Letter from FOVAS *DAMNING* for Stonewall

Orr has long since been squeezed out, along with Bindell and most other actual feminists. They needed to make room for complaints about how hard life is for public school Oxbridge educated women compared to public school Oxbridge educated men.

And investigative journalism at the Guardian? Not since Rusbridger left - I never thought I’d miss him.

There are some good women at the Guardian (Orr, Freedman) but what is needed is some good old investigative journalism, with data, interviews etc.And some clarity of language. How many people really would support self ID if they clearly understood it meant males undressing in front of little girls?

Great work, AA.

Ha. I won't hold my breath on anything coming out of the Guardian. they will probably get Owen Jones to write something.
Good for you for pushing it though.

Update: I have received an email from Guardian they say they are looking at writing about the issue. I have also initiated complaint procedure with Stonewall, and hopefully eventually with Charity Commission, about report on women refuges. They are not getting away with this if I can help it.

I emailed Amelia Gentleman at the Guardian a link to the letter, but I doubt she will reply, let alone do anything about this. When I emailed her a couple of years ago on transgender policy at the Garrick Club, she answered right away, suggested a phone conversation and was very keen to engage. Pitiful

The media silence is deafening. What will it take for people to start paying attention to this?

MrsJamin, Jess is my friend's MP.

My friend asked jess to attend meetings with Fairplay and WPUK in Westminster.

Jess replied to say she couldn't make it as she would be with Amnesty that day (but would make sure women and girls are safe, following my friend's concerns re self ID and the GRA).

Which is it Jess? Keeping females safe or cosying up to Stonewall?

This is what Jess Phillips was up to today, pouting at Stonewall. I'm thinking this didn't follow a quizzing to them about how much they listen to vulnerable women.

Have any of the MPs this has been shared with commented on it yet?

Stella Creasey tweeted something gushing about Ruth Hunt a few days ago, (iirc), has someone posted this under it? (She's blocked me, or I would)

@Mbwashenzi has the FOVAS "Response to Stonewall" been sent to Maria Miller MP, Jess Phillips MP and Baroness Burt of Solihull?

They, jointly with Ruth Hunt CEO Stonewall, seem to have received and in the Foreword strongly endorse the Stonewall & NFPSYNERGY Report "Supporting trans women in domestic and sexual violence services: Interviews with professionals in the sector"

(Why do people never date important documents like this?! - I mean the Stonewall Report.)

--------

THE "CASE-BY-CASE" CLARIFICATION WAS OBTAINED BY "WOMEN AND GIRLS IN SCOTLAND"

twitter.com/WG_Scotland/status/1133870458686906368

"The GEO (told us) that preclusion of trans people on a ‘case by case basis’ refers to the specific set of circumstances under which they are precluded...not to individuals". Blanket policies regarding female-only provision are lawful, so long as they are objectively justified."

GEO = UK Government Equality Office

Female Only Provision: A Women and Girls in Scotland Equality Report
secureservercdn.net/160.153.137.99/hjn.a49.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/FEMALE-ONLY-PROVISION-REPORT-1.pdf

PAGE 37

The need to strengthen protections for women and girls

"In our view it is unacceptable that the UK and Scottish Governments, as well as the EHRC, are unclear on how holding a GRC impacts considerations in regard to applying the single sex exceptions in the EA. We also think it is unacceptable that the current EA and GRA are apparently incompatible, as together they are interpreted by major providers to nullify the single sex exceptions (As explained in Appendix D). Furthermore, the equality protections for women and girls in the EA recognise that women and girls have sex based rights to privacy, dignity, safety, and to recover from abuse and trauma, and to be able to participate in society, and to equality. As such, we believe that the optional nature of the single sex exceptions, meant to uphold these rights, combined with the fact that the EA is open to confusion, nullification and misrepresentation, means that the EA does not adequately protect women and girls."

"As part of its review regarding the need for female-only provision in Scotland, the Scottish Government should identify the ways in which the EA can be strengthened and clarified to ensure that female-only provision is available to uphold the needs and rights of women and girls, and that there is recourse in regard to discrimination where these are not upheld. Our protections should not simply be an option but a requirement; we must be able to take action in regard to discrimination whenever the lack of female-only provision functions to discriminate against us."

"While the EA is reserved legislation, as outlined above the Scottish Government is willing to engage with the UK Government in regard to the EA for reasons of protecting women and girls. As such, we ask that the Scottish Government engages with the UK Government to ensure the EA adequately protects women and girls in the ways we have outlined, and we also ask the Scottish Government to identify any action it can take in respect to devolved powers in order to achieve the same."

Guidance and advice regarding the Equality Act 2010

"In the meantime, we ask that the government produces specific guidance regarding the EA single sex exceptions, as well as a point of contact in an advisory capacity, to help people in Scotland be able to understand the EA as it stands, and how to use the EA to uphold protections therein. Ideally there would be a service similar to the EASS, only it would be providing advice on applying the EA (it is important to note that the EHRC only provides some general forms of guidance, and is not an advice service). We would note that this would be of benefit to all protected groups in the EA, and that the lack of any EA advisory service is clearly a barrier to full use of the EA throughout the UK."

PAGE 44

APPENDIX B

The impact on women’s rights of basing access to a GRC on self-identification

". . . Furthermore, our work has uncovered that even though the single sex exceptions also apply to trans people with GRCs, applying these to people with GRCs in practice is very difficult, as joint protections under the EA and the GRA mean that it is not possible to ascertain if a person holds a GRC. And even if a trans person discloses their status to an employer or other organisation, this information cannot be shared (See Appendix D for our NHS Case Study which demonstrates this).

PAGE 45

APPENDIX C

Equality Act 2010: common misunderstanding and current practice

" . . . Many also claim that blanket policies that preclude trans people from accessing forms of single sex provision are legally prohibited, and again, this is incorrect. In correspondence with our group on this point, the GEO used an example in the explanatory notes to the EA of a group counselling session for female victims of sexual assault that precludes transwomen “because the service provider judged that inclusion would mean the women for whom the service was intended would not attend”. The GEO highlighted that preclusion of trans people on a ