Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Does the government consultation re changes to the GRA start this week? Janice Turner thinks so

112 replies

R0wantrees · 30/06/2018 08:11

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/this-gender-battle-is-harder-to-solve-than-brexit-0jc0pn867
Janice Turner The Times:

(extract)
If Brexit is the most divisive issue in British politics, requiring a talent for squaring ideological circles and cajoling compromises from bitter enemies, reform of the 2004 Gender Recognition Act (GRA) runs it a close second. The consultation, long-delayed while three successive ministers for women and equalities scratched their heads, is finally launched on Tuesday.

Although even that isn’t official. Bizarrely the government wouldn’t confirm (or deny) the date. But I’ve seen emails: groups will give evidence in late July, a sleepy summer recess slot calculated, perhaps, to contain the GRA firestorm. Some chance.

Opposing forces are drilled for battle. On one side the trans lobby, including Stonewall and Gendered Intelligence, who claim changes to the process by which a trans person acquires a gender recognition certificate (GRC) are merely a tiny administrative tweak. On the other, feminist activists who fear that a legal redefinition of “woman” from biological sex to the nebulous, inner feeling of “gender identity” threatens female safety and privacy....

Most controversially she sought to replace the GRC process whereby a person must live in their new gender for two years and have a diagnosis of “gender dysphoria” (a mental disorder whereby a person feels their identity is opposed to their biological sex). Instead Mrs Miller proposed “self-identify”, ie a man could simply declare himself a woman with no requirement to transition physically.

The report caused a furore. Without hearing evidence from a single women’s group, Mrs Miller also proposed abolishing exemptions to the 2010 Equality Act which allow domestic violence refuges or hostels to admit only biological women. Interviewing Mrs Miller last year, I was flabbergasted by how little she had thought this through. She saw no conflict of rights at all: women, she said, must learn to accept without challenge male-bodied people using their changing rooms."
(continues)

Link to previous thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3269463-Government-response-to-the-petition

OP posts:
AngryAttackKittens · 02/07/2018 01:03

It's almost as if the people making these veiled threats suspect that the general public doesn't agree with their perspective and that it would therefore serve their guess better if the public was to be discouraged from contributing to the consultation.

Curious, innit?

PencilsInSpace · 02/07/2018 00:52

And that has all been in less than a year, Pratchet. Speakers Corner was only last September (sometimes feels like a decade ago!)

PencilsInSpace · 02/07/2018 00:50

Usually you get to choose:

  • do not publish
  • publish anonymously
  • publish with my name
Waddlelikeapenguin · 02/07/2018 00:28

Pratchet women are awesome Star

Pratchet · 02/07/2018 00:10

Women have already made considerable progress on a number of fronts
#nodebate - well, it is a debate. That one has gone.
Plans to remove single sex exemptions from the Equality Act - gone
Replacement of sex with gender across local authorities and public sector - going and in some cases gone
Under the radar campaign - gone
Suicide stats - decreasingly used to to exposure as a myth
Silent collusion of media - not gone but exposed

And the greatest victory of all - we are still talking despite mass reports, harassment of venues, a bomb threat, crazy strict talk guidelines, mass twitter bans, doxxing Man Friday, we are STILL HERE and we are still talking.

Viva !

Waddlelikeapenguin · 02/07/2018 00:04

Pratchet yes sorry I suppose I meant unpublished rather than truely anonymous Smile

Pratchet · 02/07/2018 00:01

I wouldn't have thought the names would be made public. Like, the people running the consulatauon would know, so it cant be anonymous. But a list of names and submissions? That would put a lot of trans people, surely.

OldCrone · 02/07/2018 00:00

Also by the by isnt it normally that organisations must have their name published but individuals can remain anonymous?
This was the case with the Scottish GRA consultation, but I don't know whether that's always the case with UK government consultations, as I've never responded to any of them.

Waddlelikeapenguin · 01/07/2018 23:49

Just remember that you will need to respond to the consultation in your real life name which, on the basis of past consultations, is generally published.
Grin you need to try harder, your name next to your opinion isnt really very scary Confused
My MP knows my opinions already Star
(Also by the by isnt it normally that organisations must have their name published but individuals can remain anonymous?)

Rufustheyawningreindeer · 01/07/2018 23:35

lang

Thats awfully kind of you

Some posters really do struggle with boundries and comprehension

So its really good of you to be so understanding

LangCleg · 01/07/2018 23:30

This is deliberately inflammatory behavior on the part of a person who refuses to take no for an answer and has been reported as such.

