Talk

Advanced search

UK govt. has delayed consultation on the GRA

(65 Posts)
morningrunner Tue 14-Nov-17 07:41:15

According to the Sunday Times. I'm not a subcsriber. Did anyone see the article? What was the gist of it? Apparently it had a quote from Caroline Flint warning of unintended consequences.

Why have they have delayed it ? What does it mean ? Is it being shelved until the heat dies down a bit?

PencilsInSpace Tue 14-Nov-17 07:54:47

I've just seen it, it's here (can't do share tokens, sorry!)

I won't C&P the whole thing as it will get taken down, but it's mostly discussing the Scottish guidance for schools. Here's the relevant quote:

The new official guidance, quietly published last week, comes as it can be revealed that the UK government has delayed a consultation on controversial changes to the Gender Recognition Act. The reforms, which would allow anyone legally to change their gender by declaring they wished to do so, were to have been consulted on this autumn. However, sources close to the equalities minister, Justine Greening, said the consultation would not happen before December .

Ministers are increasingly conscious that the issue is a “can of worms”, one source said, with questions growing from both Conservative and Labour MPs. Transgender campaigners say the change is needed to remove the “stigmatising” requirement that those wishing to transition officially must have a doctor’s diagnosis of gender dysphoria. Feminists say it will endanger women if biological men can access on demand women’s spaces such as changing rooms.

Caroline Flint, the former Labour minister, said: “I feel quite sad that the debate has ended up in this very adversarial manner. We need to open it up . . . There’s a real danger that if we don’t have these discussions, we will end up with unintended consequences.”

Datun Tue 14-Nov-17 08:15:26

Can of worms ? “There’s a real danger that if we don’t have these discussions, we will end up with unintended consequences.”

Well DUH!!!!!

I’m sorry, but this infuriates me.

It’s like saying I stuck my hand in the fire and now it’s all burnt. The consequence of sticking my hand in the fire was completely unintended.

These people know about crime rates, they know about predation, they know about male violence they know prisons are bursting, they know about paedophile rings.

How could they NOT envisage the consequences of this change to the law? It’s like they are some kind of happy clappy band of innocents surrounded by kittens and puppies.

AssignedPerfectAtBirth Tue 14-Nov-17 08:22:59

Good. I think we are starting to be heard. Keep going everyone and don't give up.

Datun I honestly believe that many of them thought that it would be an easy, pat on the back, this is not Brexit piece of legislation that noone but a few "So called feminists" would object to. They got that one wrong, on both sides of the political divide

I did think that Caroline Flint was more sympathetic to the gender critical view. Disappointed with her.

morningrunner Tue 14-Nov-17 08:26:41

Thanks Pencils

Any idea what it means? I hope it means they they really are having second thoughts. I fear it means that they are simply consulting with Gendered Intellegence and Stonewall about how to railroad any opposition

Datun Tue 14-Nov-17 08:29:09

AssignedPerfectAtBirth

How could they? How does that thought process work?

You are cementing legislation that says any man can identify as female and access women’s spaces.

It only works if you think there isn’t a man in the country who would have an ulterior emotive. Or hardly any men.

I wonder if it’s something to do with the fact that have realised that predators would not have to actually wear a dress? Or make any kind of effort.

It’s still naive in the extreme, since predators go out of their way to predate. But I can’t think of any other way for that thought process to have worked.

Datun Tue 14-Nov-17 08:30:33

Any idea what it means? I hope it means they they really are having second thoughts.

I would be willing to bet they are trying to work out who they can piss off the least.

Because there is no way to satisfy the trans lobby and keep women spaces private.

They know that now.

BelaLugosisShed Tue 14-Nov-17 08:35:29

Jess Phillips MP has agreed publicly that the demands of Womans place UK are 'reasonable and not hard to meet' . Hopefully more MPs will follow.
I'm hugely disappointed on Sarah Champion's stance though, how can someone who worked so hard to protect women and girls not see whats going on?

