Second reading of Gender Identity Bill 24th Feb

Great news, the tide is turning. I hope it doesn't turn too far and affect trans people negatively, who are not trying to stamp all over women rights. The TRAs have been very damaging to the cause. The aggression they have shown could only come from men. They are as far away from being female as it is possible to be. I'd like to get back to fighting for equal rights for trans as a group so they can live their lives in safety and dignity.

I've written to my mp twice about this. The first time I got a wishy washy reply that looked to be a bit of a cut and paste job, the second time I got ignored. Sigh.

It's literally the best thing about the coming snap election

Thanks Betsy, that's a relief.

I'm se thankful to read this news. Thank you!

Phew. Thanks Betsy.

Fingers crossed it will he quietly forgotten. I get the feeling the tide is turning and legislators are becoming more aware of the implications. 🙌🏻

thank you for the update. This was one bill that really frightened me as I watch companies sleepwalking towards disasters.

Reposting an update from the Gender Critical Manifesto thread.

Good news on Miller's private member's bill:

"This Bill was expected to have its second reading debate on Friday 12 May 2017.

However, as a General Election has now been called and Parliament will be dissolved from 3 May 2017, the Bill falls and no further action will be taken."

I think it might be worth pointing out the ignored advice given to the committee. That isn't so easy to handwave away when it's not your pet agenda, as it is Maria Miller's.

djbaggysmalls some MPs are listening. (Some MPs never listen whatever the topic is). The soft spot at the moment is the medical intervention with children.

I also think Woodpigeon is correct in that as a private member's bill it is unlikely to become law, especially given the legislative workload of Brexit & the 2 year deadline to complete that in once article 50 has been triggered.

That said, in many public services, it seems to be that practice already seems to recognise self declaration. There does need to be Parliamentary scrutiny of safeguards which the equalities committee has failed to do, as they have ignored red flags from a number of (non-feminist) experts such as the British Psychological Society.

Medical intervention with children (under 18) also needs better scrutiny. Waiting increases the risk of several children having unwanted side effects from Lupron, as have already emerged in the US from children who were prescribed this for growth issues. We don't yet know what the psycho-social effects are of postponing puberty are. Cross sex hormone treatment from the age of 16 has irreversible effects,especially for girls taking testosterone. We could wait until we have a generation of de-transitioners , or we could put in better safeguards now.

Probably more to do with the terrorist incident disrupting the schedule. It probably isn't at the forefront of many MPs minds, one way or the other, between that and Brexit.

They might have deferred the readonf of the bill because of backlash in the media. The Ian Huntley thing has probably given them pause for thought as it would cause an outrage.

MP's arent listening. The only replies from MP's so far are cut and paste Trans ideology. I'm very concerned, they are too scared to oppose this in case they look like bigots.

MPs have shown absolutely no understanding or concern for women.

That's good, more time to engage and speak to MPs etc.

According to this it looks like the second reading has been put back to 12 May 17.

Wobbly

My understanding (and I am new to all this so may be wrong) is that this is a Private Member's Bill and as such has very little chance of getting passed. Usually PMB's only go through if they have the support of the government, which this doesn't. This is the second reading, so there are other stages which would need to be gone through before the bill would become law. It's also worth noting that we don't actually even know what the wording of the Bill is until later this week.

So the Gender Identity Bill is extremely unlikely to become law at this stage. But the Womens and Equalities Committee report on Transgender contains lots of very concerning recommendations. The government response to the report has rejected some recommendations, but accepted some other (including ending women (biological sex definition) only spaces, services etc so none of this issues are off the table.

Do you think this is effectively being 'sneaked in' while everyone's stressing over may triggering article 50 neXT week? No one's going to pay much attension to this when there is 'real' things going on iykwim. Or I expect that's the thinking behind it. Like how all the disability cuts happened while everyone protested the tc cuts etc

Really helpful. Thank you those who are reading and summarising.

Thanks for that explanation Pencils - really helpful.

I'm working my way through the Women & Equalities Cttee report and need a shoulder to cry on. It is so depressing to read.

Points so far:

• groups and people who gave evidence - all trans it generic (health etc), no women's organisations

• frequent mention of a transwoman being sent to a male prison. No reference. Would that be Tara Hudson of the 7 inch surprise?

