children are learning in school about relationships.
“Patients should know when hospitals are talking about men or women,” which was met with a large applause.
He went on: “We shouldn’t get bullied into believing people can be any sex they want to be. They can’t.”
“A man, is a man, and a woman, is a woman, that is just common sense,” he added, to yet more noise from Tories in attendance.
Many on social media site X (formerly known as Twitter) reacted to the comments, accusing Sunak of making “persistent attacks” and labelling him “disgraceful”. “A man, is a man, and a woman, is a woman”
One wrote in response: “Trying to distract people from his government’s corruption and incompetence by attacking some of the most vulnerable people in society. Vile.”
Needlessly stirring up hatred where it is unjustified to make a cheap political dig, before going on to claim the country is wonderful because of its tolerance. Disgraceful excuse for a PM,” another went on to add.
Sunak can go and do one. Pandering to middle class transphobes isn’t the election winner you think it is,” someone else echoed.
“The persistent attacks on not only one of the smallest but most at risk communities is vile. Absolutely disgusting party through and through including anyone who supports them,” a social media user weighed in.
It comes after Health Secretary Steve Barclay outlined plans yesterday (3 October) to ban trans women from accessing female NHS wards.
This has since been backed by other senior Tories such as Home Secretary Suella Braverman.
LGBTQ+ charity Stonewall criticised the announcement, labelling it a “cynical attempt to look busy” instead of actually improving women’s healthcare.
Addressing party members in Manchester, Mr Barclay said: “We need a common-sense approach to sex and equality issues in the NHS – that is why today I am announcing proposals for clearer rights for patients.
“And I can today confirm that sex-specific language has now been fully restored to online health advice pages about cervical and ovarian cancer and the menopause.
“It is vital that women’s voices are heard in the NHS and the privacy, dignity and safety of all patients are protected.”
The post Rishi Sunak says people ‘can’t be any sex they want to be’ in new swipe at trans community appeared first on Attitude.
A couple points to get you started:
Thanks for the reply. I'm going to pick out a couple of specific points to check my understanding.
Are you referring here to individuals who have undergone hormonal replacement therapy? If so, yes, that I totally understand and hadn't considered.
Okay, so in very simple terms, we're saying that biologically, man and woman isn't such a clear distinction, for a very simple example, some men have much higher levels of testosterone, etc.? If so, I can understand that too. But, I suppose it is the actual biological parts that are different, which I was thinking about.
So, if somebody with born as 'female' body parts undergoes hormonal and sex changing therapy, their reason for being in a hospital is probably more important than the sex they were assigned at birth, and so they should be able to choose the best option for them?
Am I right in thinking the main issues is that we have created a society in which sex and gender were separated and defined so distinctly, that for transexual individuals, there just is no 'correct' option available to them?
one thing i think is important to recognize is that, while gender is socially constructed, so is sex to some extent. we have a number of features we generally say are "male" or "female" characteristics, including genitalia, but keep in mind that there are around 1-2% of the population that are born intersex. the way we determine sex assigned at birth is almost always through an inspection of genitalia, but for some people that isn't conclusive.
in a lot of places, doctors will attempt "fix" these natural variations, deciding for the child which category they belong in. there is enough variation from "male" and "female" characteristics, and enough people with traits from both categories, that the categories themselves can't really be said to have a purely biological origin, even if statistically they are highly correlated.
that's very much part of the problem. lots of trans people really don't fit neatly into the boxes doctors currently expect of them, especially once they've gone on hormones, and sharply delineating sex categories like doctors do measurably leads to less positive health outcomes for trans people. the intersex population is also affected by this kind of marginalization.
the reality is that the health of a person has a lot more to do with their specific traits than it does with the collection of traits a sex category expects them to have, which is in reality composed of a cluster of related physical, cognitive, and social traits that can vary independently of one another, and affect our health in specific ways. assuming any of these traits are one way simply because of how somebody's genitals are supposed to be is almost always going to be more wrong than just allowing people to describe and denote their personal experience as they see fit. checking M or F on a box is, unfortunately, not really the same as just saying you have a penis or a vagina. it implies a lot more than that, even if your personal experience does not align with that implication.
I feel much better informed on the issue now. Thanks.
Good explanation!