Regulatory capture

[LangCleg]

We've had two (well, one still standing) threads on Accenture and its inclusive LGBT event excluding lesbians by power of the state over the last couple of days.

We've also discussed the way in which the policy-setting leadership of other companies, state institutions (for example the police and the NHS), charities (for example NSPCC) and third sector orgs (for example Girl Guides) have enforced the top-down imposition of Gender Identity ideology despite obvious practical and ethical issues and conflicts of rights.

I came across someone remarking about the concept of regulatory capture on Twitter in relation to all this and, since we've also been discussing the actual power relations behind various oppression narratives, I wonder what everyone thought.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

Regulatory capture is a form of government failure which occurs when a regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or political concerns of special interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating. When regulatory capture occurs, the interests of firms or political groups are prioritized over the interests of the public, leading to a net loss for society. Government agencies suffering regulatory capture are called "captured agencies".

There are two basic types of regulatory capture and the second rings a few bells:

Non-materialist capture, also called cognitive capture or cultural capture, in which the regulator begins to think like the regulated industry. This can result from interest-group lobbying by the industry.

What do we think? Are there parallels?

Bloody hell, that's exactly it, isn't it?

First of all, the police were not interpreting a policy. They were upholding a law, which is different.

Secondly, if government agencies didn't respond to service-user voice, that would be a problem. Think of how the DfE frustrates teachers.

The problem is, the GC view just doesn't hold water. If it was a reasonable, evidenced and/or majority view and lobbying led to the repeal of the GRA then you could say the same thing had happened.

Skyzalimit I'm not quite sure what your point is, could you expand a bit please?

Which one?

Totally get what you’re saying Lang. I’d been thinking that somebody is trying to get the law changed from ‘sex’ to ‘gender’ on a de facto basis, but wasn’t quite sure how to put that into words.

Now that we’ve recognised what’s going on. What do we DO about it?

Having mused on another thread if this had been going on since the 90’s I’ve now read this:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3463920-Lets-go-back-to-2007?pg=4&order=

And realised that this has been going on for longer than I’ve been alive. So what do we DO?

The problem is, the GC view just doesn't hold water.

But as I think Bunbury’s said on occasion, if Stonewall, Mermaids et al had that much confidence in their view they’d be eager to debate representatives of FPFW, WPUK etc in public at every opportunity. And they’re clearly not.

The problem is, the GC view just doesn't hold water. If it was a reasonable, evidenced and/or majority view and lobbying led to the repeal of the GRA then you could say the same thing had happened.

Skyzalimit
Do have a look at this thread. It is well referenced.
Many people not aware of the wider issues have found it useful:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3145470-Break-it-down-for-me

see also this well evidenced thread of the historic lobbying by trans rights activists and their impact on public policy:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3463920-Lets-go-back-to-2007

Skyzalimit the second one mainly

RepealTheGRA apologies cross posted.

(it is an important thread though so worth repeating!)

Maybe they don't need to because they know they're right and perhaps also to avoid giving air time to those groups

R0wantrees

Don’t ever apologise to me. I’m ever grateful for all your links. You lot convinced me there was a serious issue about three years ago, but I still learn new stuff every time I come on here.

Perhaps you could explain exactly what aspects of gc position are not well evidenced and what degree of evidence you require?

Secondly, if government agencies didn't respond to service-user voice, that would be a problem. Think of how the DfE frustrates teachers.

Ive been involved as a patient representative for oncology services. Whilst the patient voice is important, noone (especially the patient represntatives) would suggest we should be writing chemotherapy protocols!

It is always (or rather should always) be a balance primarily informed by professional expertise and evidence based practice taking into account service users important contributions.

I think you're spot on Lang. (I've seen it first hand in the public sector with powerful financial interests versus public health legislation - that one was overtly driven by money; but I can see how exactly the same thing can be driven by ideological reasons too).

Repeal - yes, the "de facto" replacement of sex with gender everywhere is an example of exactly this in action (had to pull my workplace up over missing "sex" off their list of protected characteristics recently.)

The other thing we see going on a lot (to borrow a phrase from the military) is mission creep. A piece of legislation is introduced to deal with a specific issue but is badly drafted so that its scope isn't clearly defined, then used in circumstances very far from those it was originally intended for (over-use of anti-terrorist legislation to close down peaceful demonstrations would be an example). So, for example, legislation intended to protect a minority - women - by allowing for proportionate use of single sex spaces, gets hijacked to be used to allow men into those spaces.