EmpressOfTheSpartacusOceans Tue 14-Nov-17 08:35:48

Hopefully this will work.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/teachers-told-to-let-pupils-switch-gender-without-parents-consent-f3pdfg9hx?shareToken=5f9d6534994cc6f480b086a73d4f6762

Thelilywhite Tue 14-Nov-17 08:43:53

I fear it means that they are simply consulting with Gendered Intelligence and Stonewall about how to railroad any opposition
Thats my worry too morning runner But I am really hoping this is good news

QuentinSummers Tue 14-Nov-17 08:51:48

That is terrifying. Schools being told to tell children to keep quiet about concerns (because of policy on inclusion); not to tell parents if their children are confused aboyt gender; not to tell parents if their children are sharing a room with trans students on school trips.
This makes me so cross. Women and girls are socialised into keeping quiet when their boundaries are violated, into questioning whether they have been violated. So many sex offenders and abusive men have relied on this. Over the past couple of decades things have changed but now we are back to teaching girls to ignore it if their boundaries are violated. And worse, putting barriers in place to prevent parents from protecting them. I am so angry about this.

Thelilywhite Tue 14-Nov-17 08:56:24

Re GIRES and Stonewall from whom the government have taken /are taking 'advice' is there any way we can highlight the unscientific nature of their assertions (about transing , gender, trans suicides and so on) publicly without setting ourselves up for abuse ? Just musing really .. this is such a serious issue I wonder if it is realized that legislation is being based on this ridiculous pseudo science

FloraFox Tue 14-Nov-17 09:12:08

This is good news. At least they are now recognising this is a can of worms and not just slam dunking it like Maria Miller seemed inclined to do. The Spectator had a lead article expressing concern about the ACT a few weeks ago and now the Times. Unfortunately given the current government and it's lack of stability, the mainstream Tory establishment is probably the best chance we have of resisting the Act. Jeremy Corbyn has said if the PM gives her party a free vote, Labour will win it for them. Hopefully the PM will not want to risk further destabilising her party with a split on this issue.

Gileswithachainsaw Tue 14-Nov-17 09:25:48

This can't be good can It?

What if it's just being done to make people think they are putting extra thought and discussion into it when they have no real intention of doing so.

Maybe just getting a nice Xmas out the way before the battle really starts?

AssignedPerfectAtBirth Tue 14-Nov-17 09:28:10

Datun
Not really understanding your post. I personally think that most of them think of this as 'the New Gay' and did not consider women at all, because women are so down the pecking order, even with some women.

I think the Left adopt it because thems the roolz and Teresa May latched onto anything that might shine a millisecond of light in the dark pit of Brexit

notafish Tue 14-Nov-17 09:36:57

thelilywhite Re your question about debunking the stats and false evidence used to influence governmental organisations I wonder whether Sense About Science would take up the challenge. senseaboutscience.org/

This is what they say on their website "Sense about Science is an independent campaigning charity that challenges the misrepresentation of science and evidence in public life. We advocate openness and honesty about research findings, and work to ensure the public interest in sound science and evidence is recognised in public discussion and policymaking."

I'm thinking particularly around the guidance that us being given to schools and parents from one-sided organisations. We know it's not evidence-based.

Datun Tue 14-Nov-17 09:39:18

AssignedPerfectAtBirth

Sorry my post isn’t clear.

My incredulity cannot stretch to assuming that they had given it so little thought.

The possibility that this law might be exploited HAS to have come up.

Indeed, we know that several people pointed this possibility out.

So they know it can be exploited. But they must have thought it wouldn’t be exploited enough to cause problems.

I agree with wanting to look progressive in the whole right on LGBT thing.

So they knew it might cause problems, but they felt that that was not a significant enough issue.

Now they realise it is. With their cans of worms and unintended consequences.

If you said to anyone we are changing the law so that there is no such thing as sex segregation, any person would have a ‘hang on, how does that work’ moment.

My question is how can they not have possibly catered for that? In terms of actually writing it into law. Actually writing down the words.

ShotsFired Tue 14-Nov-17 09:49:47

@Datun If you said to anyone we are changing the law so that there is no such thing as sex segregation, any person would have a ‘hang on, how does that work’ moment.

