Government response to the petition...

Petition currently stands at 12 336

At 100,000 signatures, this petition will be considered for debate in Parliament

petition.parliament.uk/petitions/214118

" Consult with women on proposals to enshrine 'gender identity' in law

The government proposes to amend the law to allow people to self-identify as men or women, and to stop allowing organisations in sensitive situations to exclude people of the opposite birth sex. We call for women to be consulted on how to protect women and girls' rights, safety, privacy and dignity.

More details:
We call for:

• Respectful and evidence-based discussion about the impact of proposed changes and for women's voices to be heard.

• The government to consult with women’s organisations on how self-declaration would impact on women-only services and spaces, data-gathering, and monitoring of sex-based discrimination.

• The principle of single-sex spaces to be upheld – and where necessary extended."

The LibDems LBGT thread on the petition response was interesting because (amongst the gloating tone of “See, they’re all hateful bigots”) there was very clear reference to the fact that gender and sexuality are not distinguished within the law.

That should be getting more publicity.

Absolutely Blood. The key question. They talk about changing gender and say gender is different to sex (some of them) then they, oh right, want the change to be one of legal sex.

I think the term for what the politicians are doing on the matter is talking out of both sides of their mouth.

What I don't understand is how they can do that? How can they guarantee sex segregated facilities will be protected when they're allowing people to legally change their sex? WE recognize that the law is not the same as reality and that a person may be legally registered as female while they are in fact male, but how can the law recognize that? How can it, on the one hand, say 'yes you are female and will be recorded as female for all purposes' and on the other hand recognize that they are not female at all and therefore can be excluded from female facilities under the ERA?

They always talks about 'gender recognition' but then allows people to change the sex on their legal records. It's a self contradictory cluster fuck.

Summary and background for 2004 GRA
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/notes/division/2

Summary and Background for EA 2010
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/2/1
"11.The Act brings together and re-states all the enactments listed in paragraph 4 above and a number of other related provisions. It will harmonise existing provisions to give a single approach where appropriate. Most of the existing legislation will be repealed. The Equality Act 2006 will remain in force (as amended by the Act) so far as it relates to the constitution and operation of the Equality and Human Rights Commission; as will the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, so far as it relates to Northern Ireland."

Having repealed laws that previously provided sex protections the next step is to replace all references to sex with gender while maintaining the special additional carte blanche rights granted to transgender identified people.

Can anyone explain to me the contradicting points that always come up when pro self ID people discuss it

1. Nothing will change except for people being able to get new birth certs which no one really uses so it doesn't even matter and will have no impact on anyone or anything

1. This is super important and the process must be streamlined immediately

Great tweet on the twittery thing;

In 2004, UK Parliament was told that Gender Recognition Bill covered only tiny minority: "an estimated 5,000 people".
Now govt claims the system "is not working well for the people it is designed for. Only 4,850 GRCs have been issued".
IT IS WORKING EXACTLY AS PARLIAMENT INTENDED

twitter.com/MrHenryWimbush/status/1004493916907999232

I wouldn't place too much weight on it then. It's not written policy, even if it's minuted.

PencilsInSpace
Re Ollie Entwhistle

Thread re the policy forum on Monday.
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3268237-Westminster-Social-Policy-forum-today-Next-steps-for-transgender-Equality-WSPFEvents

There are apparently four people who tweet for the LGBT+LibDeb group

Recent discussion:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3263172-Andrew-Gilligan-Latest-bullying-transgender-complaint-swiftly-rejected-by-parliamentary-standards-committee

He said it on Monday at a trans Equality forum.

That feed is just Sarah Brown isn't it?

Pratchet where is that Ollie Entwistle quote from?

According to Twitter he's head of LGBT policy team in the Government Equalities Office. His web link goes to Civil Service LGBT+ network. His tweets are protected.

He's obviously influential but I'm not convinced his interpretation of the law holds much weight. We need some case law.

We need to post this paragraph everywhere.

LGBT+LibDem thread concludes

This is what the LGBT+ LibDem twitter page is saying:
twitter.com/LGBTLD/status/1004079662325272576

"Once again, there seems to be lots of confusion about the Gender Recognition Act, the Equality Act and so-called “Self ID”. It’s time for another Lib Dem primer. Best put the kettle on and settle in.

Here we go...." continues

Just as a reminder here is what Stonewall are saying:

www.stonewall.org.uk/gender-recognition-act

www.stonewall.org.uk/truth-about-trans#trans-people-britain

Those who stood in the way of racial equality now look like racist bigots.
Those who stood in the way of women's rights now look like misogynists.
Those who stood in the way of LGB rights now look like homophobes.

Now the homophobes and misogynists and racists have joined forces to roll back woemn's rights, transition away the Gays and Lesbians, and blame the brown people for it.

Biologyisreal: 'case by case'

The government's LGBT Head of Equalities Ollie Entwistle has specifically said (quote) 'the bar will be set high'.

An example he gave was if a woman was in a refuge and an abusive partner who was trans (or quote lesbian) sought entry, they would be refused.

That is an extraordinarily high bar, and would apply equally to a woman, a lesbian, as he noted.

That makes an absolute mockery of the Equality Act provision.

Firstly : Debenhams changing rooms are not gender specific

No changing rooms are gender specific. They are sex specific. Males with any gender gonin the males, females of any gender go in the females.

Now to read back.

Terrible comparison. We are not standing in the way of trans rights. We are standing up for women's rights. It is a positive position - not a negative one.

Can we infer from the statement that TRAs consider that women's rights to privacy and dignity and to be considered as a sex class with specific problems are in the way of what they want? I think so.

Threw the dress at her? What masculine behaviour.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3270549-In-reaction-to-the-Government-sex-segregation-Petition-response-M-S-are-finally-reconsidering-their-position-on-their-sexist-unsafe-and-undignified-policy?msgid=78451611#78451611

M&S contact details on the linked thread.

was about to spend a fair bit of money on the outfit but after being treated like a freak I threw the dress at her.’"

Narcissistic injury and rage.