Caroline ffiske was a Conservative Councillor for Eight Years. Published on 25 March 2021.

Conservative MP, Caroline Nokes, has given an interview to the New Statesman. In it she reveals a remarkable lack of intellectual seriousness over the gender ideology debate and its implications for women's rights. Nokes is Chair of the Women and Equalities Select Committee; which is currently undertaking an enquiry into proposed reform of the Gender Recognition Act. It's a serious role, and a large number of women, and women's groups, have put enormous thought and energy into making submissions to the process. We are expecting these submissions to be taken seriously. Nokes' approach to the subject appears shallow. 

On the erosion of language relating to women, the New Statesman article quotes Nokes:

"... instead of focusing on what we can do practically to help, the Tory party is engaged in internecine warfare as to whether you should refer to pregnant people as mothers, or women, or pregnant people. And notwithstanding the fact that government legislation for the last ten odd years has all been drafted in gender-neutral terms, we’re now going to have a massive row about whether we have to call mothers ‘mothers’"

It is good to know where Nokes stands: she regards women's concerns over the erosion of female-specific language as a sideshow. She seems oblivious to the argument that it is not the role of the State to bulldoze through changes to how we use language. Then there is the underlying attack on science. Only women become pregnant. Only women are mothers. It would have been fantastic to hear Nokes actually be serious about this issue. How does she justify her position? Does she genuinely regard it as a legitimate role for the State to bulldoze through language changes? Does she not see a totalitarian edge to that? How would she set limits? Where is her respect for freedom? For tradition? For women's right to craft their own language? We long for a more intellectually rigorous and thoughtful position from Nokes.

Then, a phrase that leaves you hoping that the journalist has simply done a hatchet job on Nokes. "We’re going to get hung up on things like the Tavistock clinic." This is the Tavistock Clinic where gender-dysphoric children were, till recently, treated with experimental drugs that left them sterile and without adult sexual function. The Tavistock, which the Care Quality Commission rated as inadequate. Three snapshots from the CQC report: 

• "Staff had not consistently recorded the competency, capacity and consent of patients referred for medical treatment before January 2020".
• "Staff did not develop all-inclusive care plans for young people."
• "Staff did not fully record the reasons for their clinical decisions in case notes."

Medical outcomes? With the right care, 85% of young people with gender dysphoria desist from seeking a change in gender identity. But here is the Tavistock's full study of 44 children aged 12-15 who were given puberty blockers. Results: Height stunted, bone mass density impaired, no improvement in psychological function, no alleviation of gender dysphoria, all but one progressed to cross-sex hormones... Some real-world words from transitioners: here is a 24 year old woman, who, due to 'trans' medication has the bone density of an elderly woman. ('I have a fracture in the middle of my back that won't heal'.) Regrets? Here is a young woman who regrets her transition every day, with all her heart. 

But Nokes does not want us to get 'hung up'. Let us hope that the journalist was being unfair.

Now the subject of gender ideology, male violence, and the implications for women. Nokes: "Everybody the whole time wants to drag it back to sort of the lowest common denominator and to wheel out, you know, the one example they can find of a trans woman who’s attacked someone." Caroline - isn't it the case, that each 'one example' matters? For example, this one example matters. Again we long for more rigour from Nokes. Is her policy position that this male rapist should be housed in a women's prison? Is that her idea of 'being kinder'? How is it kind to female prisoners? In the last decade, there have been seven sex attacks in women's prisons by transgender inmates. I wonder where the threshold would lie for Nokes to take this issue seriously.

Nokes's response to gender critical feminists: ‘You know what, I just don’t agree with you.’ That seems to be the quality of the analysis. Again it would be good to know where Nokes really stands. Does she support full sex self-ID? Does she support biological males being given open access to women's safe spaces if they 'self-identify' as female? How would she address concerns about women's safety, privacy, dignity? Does she support men being allowed to self-ID into women's hospital wards? Does she believe that trans-identifying males should be able to provide intimate health services to women? Does she believe that biological males should be able to compete in women's sports? If sexed language must be removed from law, would she also argue that it should be removed from life? Who benefits? How does she justify all this, knowing that sex is biological and immutable? That sex matters? 

Most of all, I wonder where she sees the benefits for women? ConservativesforWomen would be delighted to debate these issues with Caroline Nokes.