It's fine Bewilder, really. I set a boundary via a polite request. It wasn't respected - in fact, it was explicitly disrespected using the word entitled - and I am not particularly surprised by that.

No need to report.

Pratchet · 01/07/2018 23:29

The police warnings across a number of threads, coming from several posters, were an extraordinary coincidence.

thebewilderness · 01/07/2018 23:25

Snappity Sun 01-Jul-18 22:58:39

lang did ask you not to quote her

And I have explained that in a debate I am entitled to quote anyone.

From the guidelines: No trolling, misleading or deliberately inflammatory behaviour

This is deliberately inflammatory behavior on the part of a person who refuses to take no for an answer and has been reported as such.

LangCleg · 01/07/2018 23:18

This seems to be this week’s theme. watch what you say women! We doxxed man Friday, and we will make sure there are consequences if you speak up! The police might be after your posting history! Your Facebook! Be afraid!.... and so on

Indeed. As I said upthread, we'll be seeing a lot more of this. More Duluth wheel behaviour imminent. It's almost as though people being able to say what they want in a democracy is somehow a) a bad thing and b) deleterious to the cause!

Pratchet · 01/07/2018 23:16

No one is afraid. The one thing people can do without fear, even if they won't sign a petition or go to a meeting, is respond to this consultation.

Pratchet · 01/07/2018 23:15

Snappity: we have a definition of sex. You don't. We have a definition of gender. You don't. What's more - you never will. This means we don't have to keep changing our argument like you do, or resort to scare mongering, bullying, doxxing, implicit threats and emotional blackmail.

AngryAttackKittens · 01/07/2018 23:11

Just remember that you will need to respond to the consultation in your real life name which, on the basis of past consultations, is generally published.

DUN DUN DUN! And other ominous noises. Possibly some vague suggestions that prosecution may be in the offing too.

Snappity · 01/07/2018 23:01

It is really important to clearly articulate the difference between natal/biological sex and "legal" sex which is the legal treatment of someone who has a GRC as the opposite sex. The EA exemptions are clearly about biological sex or there would be no exemptions permitted.

Whatever definition of sex you come up with, that's what the process in the Gender Recognition Act applies to. That's the human rights position.

Snappity · 01/07/2018 22:58

lang did ask you not to quote her

And I have explained that in a debate I am entitled to quote anyone.

Bowlofbabelfish · 01/07/2018 22:20

Just remember that you will need to respond to the consultation in your real life name which, on the basis of past consultations, is generally published.

Why would this put anyone off?

Responding in good faith to a government consultation is not illegal and cannot be used against an individual in any way.

This seems to be this week’s theme. watch what you say women! We doxxed man Friday, and we will make sure there are consequences if you speak up! The police might be after your posting history! Your Facebook! Be afraid!.... and so on.

There is no need for anyone to be fearful filling this consultation out. On either side of the debate. It cannot be used against you. It is your democratic right to do so.

That goes for transpeople as well as anyone opposed to the changes.

ChickenMe · 01/07/2018 22:11

Just remember that you will need to respond to the consultation in your real life name which, on the basis of past consultations, is generally published

And since you are doing absolutely nothing wrong there is nothing for anyone to worry about - please don't be put off. I shall definitely be responding. This isn't North Korea.

Ereshkigal · 01/07/2018 10:04

A privacy exemption, as it were, if you see what I mean.

I do. They'd have to do it if they wanted to work with children (at least I hope they would and I think there are special procedures) so I don't see anything wrong with extending this process to other protected roles.

Ereshkigal · 01/07/2018 10:02

It is really important to clearly articulate the difference between natal/biological sex and "legal" sex which is the legal treatment of someone who has a GRC as the opposite sex. The EA exemptions are clearly about biological sex or there would be no exemptions permitted.

LangCleg · 01/07/2018 10:00

Good one Lang! I'll do that too. I'm not sure how anyone could object. Well they will of course, but I'm not sure how any such objection could be seen as reasonable.

A privacy exemption, as it were, if you see what I mean.

Ereshkigal · 01/07/2018 09:57

One clear suggestion to add is that the GRA should be explicit that natal sex should be considered for the purposes of the Equality Act sex exemptions and that legal sex cannot take preference

This should be fine by TRAs as they have been saying this is the case all along. It should be fine with the government as that’s their response to the petition. It helps cement the exemptions into the GRA

Also a great suggestion and point Elletoro.