SCOTTISH GRA REFORM ANNOUNCEMENT BROUGHT FORWARD

Which is why a definition should be pushed for, OvaHere, because once it's out in the open, more people will realise how regressive this is. But you can't make a law about 'living in an acquired gender' without defining what that actually means.

And of course the same for man being anything other than a male person.

Yes definitely oldcrone. And that's where it would start to fall apart I think because how can you possibly mandate what it means to be a woman other than being a female person? Anything else would just be offensive stereotypes - which has been what's been used so far - but now is our chance to challenge it.

The probably with legally defining what 'living as a chosen gender' is it enshrines the worst stereotypes of both sexes into law because it can't possibly be based on anything else. I don't understand how that can be a progressive move for a society.

When they say none of the exemptions in the equality act will be changed, does that include primogeniture exemptions?

That one's in the GRA not the EA so they could change it if they wanted.

If someone 'living in their acquired gender' is to be a legal requirement for a GRC, then it has to be legally defined. Otherwise it simply means whatever each individual wants it to mean.

Most significant thing here prob isn't getting the consultation reopened (Brilliant achievement though that was ) .

Stepping back a bit - what has been done here is that the Trans lobby have lost their monopoly as the only people with a say on these issues.. and its been established that it is legitimate to question their statements and assumptions.

TRA's demanded (above all else) silence from everyone else - that demand has been rejected - that is a monumental blow to their chances as scrutiny is what they can't afford.

even seemingly supportive q's like that asked by Pauline McNeill about how flse applications would be established - throw up massive bear traps ...

We owe a great deal to the women in Scotland ( and their supporters from elsewhere) who have made this happen.

This changes a lot.

That said

I noticed Patrick Harvie didn’t applaud SAS after she’d given her speech. He really is an odious little toad.

..some things though just can't be changed

I do not see how the issues can be resolved either.

However, there is at least a discussion being had now, with acknowledgement of some of the issues. The more airing of matters, the better, in my opinion, and that is thanks to the women who have spoken out. It is better for everyone that the government listens to concerns. I also hold out some hope that better minds than mine can come up with a solution.

The statement by James Morton is illustrative, though - he says long delays embolden people who are prejudiced against trans people - which I take to mean he is concerned that delays will allow issues to be properly scrutinised and concerns will grow about this policy (not prejudice). Whereas the point surely is that legislation has to work for everyone, not some at the expense of others. The government statement essentially admits that proper scrutiny has not happened. It is questionable whether it can happen in the timetable allowed - impact assessments and a draft bill for consultation over the summer. But it is a step forward from these decisions being entirely taken behind closed doors.

I don't really see how the government can sort this out-if GRCs are confidential & no one can enquire if someone has one....how can transwomen with GRCs be denied access to female only space?

The only way is to stop issuing GRCs & let people dress & present how they wish.

People can already change the sex marker on their driving license & passport. (which is not terribly sane policy either.)

Birth certificates should not be messed with.

We all know what ‘living as a woman’ means.

It means whatever men want it to mean.

So the man I see with a beard wearing a spaghetti strapped flouncy sun dress and DMs, generally seen stalling up and down the Main Street eyeballing people aggressively - ‘living as a woman’ or not?

I was pleasantly surprised. I think making the government issuing guidance on it explicitly spelling out what “living in their acquired gender” means would be a good step to highlight how much of this is based on sex stereotypes.

Uhuh
hirley Anne Somerville, the equalities secretary, said she would launch new consultations to ensure that anxieties that women and girls could fall victim to predatory men or lose access to single-sex services were properly addressed. oh ok then

Somerville said the Scottish government was determined to update the legal rights of trans men and women, with a simpler, quicker process to allow people to get a new gender recognition certificate through self-declaration rather than requiring medical evidence. bla bla bla ‘living as a woman’ bla bla

Same crap then?

The caution before moving forward with reform is welcome. However, the problem remains that the proposals are fundamentally unworkable if they rely on the presumption that it is possible to both fully allow people to live as an acquired gender (what does this mean in practice which does not resort to stereotypes?) and protect same sex spaces. The only way to do this is to accept that living as an acquired gender is circumscribed and does not allow one to be treated as the opposite sex.

Hence, one would be legally allowed to dress, call yourself and be pronouned in a manner conventionally associated with the opposite sex but one does not acquire all the protections of that sex (same sex spaces etc), but a separate set of protections for transgender people.

In other words, recognise that transgender is a category in its own right deserving of its own protections. Presumably no women’s groups would have an issue with this, but transgender groups would as they tend to equate gender with sex, and this relies on the concept of a legal sex.

The most important point recognised in the debate in Scotland is that gender does not equate with sex, and that there are risks to women and girls from the proposed law. It remains to be seen how seriously these risks are taken.

Surprisingly neutral account from the Graun.

Guardian write up: amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jun/20/scotland-to-run-new-consultations-before-updating-gender-law

boatyardblues I was very excited to see a new word , so I looked it up, before realising the typo. Such a shame because I like the look of it. As words can mean anything now, can we adopt it?

Most of the responses on that thread are great. I love how most posters sidestep the knockers and haters and just clamlybstate their point. I can’t believe the TRA who dismisses the response of the woman who does engage and says her partner tried to kill her, so she is justifiably fearful about mixed spaces. Well, I can believe it and, vile as it is, it neatly makes Joan’s point about the lack of consideration of women’s needs. Another own goal.

Joan McAlpine for PM!
Seriously, imagine how different and much better the lives of women and girls in the UK would be if we had Parliaments full of other MPs with just a tiny fraction of Joan Mc’s intelligence, principles and bravery.

mobile.twitter.com/JoanMcAlpine/status/1141774459919044608

Thank fuck. ✊

Scotsman write up of events:

www.scotsman.com/news/politics/gender-law-delayed-for-more-consultation-on-impact-on-women-1-4951316

A good result. So glad this issue brought me back to rad fem activism!

👏👏👏👏👏👏👏 for all Scottish women organising against this. What a difference you’ve made! 🏆 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 💕

I think Shirley-Anne seems on side. Hopefully.

'we don't have all the answers' sounds to me like what you say before you have a full, frank investigation, discussion and examination of the issues.

Bring it.

I'm just tagging here to catch up - been cut off from things til I got in & I'm so pleased that the collective hard work from women has opened things up at last.

Massive 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 to women (and allies) everywhere tonight.