It has been very interesting to see UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak (father of two daughters and no sons) and members of his cabinet such as Suella Braverman and Kemi Badenoch, begin to exhibit an amazing amount of common sense in our time. And that is quite an accolade, because common sense has been as rare as hen's teeth in our day.
The latest round of common sense came after an interesting kerfuffle, where the opposition leader, Labour's Keir Starmer, announced that "99.9%" of women do not have a penis. UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak then declared that "100%" of women do not have a penis. That's quite a shot across the bow these days!
But Sunak has gone much further now. He has tackled the issue of gender identity in schools in a very forthright manner. In school, sports will be separate on the basis of sex. Fortunately, this is still legal in the UK, as "The rule will not be in breach of the Equality Act because there are exemptions for competitive sport and schools are allowed to provide same-sex services if 'objectively justifiable'." This does not preclude mixed-sex sports, such as tennis, but where competition involves issues of safety and fairness, single-sex sports will be the rule.
Second, locker rooms and restrooms will be separated by sex, and alternative facilities will be provided for those who do not wish to use these single-sex space.
Third, schools will be required to tell parents if their child has told the school they wish to change gender, want to be referred to by different pronouns, or are choosing to wear the uniform of the other sex.
Last but not least, single-sex schools can continue to exist, meaning that, "Single-sex schools can refuse to admit pupils of the other legal sex regardless of whether the child is questioning their gender."
I'm just struck by how simple this all is. Where the materiality of sex matters in the school experience, it will matter. Schools will not keep secrets from parents about their children. How hard, really, is any of this? And yet here in the States there would be weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth about any such common-sensical proposal.
And yet surely this is the needed compromise for schools, is it not? Alternative facilities for those who wish them, but single-sex spaces and sports for the rest.
And this is the same principle that should be applied to prisons and domestic violence shelters in the world of adults. Alternative facilities for those who wish them, but single-sex spaces for the rest.
Carol Horton has asked whether common sense has been given a backseat to "kindness" in an example of toxic femininity, and I think it's a question well worth asking. Here is what she has to say:
"As turnabout is fair play, it’s reasonable to describe this [new] culture as imbued with a certain strain of “toxic femininity.” The old free speech culture (which, again, used to be part of the liberal left) that valorized open, rational, and often fierce debate over contested political issues has been rejected as harmful and even dangerous. In the name of being kind, caring, and sensitive to the most vulnerable — all traditionally “feminine” traits — progressives are expected to refrain from asking even the most basic, obvious, and logical questions about all sorts of highly consequential issues (e.g., the real-world consequences of denying the reality of biological sex in sports, prisons, and domestic violence shelters.) . . . Of course, if you’re not up to the task of policing your own thoughts properly, your friendly enforcers of snitch culture are ready, willing, and able to do it for you. For the good of all, both the volunteer and professional enforcers of right-think stand ready to “call out” those who stray and make sure they’re held properly “accountable” for any ostensible “harms.” The well-known fact that such disciplining is unpredictable, erratic, and arbitrary creates a tremendous incentive for those subject to such surveillance to enroll in yet another “training” to try and remain safely aligned with the ever-shifting “right side of history.”
"Such dynamics can be described as “toxically feminine” in that they take what are in fact extremely important and much-needed traditionally feminine values — kindness, sensitivity, caring, and so on — and twists them into something that’s quite the opposite. Any sensibility that regularly pressures people to conform unquestioningly to its dictates and rigorously practice self-censorship isn’t kind at all. On the contrary, it’s deeply unfeeling and even cruel. By the same token, a culture that promotes and rewards surveilling, reporting, prosecuting, convicting, and punishing others with no rules in place designed to protect freedom and preserve fairness is anything but caring. No. In reality, it’s deceitful, dangerous, and morally disgusting."
Amen to that! Sometimes in my more jaded moments, I simplistically conclude that men are morally depraved and women are moral idiots. Men and women each jettison what is right, but tend to do so for very different reasons. Men do it out of self-interest; women do it out of other-interest. But both are equally off the straight and narrow path. I doubt there will be many such men who will be surprised to face an ignominious homecoming when they return Home; on the other hand, I imagine there will be many such women who will be very surprised to find that Heaven is not happy that they surrendered their moral compass in order to "be kind."
But let's not be jaded tonight; rather, let us celebrate the common sense of UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and his government! Bravo!