• Lots of calls for the gender reassignement process to be "de-medicalised" and for transgenderism not to be seen as a disease or disorder. I am confused if that is the case why people would be able to get treatment by the NHS. Can anyone explain this? I'm trying to think of other examples of non-medical issues addressed by the NHS. All I can think of is contraception, which is essentially preventative health.

The worst bit so far is a foot note to 1.1 Introduction which defines "gender variance" as a synonym for transgender or trans, and says this "refers to behaviour and interests that are outside what is considered "normal for a person's assigned (biological) sex".

How have we gone so far backwards so quickly?

V depressed. Only up to page 23.

I've spent a bit of time digging and trying to work out exactly what this bill is about, or likely to be about, given we don't have the wording yet. This will probably be a bit long and dry, but might be useful to some. I needed to get my thoughts in order.

Info post

This bill proposes to change the 2010 Equality Act. Mariah Miller is Chair of the Women & Equalities Committee and the MP bringing this bill.

All we have so far is:

A Bill to make gender identity a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 in place of gender reassignment and to make associated provision for transgender and other persons; and for connected purposes.

The Women & Equalities Committee report on trans equality is here. There is a section in the report about changing 'transgender reassignment' to 'transgender identity' in the EA here.

According to this report:

• the term 'gender reassignment' is 'outdated and confusing'.

• It fails to protect trans people who are not proposing to have anything to do with the medical profession.

• it fails to protect 'broader kinds of trans identities' such as non-binary people.

The proposed solution is to change the wording in the EA from 'gender reassignment' to 'gender identity'. The report suggests adopting the Yogyakarta Principles, in which 'gender identity' is defined as:

each person’s deeply felt internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond with the sex assigned at birth, including the personal sense of the body (which may involve, if freely chosen, modification of bodily appearance or function by medical, surgical or other means) and other expressions of gender, including dress, speech and mannerisms.

A lawyer has been engaged to turn this into workable legislation. Claire McCann was quoted in the report as saying:

Clearly, in my view, the addition of “gender identity”—if defined as referring to each person’s internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond with the sex assigned at birth—will widen the protected characteristic within s.7 of [the Equality Act] to include elements of the “transgender” community more widely.

She had a lot more to say than that, you can read her full report here.

If 'gender reassignment' is changed to 'gender identity' in the EA, McCann proposes that:

a legislative amendment might look as follows:

“Gender identity refers to each person’s internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond with the sex assigned to that person at birth, including the personal sense of the body (which may involve, if freely chosen, modification of bodily appearance or functions by medical, surgical or other means) and other expressions of gender, including name, dress, speech and mannerisms36. It includes references to a person who is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person’s sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex”.

---------

The further aims of this bill could be anything:

to make associated provision for transgender and other persons; and for connected purposes.

The other thing Miller could go after connected with the EA is the exemption for female sex-segregated spaces, services etc. to exclude transwomen. This is where toilets, prisons, shelters, crisis services, changing rooms, sports etc. etc. come in. Women's orgs, services etc. already have to show they have a legitimate reason for excluding transwomen and that they are doing their best to provide for transwomen via alternative arrangements if they cannot accommodate them in their mainstream services. I need to check this but my understanding is that the report recommends removing this exemption for anyone who has a GRC - i.e. anybody who has a GRC will be allowed in all female spaces and categories.

------

This is not a 'self-identification' bill - that would require a change to the gender recognition act. The report recommends that too though so keep watching!

The combination of this bill (which is unlikely to pass this time) plus a change to the gender recognition act would spell the end of sex segregated spaces and services.

IrenetheQuaint You seem quite clued up on the bill's status as a private members' bill and that this means it won't get far. Please could you explain a bit more how this works, how we can be sure(ish) it won't pass further on, and what stage it should get kicked out?

The Church of England is an organisation particularly adept at believing in 6 mutually incompatibility things before breakfasting on curate's eggs.

Do you think the members of the Garrick Club in London and the Muirfield golf club realise what this will mean for them? Associations and private clubs can restrict membership to people who share a particular protected characteristic, but going forward if this bill goes through then being a "man" would include females who identify as men, thus allowing women in. Interesting test case, further to the issues of sex-based segregation vs gender-identity-based segregation.