RollOnFriday - law firm writes report called "Only adults? Good practices in legal gender recognition for youth"(110 Posts)
RollOnFriday is a satirical online magazine for solicitors.
Dentons is a very very large law firm (but I'm not impressed because I remember them when they were merely Denton Hall....)
I commend this article from RollOnFriday to you:
and I see RollOnFriday also reported this:
You will like this extract:
"Critics of gender self-ID have warned that it will adversely impact women and children in many areas, including rape crisis centres, single-sex hospital wards, women’s sport and identification of discrimination. Dentons' 65-page report characterises their position in two sentences, as concerns which "normally come from women’s groups" about "female prisoners and female public toilets".
Dentons' report also describes critics of gender self-ID as 'TERFs', which began as an acronym for "trans-exclusionary radical feminists" and is understood by many of its targets as a misogynist slur.
When it was asked to comment on aspects of its report, Dentons initially offered up Atanas Politov, its Director for Pro Bono, for an interview. Then it asked for written questions in advance. When these were provided, the world's largest firm by headcount was unable to find anyone prepared to answer them, and gave a general statement instead."
My own position is that hormonal or surgical intervention on a 12 year old is prima facie child abuse and so I'm very surprised that Dentons published such a report.
I mentioned upthread that I had complained to the all party Women's & Equality Committee in Parliament that they had 'gender identity' as a protected characteristic instead of 'gender reassignment' on their website.
This is the response: Parliament in now dissolved ahead of the General Election on 12 December and as a result the Committee does not currently exist and no changes can be made to the website. At the moment we expect Committees to be re-established shortly after the election and I would invite you to write again once the new Committee has been established if you would like them to consider this issue.
'Consider' the issue? This is the body responsible for holding the Government department for Women & Equalities to account and they will 'consider' whether posting accurate wording about a piece of existing legislation on their webpage is a cause for concern.
I don't doubt for a minute the use of 'gender identity' was deliberate. That's no typo. Whether it was insisted on by the previous MPs on the committee or it was done by civil servants on their own volition is the next question to be asked.
Speaking of "certain personality disorders were leading to LAs and agencies being massively and disproportionately tied up by a few service users" Michelleoftheresista
For those who haven't seen this quite excellent video before.
Unfortunately the man making the excellent points about queer theory is a horrific transphobe so his words have to compete with TRA shouting over him.
Well worth a watch.
Itsallgoingtobefine - and PIE hooked onto the gays rights movement - with memorable consequences that led to several politicians having to publicly apologise, really quite recently.
Yes. As PP have said, it all comes down to the old "let's keep this a secret" and "who benefits when children's safeguarding is trashed?"
Those people who are keen to breach the safeguarding of children - what do they want, eh?
I hope you don't get deleted. Women here were right that there was something happing in stealth, this report proves that. Women have been silenced,reported, banned, but women here were right. It's really not a stretch to think what could happen next and why this is all happening.
Not the only similarity either. In the thread I linked earlier I had the same idea as you about P. I. E.
Get rid of parental consent.
A child knows what's in their best interests.
Amnesty Ireland are campaigning for this for gender recognition for teenagers and even younger children.
I've seen this in a many different types of campaigns. Rather than try and make the social case for something, the idea is to somehow present it as a rights violation
This will be deleted but it's exactly what PIE did isn't it... Presented paedophilia as a child's right to sexual freedom or something.
I am pretty sure that the Dentons authors were not high-up in Dentons (you can be a partner without much real clout).
I suspect that there was a meeting where someone who matters was asked to approve a document about "LGBT" rights and said "sure".
Thinking it wouldn't be controversial......
Policy makers and regulators are subject to the Seven Principles of Public Life (Nolan Principles). These principles are very important to a democratic society and they are not optional. One of the reasons why these principles exist is to avoid policy and regulatory capture.
According to these principles policy makers and regulators must act and take decisions impartially, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias. There should also be a level playing field for all the stakeholders that could be impacted by policy and regulatory decisions. The principles also require policy makers and regulators to be accountable and transparent about their decisions and actions. This includes accountability to the public.
The “behind closed doors” approach to policy making is in serious contravention with the Nolan Principles. Its results in the wider implications of policy being missed. It results in the unquestioning acceptance of biased data from lobby groups. It results in totally inadequate (or non-existent) research in support of policy. Its results in failure to carry out equality impact assessments in contravention with the PSED. It results in the human rights of women and girls being ignored. It results in attempts to drive through policies without any accountability or transparency. This all contributes to a lack of public confidence in government (and regulators).
The huge public backlash about the GRA consultation, and about the current flaunting of the Equality Act, is not due to transphobia as TRA claim. It is a direct consequence of the total failure of policy makers to comply with the Nolan Principles.
This is... horrifying.
I mean, we knew something along these lines was happening, didn't we? But to see it - written out like that - as a policy document.
Proof that the public at large is not behind these law changes - proof that they are being pushed through on the sly.
And proof that the feminists in the UK have done a fantastic job in getting this out in the open! In fact, every single one of us - who have done anything to raise awareness, signed a petition, donated to a crowdfunder, written to our MP, posted on social media - have all helped.
PROOF that the silencing of women was a deliberate strategy.
Just going to add a thread in here, it's about gender recognition for 16/17 year olds in Ireland. Amnesty International put out a statement and in part of it they raise concerns about the parental consent that's needed.
