Telegraph article suggests trans activists happy with delay to GRA announcement as they are counting on Liz Truss losing her job and that someone more aligned to them will get the job

[stumbledin]

Its quite a long article, basically just summarising what has been happening over the past couple of years. And then says:

" ... There is no easy win for the Government on this issue.

A quick glance at social media shows that this is a debate that can inflame tensions like no other.

With public and party so divided, you could understand why the Government might want to sweep its response to the consultation under the rug. ...

And finishes up saying:

... While most activists and charities have criticised the delay, some have noted that the time gives them time to “reset” the debate.

And Ms Truss’ own future seems to hang in the balance, with reports suggesting she may be moved from her post in the near future.

“It might be hedging our bets, but there is a good chance a new minister will look upon this issue more favourably,” one campaigner admitted. ... "

www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/07/24/gender-recognition-act-will-government-give-green-light-self/

[tobee]

Hmm. Be careful what you wish for TRAs.

[OhHolyJesus]

Interesting. Thanks for sharing.

[Tootsweets23]

It is all bollocks though. The deal is done, the delay is nothing but logistics. Even if truss goes the tories know any rolling back of women's rights to please the wokies is a vote loser and pissing off wokies is a winner with red wall/traditional Tory voters. There will be no change to the GRA beyond maybe minor tweaks but nothing material. They over extended themselves and have lost. Wailing about it on social media is all they'll have left. And once that dies down hopefully they can concentrate on actual policies that help the lives of trans people rather than this bullshit. I salute the power of women self organising and throwing their weight into a grassroots campaign that in September will be shown to have worked.

[TheWordWomanIsTaken]

Yes, but how do we roll back the insidious de facto self-id that has been implemented by institutions and organisations?
Whether the GRA is amended or not (and I believe it should be repealed) institutional capture means that we have self-id in place anyway.

[Kit19]

I would love it if they appointed Jackie DP 😆

yes they’re not going to bring in self ID but the real issue as PP said is how do you roll back the number of organisations who’ve just adopted it anyway

[Tootsweets23]

True! But I do think the government very clearly saying this is not the law means many organisations will take legal advice and realise how exposed they are to lawsuits and will reverse their policies. Basically these organisations thought they were getting ahead of the law, but now the law isn't changing and they are out on a limb. And that limb leaves them exposed to legal action.

[truthisarevolutionaryact]

Agreed Tootsweets23

Look how desperate they all are to avoid the law with trans guidance being pulled all over the place rather than pursue through the courts the rights of born males to undress in front of teenage girls etc. It's almost as if they know that the protected characteristic of sex means women have legal rights enshrined in law .

[ZuttZeVootEeeVro]

They are forgetting that this isn't just a popularity contest, it's a safeguarding issue.

If the government implement policies that increase the chance of harm to women and children, 'but many people on twitter supported it' isn't going to protect ministers from the consequences of their decisions.

[Grumblyberries]

why does the government need 'an easy win', rather than doing what is right, even if it's not popular?!

(no, don't answer that, obviously they want easy wins, but it's just depressing that that's so overtly acknowledged as the main driver of the decisions they make!)

[Whatisthisfuckery]

Yes well, they will say anything won’t they.

[PerkingFaintly]

the tories know any rolling back of women's rights to please the wokies is a vote loser

God, I really wouldn't be complacent about that. Rolling back women's rights in other areas hasn't had any impact on Tories getting voted in – and they know it.

Universal Credit was flagged even before it came in as likely to have a devastating impact on women with abusive partners and on women's shelters, which duly happened. But it hasn't touched the Tories. There's always some other issue about which to shout "Look Over There" much more loudly.

In the US, Trump got elected partly because of his willingness to roll back women's rights. I know the US isn't here, but don't you kid yourself there aren't people in the UK who wouldn't happily go down the same path. And lest we forget, Rees-Mogg is still Leader of the House and a likely candidate for Tory leader.

Plus, the Tories were the ones who proposed changing the GRA in the first place. Any impact on women's rights didn't bother them then, did it?

I find it frightening to hear anyone smugly proclaim that any party, particularly the Tories, are scared of rolling back women's rights. That sort of complacency is a shortcut to disaster.

[Tootsweets23]

Well I wasn't trying to be smug @PerkingFaintly...

I'm not suggesting the tories are champions of women's rights, rather they are anti the type of identity politics bollocks that has found a home in leftie circles. It just happens to be women's rights that are protected by not advancing gender identity crap. And frankly I heartily welcome it. Labour and the LDs should be hanging their heads in shame that it is the tories doing this not them.

Once this stage of the fight ends hopefully all the women spending their time campaign on this stupid issue can instead be pushing for reforms in all the areas you list.

[PerkingFaintly]

Once this stage of the fight ends hopefully all the women spending their time campaign on this stupid issue can instead be pushing for reforms in all the areas you list.

Good-o.

So the Tories bring in legislation that harms women in abusive relationships. They also propose legislation that will harm women in other ways (self-id).

Fighting the second effectively prevents us from fighting the first.

Win for whom, exactly?

The Tories then talk of NOT bringing in their second legislation. They are heroes! For not bringing in their own legislation!

Again, win for whom?

Now I'm not exactly impressed at some of the people who enthusiastically took the bait when it was held out to them. (And I think it was extremely well designed bait: human rights! Be kind!)

But someone somewhere is having a bloody good laugh at all this. And it's not women.

[PerkingFaintly]

BTW, I should add that I think many posters on MN have done a sterling job examining the impact of self-id and teasing out the various interests pushing it. This has been a home of much excellent, well-informed, fearless analysis – and a lot of hard work.

I'm annoyed we're having to deal with this issue at all.

[stumbledin]

rolling back of women's rights to please the wokies is a vote loser and pissing off wokies is a winner with red wall/traditional Tory voters.

The articles says that in fact the old Tories who dont mind pissing of young woke people are worried that their majority is made up by red wall MPs who are more sympathetic to the woke agenda. So aren't that sure of a majority as basically Greens, Labour, SNP will all want self id etc., so if the Red Wall tories also take that view point there may be no Tory majority to protect women's rights.

So sadly our hope is Liz Truss slipping out her compromise approach. A little for you (confirm women only provision) and make it easier for trans to "lead the life they want". No medical procedures for under 18s. Ban Gay conversion therapy.