Who's going to the WEP Conference this weekend? Fancy a thread?

Under the current regime, people are not in general required to produce a copy of their birth certificate to access single-sex facilities or services.

This is a really poor interpretation of what is essentially a social convention. Yes it is true that people are not required to produce a birth cert. that’s because everyone can tell who is a man and who is a woman with their own senses so proof is not necessary. Furthermore, if a man was to access a single sex facility in times past, staff would have chucked him out and that would have been that. Now, they would be fearful of falling foul of equalities legislation. For all they know he may have a GRC but they can’t ask him because that too is illegal.

Should a man wish to use deception to access such services or places with dangerous motives, he will seek to do so without needing to acquire a GRC. More importantly, there are existing protections in the criminal law to prevent such activity." (continues)

Claire McCann might like to reflect on the ways that "Karen White, formerly known as David Thompson and Stephen Wood" committed crimes against women and children in prisons, probation hostels and psychiatric wards.

some details in today's article in Sunday Times:
www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/why-was-convicted-paedophile-allowed-to-move-to-a-female-jail-nmpbfm272

Rather they might just focus on women's-specific issues as laid out in their core policies. I know that sounds like a cop out as for many of us sex and gender identity is the foundation on which every other feminist policy is built.

Well yes, quite. If you have self-ID, then there is no such thing as a woman-specific issue.

Menstruation isn't specific to women - people with vaginas aren't necessarily women.

Pregnancy, contraception, abortion - ditto.

Prostate cancer could be a women's issue. So could erectile dysfunction.

It's just conceptually incoherent bullshit.

I'm Jewish as well as a feminist, so well and truly fucked over by all of the political parties of which I've ever been, or considered becoming, a member.

I agree the GRA should be repealed. Hard cases make bad law. And it's a fucking terrible law which should never have been passed in its current form.

My perception is that it was subtly pro gender self ID.

Claire McCann wrote a recent article in Counsel Magazine which makes her position clear:

(extract)
"The debate has focused on the question of whether trans rights (especially for those who are male to female trans) would erode hard-fought women’s rights. Some have argued that amendments to the GRA 2004 (so as to confer legal gender recognition on the basis of an administrative and de-medicalised process) would permit predatory and dangerous men access to ‘safe’ female spaces. Many in the trans community and those seeking to advance trans inclusion have sought to question whether these fears are realistic. Regrettably, the debate has often descended into toxic hostility with misunderstanding on both sides.

Properly analysed, it is questionable whether dangerous men would abuse an amended (easier) gender recognition process in order to change their legal sex (to female) for the sole purpose of accessing women’s spaces. Under the current regime, people are not in general required to produce a copy of their birth certificate to access single-sex facilities or services. Should a man wish to use deception to access such services or places with dangerous motives, he will seek to do so without needing to acquire a GRC. More importantly, there are existing protections in the criminal law to prevent such activity." (continues)

www.counselmagazine.co.uk/articles/gender-recognition-and-trans-equality

I'm in much the same position FlippinFumin.

Someone I spoke to (can't remember where) said she has changed her mind quite recently.

Has Julian changed her mind somewhat since writing this?
www.thefword.org.uk/2012/05/legalities_of_e/

Thanks for explaining Orange. I am still gobsmacked though that someone who appears to prioritise men’s rights over women’s safety is given airtime at a women’s conference.

Labour are hanging onto my membership by a thread. I have been a member for forever, even when they had as much chance of being elected as the WEP do now.

The WEP could easily win me over, if they would just pull their finger out and define a woman in terms of 'an adult human female'. Then I could cut the final thread from the Labour Party, it would be with much regret, but they are pissing me off with the self id nonsense. We all know it is a farce, even those trying it on for size.

Thank you all for the updates, and keep up the good work.

Cwen

It was Julian Norman. I posted her recent article upthread. It's very good.

McCan is representing a transgender criminal who wants their record wiped clean. Correct? And this was not raised at all when she spoke yesterday? I would be in a rage if I were there.

McCann’s presentation was dry, basic, and factual. And quite frankly somewhat patronising, to be honest. A single question was taken - from the barrister called Julian (sorry forgot her last name). Her question was excellent on whether legislation as existing/proposed can actually adequately protect women’s rights to single sex spaces, as she - as a barrister - did not feel it does. The answer was - it hasn’t been tested, we don’t know.

The session didn’t contribute anything either way. I know members on both sides of the debate who found it frustrating.

Thanks. Oh dear.

I can’t confirm 100% born but she certainly appears to be. R0wan is also on the case and I’m sure will be able to clarify further.
I’m not sure from Oranges’s posts how much McCann spoke last night but she was tweeting about being there.

Hello - please could you clarify - was the barrister referred to in the thread linked below one of the barristers speaking about changes to the GRA - Claire McCann?
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3360110-The-Times-Trans-person-seeks-to-rewrite-their-criminal-history-on-basis-of-privacy