The waiting is over. Anneliese Dodds has been named as minister of state for women and equalities, and will attend cabinet as part of her role. Meanwhile, Bridget Phillipson will be the official minister, tied into her Secretary of State for Education brief.
It’s not the courageous change that some were hoping for: Dodds was equalities shadow to Kemi Badenoch in the previous parliament.
But let’s hope now she’s taken up the role that Dodds has worked out what a woman is, and her vision for equalities is – as Badenoch pointed out at the despatch box – ‘a shield and not a sword’. Then this government might get somewhere. Otherwise the omens are not good.
In a futile attempt to be all things to all people, the Labour party has tied itself in knots in recent years over the concept of ‘man’ and ‘woman’. During her time in opposition, Dodds was asked by BBC Woman’s Hour for Labour’s definition of the word ‘woman’. She floundered:
‘Well, I have to say that there are different definitions legally around what a woman actually is. I mean, you look at the definition within the Equality Act, and I think it just says someone who is adult and female, I think, but then doesn’t say how you define either of those things. I mean obviously, that’s when you’ve got the biological definition, legal definition all kinds of things…’
Anneliese Dodds
When pressed, Dodds added, ‘I think it does depend what the context is surely.’ Total confusion, but that’s what happens when politicians abandon sense and reason, and deny human nature in a foolish quest to try and reengineer human society.
The truth is that everyone knows the difference between men and women. Distinguishing between the sexes is an evolved instinct that we share with other species, and we were doing it long before anybody knew anything about chromosomes and genetics.
Dodds needs to wise up to these basic truths fast now that she is sitting round the cabinet table. Attempts by Labour to reject fundamental human instinct as outdated will lead inevitably to absurdities and tragedies. We saw it in Scotland when Isla Bryson – a male rapist – was detained at Cornton Vale women’s prison days after Nicola Sturgeon had forced her doomed Gender Recognition Reform Bill through Holyrood.
Two of Labour’s manifesto pledges suggest the party has learned little from that fiasco. The party has committed to ‘modernise, simplify, and reform the intrusive and outdated gender recognition law’, and ‘deliver a full trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices’. In plainer language, that means the party will divest the GRA of essential safeguards – a second opinion and the panel that checks applications comply with the law – and send a chilling warning to therapists, church ministers, teachers and parents who might be tempted to counsel children distressed about their sex after watching too many TikTok videos.
Now she is in government, Dodds is responsible for delivering sound legislation that can be everybody’s shield and nobody’s sword. It will be a tough ask for anyone amid the febrile dispute between transgender activists and gender critical campaigners. Was it too much for Bridget Phillipson? Women and Equalities sits within the Department for Education, and since Friday’s flurry of appointments, that is now Phillipson’s patch. Indeed her full title is, ‘Secretary of State for Education and Minister for Women and Equalities’.
It was Dodds’ name that was heralded this morning, though, and she can report directly to cabinet. Is she up to the job? At this stage, actions speak louder than words. Will she meet with all interested parties, despite the howls of outrage that might ensue? Before the election her meeting with LGB Alliance provoked an ‘incredibly disappointed’ response from LGBT+ Labour.
Dodds needs to find the courage to ignore future attempts by entitled caucuses to control her diary, and she needs to avoid them controlling her thinking. She knows the difference between men and women in the same way that everybody else knows it really, but will she be able to put that instinct at the heart of equalities legislation? The time for obfuscation and ‘it depends’ is over. If she does see sense it will upset the LGBTQ+ lobby (who, let’s face it, are never satisfied) but she might leave a legacy that endures.
Debbie Hayton is a teacher and journalist.
Her book, Transsexual Apostate – My Journey Back to Reality is published by Forum
* This article was first published by The Spectator on 8 July 2024: Will Anneliese Dodds finally see sense on trans rights?
Debbie Hayton 
6 replies on “Will Anneliese Dodds finally see sense on trans rights?”
“She knows the difference between men and women in the same way that everybody else knows it really …”
When you say that, do you mean our instinctive ability to distinguish male from female? If so, that may not be clear enough, especially since a trans person who passes well can confuse our instincts. For legal purposes, I think that a woman is “a person with a female reproductive system”.
To everyone else, let me reiterate that Debbie’s book Transsexual Apostate is a very good read. Debbie’s point of view on this issue is the right one. She breaks down all the issues clearly, in a logical way. If all trans people had Debbie’s attitude, society would not be debating the trans issue.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree in that the word woman **ought** to mean “a person with a female reproductive system”. But what do people actually mean when they use the word? That is a crucial question, as I discussed in chapter 5 of my book. (And thank you for your kind words about it).
LikeLike
Actually, I’m not sure what you mean by “ought”. Are you saying that a woman is anyone that our instincts tell us is a woman, such as trans woman who pass well? I understand that such a definition has its logic. When I say that a woman is a person with a female reproductive system, I am thinking scientifically and not socially. Socially, if a trans woman who passes well uses the rest room, I don’t see any problem. However, in other areas — such as women’s sports — the scientific definition needs to prevail.
I sent you a personal note about your book. If you didn’t get it, let me know. You don’t need to answer it if you don’t want to, or if you are busy. I’m mentioning it only because emails in general are less reliable than they used to be (because of constant spam filtering).
LikeLike
I think the word woman ought to mean ‘adult human female’. But that is not what people mean when they use the word ‘woman’. They are referring to someone who their instincts tell them is a woman. This has always been the case (probably since we first developed speech as a means of communication thousands of years ago), and it’s why we keep running into problems with policy. Any policy that denies human instinct is going to be difficult to apply,
In my book I take the rather simpler issue of the word ‘yellow’. I know what it means. There are yellow images on my computer monitor as I write this. But as a scientist I know those images are really made up of green and red light. A policy that requires human beings to refer to that light as red-green and not yellow is not going to work very well. It looks yellow, and I will call it yellow. Indeed because the red-green light affects the red & green cones in my eyes in exactly the same way as yellow light affects them, my brain cannot distinguish them just by looking. To my human senses they are the same. However, if I want to release photoelectrons from a surface, then it really does matter whether the light is yellow (560 nm wavelength) or a mixture of red and green so I need to investigate the light with a diffraction grating before I use it. I think there is an analogy there with women’s sports.
Please could you re-send the email and I will look out for it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m re-reading chapter 5 now. There is stuff in that chapter that didn’t stick in my mind.
LikeLiked by 1 person
[…] Debbie Hayton, the transphobes’ favourite tranny says: […]
LikeLike