Arewehumanorbones

Well, most public organisations need to be in touch with what their consituents think is important. When they seem deaf to how their actions affect people that can be very disempowering. Another example is the failue of the Macpherson report on institutional racism to be implemented properly despite the consistent concerns reported by, for example, the Stephen Lawrence foundation and the Runnymede Trust.

Saying that the police interpretation of the law is regulatory capture just because they seem to take the concerns of trans supporting organisations seriously is to say that the police should have ignored the situation simply vecause the op disagrees with SG.

I think RC does happen but it's usually about money. Eg our news media has way too much control over political reporting and is owned by and driven by the interests of big business

Very strong parallels.

To be an exact fit, it would have to be the regulatory agencies that had been captured, so the Charity Commission, IPCC, OFSTED etc.

List of Regulators in the UK

This is why complaints are important and escalating them until a regulator sees them.

I think RC does happen but it's usually about money

Skyzalimit I do agree with here. It is often about money and power of course.

Exactly what's occurring!

See thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3488261-The-Financial-Juggernaut-that-is-Stonewall

The other thing we see going on a lot (to borrow a phrase from the military) is mission creep. A piece of legislation is introduced to deal with a specific issue but is badly drafted so that its scope isn't clearly defined, then used in circumstances very far from those it was originally intended for

Very important point. And the concept of regulatory capture would also mean that effective scrutiny of policy and legislation never took place before being passed and/or imposed.

To be an exact fit, it would have to be the regulatory agencies that had been captured

Yes, but to regulatory agencies, add enforcement agencies - for me one of the scariest things is the extent to which the police appear to have been subject to this, and are "enforcing" laws not actually on the statute books following training by organisations like Gendered Intelligence. We can see the laws aren't actually on the statute book on the rare occasions these cases reach court - for instance Green's recent case against Miranda Yardley, thrown out of court in pretty short order.

I think the CPS would also go on that list, and some of the judiciary - for instance the judge in Maria MacLachlan's case repeatedly taking Maria to task for misgendering (even though it's going to be pretty damn near impossible to give an accurate account in court of your personal experience of being physically attacked by a larger, gender-neutrally dressed person whom you perceive, on the basis of pretty obvious biological markers, as male-bodied, if you are continually being interrupted by the judge to tell you to say "she"). The judge even gave a lesser sentence on the grounds that the key witness for the prosecution had repeatedly misgendered the accused! I seem to remember lawyers on here at the time pointing out the many ways in which how the judge had acted were in contravention of guidelines for the judiciary.

So that’s what we do then is it? Complaints to everyone misrepresenting the law? Schools? Councils? Our workplaces? And just escalate until we get to the top?

And explain to others what the law is and encourage them to do the same?

I think the CPS would also go on that list, and some of the judiciary - for instance the judge in Maria MacLachlan's case repeatedly taking Maria to task for misgendering

YY there's a 'Bench Book' guidance which needs scrutiny/challenge.

that effective scrutiny of policy and legislation never took place before being passed and/or imposed

Or was in fact actively subverted by those whose job it was to ensure effective scrutiny - in particular, Maria Miller's chairing of the parliamentary committee into reforms of the GRA, where she chose to ignore evidence from prison governors and prison psychologists about the likelihood of male sex offenders pretending to be transgender under a self ID regime in order to get into women's prisons. Their evidence is clearly recorded in the written records of the committee, but no mention of it appears in Miller's final report or in her recommendations.

The other thing we see going on a lot (to borrow a phrase from the military) is mission creep.

Yes LOADS of this and not only with legislation.

Stonewall turning into anti lesbian TRAs
CPS endorsing dodgy 'anti-bullying' advice for schools that ignores girls' rights and fails to safeguard children confused about gender.
Mermaids changing from a peer support org to political lobbying
Several police forces turning into Susie Green's private army
BBC doing a sharp swerve away from impartiality to plug the trans ideology ...

I think RC does happen but it's usually about money.

That's the other of the two types I referred to in the OP.

We're not talking about that one. We're talking about the one that is awkward for genderism. As I already said, but happy to remind you:

non-materialist capture, also called cognitive capture or cultural capture

If this happens, we see that the lobby/interest group is then able to wield state and corporate power by proxy. This isn't just about Julia Long, although I appreciate you're likely to expend much effort across the course of this thread trying to make it so: it's about Guides and schools ignoring statutory safeguarding guidance and about Miranda Yardley being made subject to baseless prosecution - it's about a hundred other things.

Regulatory capture seems like a very good analogy to me. I can imagine less so for anyone not wanting to relinquish the Most Oppressed narrative and acknowledge possession of considerable structural power, however.