This. Yet on every thread I see on this, there are ALWAYS several people falling over themselves to say how pro trans they are and how everyone who says otherwise is phobic and bigoted. And then they themselves come out with the inevitable "...but..." - and there is always a line in the sand - whether that's mixed sex bedrooms on school trips, rape centres or changing rooms.

It's not a pick and mix Bill where the right-ons can say yes to it all except the one bit where even they agree it's a step too far. It's [currently] all or all ('nothing' is not currently an option with J Greening on her personal crusade to be achingly cool and down with the trans kids).

So thank god there is at least more time for us to continue pressuring our MPs for answers; and to make more people aware of what the cold, hard reality of this Bill could mean - which will be far beyond their line in the sand, even if they don't currently realise that.

DJBaggySmalls Tue 14-Nov-17 09:50:41

Datun
My question is how can they not have possibly catered for that? In terms of actually writing it into law. Actually writing down the words.

Exactly. this makes me even worried than I was yesterday, it just proves that the people who are responsible for making laws dont think about the potential consequences, they just react according to which way the wind's blowing.
Laws have to be specific enough to be meaningful, and vague enough to cover as many potential eventualities as possible. But the GRA is a no brainer. The only people it could possibly be suitable for is people who are intersex.

ShotsFired Tue 14-Nov-17 09:53:27

Caroline Flint, the former Labour minister, said: “I feel quite sad that the debate has ended up in this very adversarial manner. We need to open it up . . . There’s a real danger that if we don’t have these discussions, we will end up with unintended consequences.”

Come on Caroline, you are supposedly an intelligent woman.
Why don't you see if you can possibly work out why on earth this might have got "adversarial"*?

Is it because women just fancied protesting for shits and giggles? Did we get bored with sewing and cooking? Or maybe we really are, as an entire collective sex, just properly transphobic?

Or how about this. We are fighting to retain the very rights and protections you are seeking to remove from us to award to a minuscule percentage of damaging, dangerous squeaky wheels.

* I also question the use of the term "adversarial". It's self-bloody-defence, is what it is.

FactsAreNotMean Tue 14-Nov-17 09:54:36

I'm glad to see it's been pushed back BUT I reckon this is the point where we need to make a huge amount of noise to make sure that the risks continue being discussed - you can bet that Stonewall, Mermaids et al will be in full propaganda mode.

AssignedPerfectAtBirth Tue 14-Nov-17 09:54:54

Datun
'So they knew it might cause problems, but they felt that that was not a significant enough issue.'

No I agree and I can come to no other conclusion that they thought that women would just STFU and shove over. So, here, on twitter and on various websites where women have been speaking out, eloquently and forcefully, that we will not accept it. When I said over my cold dead body, I meant it. I WILL NEVER accept this legislation and if they want to throw me in jail so be it. I am furious that I have to put my energy into defending women's safety and freedom from groups of people, male and female, who threaten us, belittle our concerns, patronise us and justify violence against us all at the same time

I think there's a pile of politicians scratching their heads, thinking, uh duh what just happened? Fuckers

hackmum Tue 14-Nov-17 10:12:13

notafish: The problem with Sense about Science is that they're not independent at all - they're run by the cabal behind Spiked, a bunch of extreme libertarians who used to belong to the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP).

Having said that, Spiked is one of the few media organisations to speak out clearly against transactivism, so perhaps we should take our allies where we can find them.

I've also been meaning to email More or Less for a while, as they are very good at unpacking false statistics, but haven't got round to it yet. Maybe we all ought to do it.

SelmaAndJubjub Tue 14-Nov-17 10:12:20

Caroline Flint, the former Labour minister, said: “I feel quite sad that the debate has ended up in this very adversarial manner. We need to open it up . . . There’s a real danger that if we don’t have these discussions, we will end up with unintended consequences.

Can we please not slag off Caroline Flint? She was just about the only MP with the guts to express concerns about Maria Miller's proposals before the recent glasnost in the media. She was pro-women when every other MP was ignoring our concerns. She took a huge amount of abuse, with people trying to get her de-selected, as a result. She is on our side.

AssignedPerfectAtBirth Tue 14-Nov-17 10:28:33

Ah ok Selma, I misread that quote. I am glad I was mistaken as I had been surprised and disappointed

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now