Oh god that sounds soooo familiar from another job I had and yes! Those are the exact tactics and it is 100% predicated on the ‘other side’ responding in a ‘reasonable’ way rather than fighting fire with fire.
this group they went nuclear straight away. There was no compromise, no finding common ground. They were bombarded with emails, meetings were very aggressive, & left endless voice mails. In the end it just became easier to say yes than to fight
There were some detailed discussions on the relationship boards a few years ago about how certain personality disorders were leading to LAs and agencies being massively and disproportionately tied up by a few service users.
Typical behaviour (and I witnessed this in a previous job) was to send long, endless emails, often multiple per day. Multiple phone calls, often the same issue taken to several people one after the other with no mention they'd already had the conversation, so multiple hares started in different directions. Involved and initiated multiple complaints, often having several running at the same time, to insist on top manager level dealing with them and not speaking to anyone lower, or fixing on one particular member of staff and bombarding them with engagement, multiple bullet pointed issues they wanted replies to, chasing and demanding responses immediately. Endless threats of legal involvement or punishment, lots of meetings where largely the point was to shout at and lecture everyone at length without allowing anyone to speak (often on issues that weren't issues at all or had been solved).
It frequently results in members of staff going off ill with stress, and huge amounts of time, money and resources being poured onto trying to deal with these people as if they were reasonable people . It didn't work. Because for those few service users, the satisfaction and reward was in the behaviour and the reaction/engagement of others. It was often framed as a crusade, as brave people fighting the system, but was actually often no substance and a lot of enjoyment of drama, fights and attention of people trying to soothe, placate, listen and help.
There was one agency who had drawn up processes to identify a vexatious complainant (basically the signs of this client type) and after exhausting two rounds of normal process to prove clearly it was vexatious, then adopt a different system of handling person and complaint which shut down the complaint and refused further engagement.
LAs and all systems need training and systems in this. The behaviour needs to be recognised and separated out from genuine issues and process: as the relationships board often says, you cannot solve a problem by being reasonable with someone incapable of being reasonable. Agencies need boundaries. And to learn how to say no, and stand up to people being sad, angry, critical, without becoming panicked.
Anyone interested in this: take a look at the Issendai blog, she often deconstructs this dynamic and points out why engagement turns out to be pointless.
The parliamentary select committee has already jumped the gun
The Women and Equalities Committee was appointed by the House of Commons on 3 June 2015 to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Government Equalities Office (GEO).
The Committee fills "a gap" in previous accountability arrangements - the Minister for Women and Equalities and the GEO will now be held to account by a select committee for the Government's performance on equalities (sex, age, race, religion or belief, sexual orientation, disability, gender identity, pregnancy and maternity, marriage or civil partnership status) issues. The Committee joins more than thirty Parliaments worldwide with dedicated equalities committees.
The creation of an Equalities Committee was recommended by the All Party Parliamentary Group on Women in Parliament in their July 2014 report on Improving Parliament: Creating a better and more representative House (PDF 3.8 MB).
I have complained. Perhaps others might like to do so too?
Clymene, that’s an interesting take on it. It’s such a regressive doctrine
6. Use human rights as a campaign point They don't know why this works, but it does. It could be because countries don't want to be accused of international wrong think.
I've seen this in a many different types of campaigns. Rather than try and make the social case for something, the idea is to somehow present it as a rights violation, and that will convince some people right away. If you can convince enough of the right ones then you may even be able to get it dealt with through the court system.
The key is to somehow define your group as one that exists as a sort of natural entity, some sort of defined group with a particular characteristic. At that point then you can claim that something is excluding you or discrimination against that characteristic.
Catholic counties are big on self ID. It is no accident that Malta and Ireland are the first European countries to introduce it.
They abhor homosexuality and aren't that keen on women so can't imagine any man would seriously want to be one.
I recall women were given advice about the correct facial expression and behaviour to adopt. Coercive control writ large
Blimey, I had not heard of that. It’s just outrageous. Who the hell are these people? What is their ultimate agenda? They seem to have colonised most Western countries and did I read on this board that Mexico is introducing self ID? Mexico?
with this group they went nuclear straight away. There was no compromise, no finding common ground. They were bombarded with emails, meetings were very aggressive, & left endless voice mails. In the end it just became easier to say yes
This is because they are bullies and it’s a tactic they use to bulldoze through. But it is the environment which enables this, and it’s an environment where it is becoming impossible to acknowledge objective reality. It’s actually very frightening
Using the Government Equalities Office and the EHRC as 'enforcers' of this is a genius move. With the Civil service as the useful idiots who ensure that the ideology is present absolutely everywhere that government touches alongside a sizeable dose of bullying of anyone who fails to conform.
Does anyone remember that chilling thread from a woman civil servant about a training session where a woman was publicly criticised for walking back out out of a toilet that a transgender woman was in? I recall women were given advice about the correct facial expression and behaviour to adopt. Coercive control writ large
And this is all complicated by the blurring between charities (doing precious little actual charity work) and lobbying.
The entire Third Sector Industrial Complex needs to go. The Charity Commission needs beefing up and charities not spending the bulk of their income on actual services for their constituencies need to have charitable status revoked.
Lobbying is a £2 billion a year industry. It should be nowhere near charitable status.
I know someone who had to work with an internal trans group as part of their job. They said it was relentless - whereas when people normally disagree at work there are rules, with this group they went nuclear straight away. There was no compromise, no finding common ground. They were bombarded with emails, meetings were very aggressive, & left endless voice mails. In the end it just became easier to say yes than to fight especially as their organisation just wanted it to go away.
This tactic has been facilitated in the UK by the Government Equalities Office which has arranged for trans lobbyists to have preferential access to policy makers right across government
Profoundly anti democratic. The more I read about this, the more contempt I feel for the utterly useless, craven politicians who have pandered to this.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, quick, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Get started »
Please login first.