I am going to start with the International Development part of Anneliese’s new role. She either already knows, or will soon learn the difference between men and women in this role.
I was lucky enough, many years ago to work for a major international development charity. I remember working on a campaign aimed at getting more girls into school in the developing world. There exists a large disparity in most developing countries in the number of girls in school compared to boys. This matters and it is part of a wider picture.
There are widespread pre-natal terminations of female foetuses.
There is some infanticide of female children.
In many areas, menstrual huts still exist where women and girls are excluded and secluded from the rest of the society for 4-5 days every month.
These are horrific abuses of womens’ humans rights which need to be addressed, partially through the good use of the UK’s international development budget.
Research has shown that directing aid money and resources towards women (similar to child benefit in the UK nearly always being paid to the mother), brings better results for children, and for the whole of society.
Micro-financing loans or grants have helped many women gain a level of financial independence running businesses like small farms, creating and selling local crafts to tourists, and running social projects like schools, health centres and childcare clubs.
Peri-natal maternal health remains a severe problem in the developing world, as does child health.
It is clearly better to channel aid resources to the (mostly) women who will provide services like this. This is almost always preferable to resources going to the (mostly) men who may build large presidential palaces, buy arms, steal or embezzle aid money or goods and the many other priorities which go against the overarching truth which we know, and have known for years. The best path to development is to have healthy (living) women and children, in a society where women have more say over both their own lives, and community and national decision making.
There is also the issue of grass roots health and social projects, compared to large infrastructure like road, rail or hydroelectric dam projects which have never been shown, on the whole, to be particularly effective in alleviating poverty. However, western companies usually get the lucrative contracts to build these, so that might have something to do with it. These projects are also mostly led by men.
The sex of people in the developing world is hugely important. It is impossible to effectively tackle the problems without clearly knowing which people are men, and which are women.
Anneliese should listen to the aid agencies on this and use their expertise to design and deliver projects which aid international development by helping women to help themselves.
Of course, as with all third-sector organisations, on all issues, Government ministers should not just listen and take their word on everything. Healthy scepticism and critical thinking is also important.
In terms of development, the large aid agencies do know the difference between men and women, and why it matters. And when they sent aid workers to areas ravaged by poverty and natural disaster, some of those workers showed that they clearly did know who the women were, when they raped them.
So, no, charities are not always saints to be trusted on everything and shouldn’t be treated as such.
Women and Equalities.
There are many others, which would take a separate essay and more expertise than I have to comment on race, religion, disability etc.
Sex of course is the one which I have written and thought most about, and which is most likely the reason you are reading this.
I’m sure I don’t need to spell out the parallels between the international development and the womens’ role that Anneliese now holds. In a nutshell…
Listen to the evidence, science and research.
Don’t blindly trust charities and lobbyists.
Know the difference between men and women, and where and why it matters.
I am not at all confident that Anneliese will do this, and here’s one example of why…
Earlier this year Anneliese took a meeting with the LGB Alliance. A good step forward we might think, except I have a nagging suspicion that she was forced into it and treated it like a teenager being kept behind at school in detention.
I imagine her sitting at the back of the room, leaning back on two legs of her chair, against the wall, feet on the desk in front, and sullenly staring out of the window, pouting at the injustice of it all.
It must have been this because I have see no evidence that she listened to a single word the LGB Alliance would have said to her.
The meeting was announced, and the usual suspects threw all of their toys out of their prams, accusing Anneliese of meeting with a bigoted hate group.
What was Anneliese’s reaction? It was a sort of mea culpa, “I’m so sorry” apology to the trans activists. Within days she (again!) repeated her pledge that Labour would introduce a comprehensive, trans-inclusive ban on all forms of conversion therapy. This is a policy so full of holes, and which has been judged as either impossible, or very damaging to young people by the Cass Report.
But Anneliese repeated it again. It was like the sullen teenager, having been released from the detention, swing her bag over her shoulder and turning to give a two-finger salute to the adults, then going back to the playground to join her mates, the other children.
And that’s just what it is, the whole trans rights campaign. It’s not serious (but has had serious implications), it’s basically a teenage strop, but being done by adults in positions of power.
It’s not a sensible programme for government. I know it’s only been a few days, but so many in the Labour Party need, very quickly, to learn the difference between grandstanding and sloganeering in opposition, and sensibly governing our country for all of the people.
Anneliese in particular needs to start to get this.
I did hope that, after the pressure of the election, sensible heads in the Labour Party would start to move further than they have already to distance themselves from, and then wholly reject the extreme demands of trans activism.
This appointment, by Sir Keir, looks very much like that two-fingered salute, to women, to lesbians and gay men, to ‘trans widows’, to detransitioners, to the parents of gender confused teenagers, to Rosie Duffield and JK, and so many others.
I’m a Labour member and supporter and I want my party to govern well and be re-elected. I really do not want to see the same fate befall Sir Keir and my party, as it did Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP over this issue.
I don’t know where to go from here, apart from to keep speaking up, keep putting the case, keep supporting other individuals and groups who do likewise, and just keep on keeping on. The alternative is just to give up, and that doesn’t bear thinking about.