Government erasing women's voices on the GRA consultation

Are you surprised? Really?

The Government said that they would (after a lot of prompting) consult with women. They have put in writing that they consulted with women's groups before they launched the latest GRA consultation. Although with whom they actually consulted appears to be a complete mystery and given their definition of woman, could be any Tom, Dick or Harry.

Use your annoyance and anger. Get as many people as possible to complete the latest consultation and take the Government at face value. Complete it using your views, knowledge and experience as a woman. And given their wide-definition of the word woman, return the favour. Give their questions a wide remit. Let them know your real opinions.

If you are going to raise the issue of sex segregation then you have to consider responses from all that are impacted otherwise it's just bullshit.

Exactly.

It's like proposing a law that all women have to give men 10% of their income and only asking the men if they see a problem with it.

I put myself down as prefer not to say because I knew that women would be screened out.

Why aren't heterosexual men screened out?

The number is small, it's a small number

Only because they ignored lots of responses.

To quote transplants RTFT

RTFT.

Yeeeees, but then why did Penny Mordaunt use it as evidence in the GRA consultation impact assessment to show lack of opposition?

In what way is she using it as evidence to show lack of opposition? In what way is that the context in which it appears?

The impact assessment specifically talks about the impact on sex segregated spaces and implies only a small number of respondents raised concerns.

It doesn't imply that, a small number of respondents did raise concerns! The number is small, it's a small number.

The survey was about proposed changes to the GRA. The impact assessment specifically talks about the impact on sex segregated spaces and implies only a small number of respondents raised concerns.

If you are going to raise the issue of sex segregation then you have to consider responses from all that are impacted otherwise it's just bullshit.

Straight women, unless they are trans or intersex, fell outside of the target population for the survey.

Yes so it is useless as evidence for support of the GRA by the key demographic that would be negatively affected.

We have launched a survey to understand the experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) people living in the UK

Yeeeees, but then why did Penny Mordaunt use it as evidence in the GRA consultation impact assessment to show lack of opposition?

Small isn't minimising? I see - we're back to changing the meaning of words, then...

Cheers for that Snappity, makes sense.

I think one thing we can cheerfully conclude is that this whole GRA thing is a complete mess.

We have launched a survey to understand the experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) people living in the UK.

Straight women, unless they are trans or intersex, fell outside of the target population for the survey.

Fuck. Ing. Hell

What is the impact assessment of and what is its purpose?

It sometimes talks about the impact of the consultation and sometimes about the impact of self-id

Either way it is full of holes.

Sorry, 39 is a small number, obvs...

Small is a small number

There is nothing in the context that makes that "small" a minimising word; like I say, the context is actually to introduce the idea of these concerns, not to detract from them!

Surely the worst she's done is miss out the word "LGBT" before the word "respondents"? Sack her, I say.

She doesn't say "only" 39 or anything minimising like that..

She says 'a small number'. Small is a minimising word if ever I saw one.

This should be tweeted at ollie Entwistle

They are. Woodstein.
Follow the money

Designed by the Equalities Dept LGBT led by our dear Ollie Entwistle

19.In the National LGBT survey, a small number of respondents (39) commented on the proposed changes to the GRA as threatening women-only spaces. There has also been considerable public debate about whether reducing the requirements for legal recognition might result in a weakening of protections for women.

I don't know what "Fair Play for Women" are reading into Penny's quote (above), but I just checked it out in the whole document for context and I am not reading it the same way at all.

The implication is that Penny has deliberately reduced the number of people who mentioned it in the LGBT survey, but she's not quoting the figure in any context associated with impact and harm. Impact and harm haven't even been raised yet, and actually she's using those 39 responses from LGBT people as an introduction to those objections. She doesn't say "only" 39 or anything minimising like that, and actually after she has introduced the point with those 39 responses, she goes on to say there has been considerable public debate about whether or not women's protection would be affected!

I would suggest if it was an attempt to minimise anything she would have at least said "only" 39, and "some" public debate; wouldn't you?

She should probably rephrase it to say "a small number of LGBT respondents to the LGBT survey...", because it is otherwise inaccurate.

Lots of Questions.

First question, what is in it for Penny?

There seem to be no limits that TRAs won't go to to ensure that their views and wishes are enshrined in law. They really mean it when they so #nodebate don't they?

Deliberately and consciously attempting to subvert the democratic process is very serious no?

Fair play are like woodstein

I responded to it, I put prefer not to say on everything because the questions were so heavily loaded