Interesting twitter thread - if you ever wondered what Stephen Whittle took from exchanges here...

Colour me surprised that Whittle has openly advocated binning the 50k GRA consultation responses from women shocked, and galvanised, by the proposed erasure of our sex-based rights. After all, that infantile strategy seems - at least temporarily - to have worked for Edward Lord.

In Westminster last week, Maria Miller MP seemed to be in agreement with Karen Ingala Smiths point that it would be 'helpful' for government to define 'women' for women's refuge policies.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3592260-Karen-Ingala-Smith-in-Parliament-now-on-single-sex-refuges

Colour me surprised that Whittle has openly advocated binning the 50k GRA consultation responses from women shocked, and galvanised, by the proposed erasure of our sex-based rights. After all, that infantile strategy seems - at least temporarily - to have worked for Edward Lord.

I'm somewhat reassured that Whittle also said the TRAs have failed wholesale to get the GRA reforms through. Absent an actual consultation response from the govt, that seems to be all the GC camp have to go on, unless I missed something from one of the brilliant women's campaigns?

Yes, if that story is true (which I doubt) as retold on that Twitter thread it seems Whittle expects everyone to feel sorry for the transwoman, but my sympathies would all be the other way.

From the twitter thread Whittle gave an example of transwoman who had been put through the mill because obtaining a GRC would mean having to admit to their husband they weren't born a female.

a) I doubt it

b) Marriage is a contract. If someone lies about material terms (and that would be a material term to me) that's a huge issue. Making law specifically so someone can deceive the other party in a contract seems... interesting.

It's almost as if TRAs just use any figure that suits their argument at the time, with no regard for the truth.

I do wish people would ask trans rights activists for the source of their claims. Its a completely reasonable request.

This 5000 is the approx number of GRCs issued?

Yup. But I dare say Whittle doesn't really believe that only trans people with a GRC should have been able to respond to the consultation. And if we take Stonewall's extremely broad definition of trans, which includes cross-dressers, then there are probably hundreds of thousands if not millions who qualify.

It's almost as if TRAs just use any figure that suits their argument at the time, with no regard for the truth.

I thought that was odd. As I understand it, Whittle was one of the prime movers behind getting the GRA passed and Parliament was told at the time that only about 5000 people would ever qualify. This was one of the reasons given for rushing it through and not worrying too much about the pertinent points raised by a small number of MPs and peers at the time. And lo, in the 15 years since, there have indeed only been about 5000 GRCs issued, but the activists say this is because the GRA is so draconian that hardly anyone qualifies, hence the need to relax the criteria.

"Over 55,000 people responded to the consultation, but there only around 5,000 trans people in the UK."

This 5000 is the approx number of GRCs issued?

The estimated number is completely at odds with claims made by many prominant TRAs both individuals, lobby groups and charities.

It would be good if someone had asked Stephen Whittle to clarify as Im sure there will be conflict with the Women's& Equalities TRans Inquiry report for which Stephen Whittle acted as independent expert advisor.

Entertaining thread. But you know what stands out for me? This:

"Over 55,000 people responded to the consultation, but there only around 5,000 trans people in the UK."

If Whittle and allies really believe that there are only 5,000 trans people in the UK, then why all the fuss? That's a tiny, tiny number. It's the size of a village. Some comparisons: Blackpool has a population of 140,000. There are 57,000 Scots Gaelic speakers in the UK. More than 1m people in the UK use a wheelchair.

If there are really only 5,000 trans people in the UK, why so much hooha about demanding rights to changing rooms, toilets and swimming pools? Why are charities like Mermaids receiving a £500,000 grant from the National Lottery? Why are there so many different trans lobby groups and charities? Why are Stonewall prioritising trans rights at the expense of the rights of the one million gay men and lesbians?

You simply cannot have it both ways: claiming that trans people are a minuscule minority and that they deserve huge amounts of money and public resources.

Theres a world of difference between good make up and lighting on a photoshoot, (or bad lighting in a dark bar) and marrying someone.

If this scenario is true at all, it's more than likely that the partner is lying to the transperson about not knowing their sex.

some trans people pass very well.

Hugely, hugely unlikely that it would be well enough to accidentally marry one though.

What I meant is that some trans people pass very well. Those that don’t are inevitably more noticeable. Talisa Garcia might be an example.

It's unlikely that in this hypothetical (fictional) example, Stephen Whittle was talking about somebody marrying a Thai Ladyboy who then tried to get a GRC in this country?

When I worked in Asia, European visitors would often want to visit seedier bars. I remember a male colleague confessing that he decided that his duties did not include pointing out that some of the attractive young woman might not be all they seemed. Some ‘ladyboys’ passed very well indeed, even fooling locals. One slightly naive girl I knew took six months before realising her friend and colleague was in fact a man.

I assume psychologists might see ladyboys as transsexual rather than AGP. (And FtM existed. The one I knew of appeared to have received full acceptance within a culturally conservative family.)

Yes, it doesn't stack up. I suppose I was thinking of someone like John Ruskin, otherworldly, and so appalled by something he found out about his wife, Effie, on their wedding night, that the marriage was a disaster and she was eventually able to get an annulment for non-consummation. Nobody knows for sure what it was, but two suggestions I've seen were that Effie had pubic hair, unlike the women in statues and oil paintings Ruskin would have been familiar with from his art history studies, and that Effie might have been menstruating. But that was a century and a half ago.

Tinsel I guess the only saving grace is your response could be counted as valid. Bet that makes it all ok /sarcasm

unless they know someone who is trans.

And they never had a period, no one wanted kids, birth control was never an issue....

I thought the same when I read about that poor transwoman going through the anguish of getting found out, by the poor duped, lied to husband, that they loved so much, they lied to them every single day.

To wrap up Whittle stated that the GRA consultation should only recognise responses from respondents who are actually trans. That means that the 50,000 women who responded should have their responses discounted really, unless they know someone who is trans.

How silly, to assume none of the women responding knew anyone who is trans. Infact, I would place a bet that the majority of these women do come under the trans umbrella themselves.

'Discount responses from women even though it will affect them too' is just..the usual misogyny really.

The only way that could possibly be true would be if the husband was a virgin at the start of the relationship and had also led a very sheltered life. But no, I don't really believe it.

Also the husband would have to have never met the "wife's", friends and family, seen any childhood photos etc etc. It's just bollocks.

Plus it assumes trans women "pass" well enough for this to happen, which is fantasy.

And if they hadn't got a GRC at the time of the marriage they'd have had to present their male birth certificate. And this would have to be after Same Sex marriage came in, and one participant would have to not realise it was a same sex marriage.

I could go on...

The only way that could possibly be true would be if the husband was a virgin at the start of the relationship and had also led a very sheltered life. But no, I don't really believe it.
I remember Bob Monkhouse telling a story about bedding one of the Tiller Girls (sorry, young 'uns, you'll have to google!) and only finding out afterwards that she was transsexual. He claimed that the only unusual thing he noticed was that it felt like "putting your foot into a welly that had a sock rolled up in the toe"!
But then, he made a living out of telling funny stories...

The only way that could possibly be true would be if the husband was a virgin at the start of the relationship and had also led a very sheltered life. But no, I don't really believe it.

Trans people are time travellers and shape shifters. Yep, you heard correctly.
I kid you not, Dr Who and the X-Men are proof of it.

This is pure fiction surely? I cannot believe a man could marry a woman and not know they were trans.

I've been saying 'bullshit' to that claim ever since I saw it last night.

Bullshit. It's all part of the 'people can't tell if we're transpeople, not even in bed' nonsense.

that would make the relationships board advise you others to LTB and run.