The Fawcett Society response to the Govt announcement re GRA

[Melroses]

twitter.com/fawcettsociety/status/1308428220182781953

www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/News/fawcett-comments-on-government-response-to-gender-recognition-act-consultation

I am not sure what this organisation is for TBH nor why they are named after a suffragette.

[ThinEndoftheWedge]

We remain of the view that it is possible to progress and recognise both trans rights and defend the rights of all women, including women who are trans.

Do they mean TWAW - or TM?

Me thinks the former.

[Beamur]

I think they used to campaign for women's rights.

[gardenbird48]

We recognise the importance of maintaining sex as a protected characteristic, while also adopting an inclusive starting point for trans and non-binary people.

how??

You either keep male-bodied people out of female single sex spaces or you don't. Or are they meaning third spaces? (somehow I doubt it)

[JoodyBlue]

Me neither. Gaslighters. Makes me very cross.

[fatblackcatspaw]

Millicent Fawcett probably spending all eternity birling in her grave

[CivilCervix]

Wait, what? I thought they represented women?

[ErrolTheDragon]

We recognise the importance of maintaining sex as a protected characteristic, while also adopting an inclusive starting point for trans and non-binary people.

Some things are mutually exclusive. Of course trans and 'non binary' people should be included, without prejudice, in everything where sex doesn't matter. If that's what they meant by an 'inclusive starting point' then fine. (But it probably wasn't).

[ListeningQuietly]

XX

[Annasgirl]

@fatblackcatspaw

Millicent Fawcett probably spending all eternity birling in her grave

My thoughts too.

[Kit19]

Still trying to sit on the fence then! Do they have TW on their Board or something?

[CivilCervix]

@Kit19

Still trying to sit on the fence then! Do they have TW on their Board or something?

Isn't it Sam Smether's own position? She's part of the Good Law Project with a certain lawyer who is no friend of foxes, I've assumed in the past that it must be the view in her circle.

[PearPickingPorky]

@ThinEndoftheWedge

We remain of the view that it is possible to progress and recognise both trans rights and defend the rights of all women, including women who are trans.

Do they mean TWAW - or TM?

Me thinks the former.

I have seen a few people say this, Sophie Walker (formerly WEP, now YWT) also said this was the YWT position.

I am hopeful they are being "clever" and this is their way of bringing the needs of transmen into their remit, but without saying anything clear enough that will get them death threats.

Too optimistic? Maybe. But I think "including women who are trans" is intentionally double-meaning.

[Clymene]

"Fawcett Society is the UK's leading charity campaigning for gender equality and women's rights."

Gender first, women second.

[AbsintheFriends]

If you can't say anything coherent, don't say anything at all

[wellbehavedwomen]

My main feeling is annoyance that they're abusing a courageous woman's name.

[Gibbonsgibbonsgibbons]

My opinion of them is so low that I’m actually surprised the statement isn’t worse

Not fit for purpose

[CivilCervix]

Fiona Mactaggart is chair of trustees, which I hadn't realised and is, well, surprising.

[Melroses]

"The Government's moves to reduce the cost and complexity of the transition process are a welcome step forward. But today’s announcement will leave many trans people feeling short-changed. This is a missed opportunity to better support trans people by de-medicalising the process."

This is the first line of their press release. It could have come from any trans organisation tbh. You would never now they were supposed to be anything to do with women.

[CivilCervix]

@Melroses

"The Government's moves to reduce the cost and complexity of the transition process are a welcome step forward. But today’s announcement will leave many trans people feeling short-changed. This is a missed opportunity to better support trans people by de-medicalising the process."

This is the first line of their press release. It could have come from any trans organisation tbh. You would never now they were supposed to be anything to do with women.

Quite, it's completely the wrong way round. They should be relieved that self ID hasn't been introduced because of serious concerns about the infringement of women's rights and pleased the govt is highlighting the single sex exemption before anything else.

[WeeBisom]

"We recognise the importance of maintaining sex as a protected characteristic, while also adopting an inclusive starting point for trans and non-binary people. We remain of the view that it is possible to progress and recognise both trans rights and defend the rights of all women, including women who are trans."

Just for once I would love these organisations to explain, clearly, why they think there is no clash between sex based rights and gender identity. The main reason to make sex a protected characteristic is to allow women to have female only spaces (it sure isn't to protect us from hate speech, because misogyny isn't recognised as a hate crime). Non binary females and trans people who are female are already welcome in women's spaces - no one wants to exclude them. So do they mean male trans people? But if so, that means there is no longer sex segregation!

And of course it is possible to recognise trans rights and women's rights at the same time, so long as trans rights doesn't veer into the bizarre territory of claiming they are literally female and literally the same as women and so are entitled to every single thing that women are entitled to.

[Manderleyagain]

I've generally felt alot of people are too harsh on fawcett society and Sam smethers in particular. I thought her blog about the whole issue was quite useful as it recognised a conflict in rights. But I think I was wrong. This statement, though still trying to be a bit fence-sitty, actually makes it clear which side of the fence they have fallen. They don't see a difference between the rights/needs of male people who identify as women, and women. There are clear differences between the two groups and both need to be advocated for. They should be advocating for women, not trying to unsee the difference.

[Melroses]

@CivilCervix

Fiona Mactaggart is chair of trustees, which I hadn't realised and is, well, surprising.

Maybe it is some sort of club for Baronet's daughters?

[Clymene]

@Melroses

"The Government's moves to reduce the cost and complexity of the transition process are a welcome step forward. But today’s announcement will leave many trans people feeling short-changed. This is a missed opportunity to better support trans people by de-medicalising the process."

This is the first line of their press release. It could have come from any trans organisation tbh. You would never now they were supposed to be anything to do with women.

I know. If you put that into a poll and asked what organisation it came from, I would be very surprised if anyone thought it was from an organisation which is supposed to fight for women's rights

[BatShite]

We remain of the view that it is possible to progress and recognise both trans rights and defend the rights of all women, including women who are trans.

It is indeed possible. However, its not possible to do bth with what TRAs currently want.

You cannot have womens rights, while saying men ARE women. Its..fucking obvious? Why people pretend to not get this is beyond me.

[WhereAreWeNow]

It's crap. I thought Sam Smethers was leaving.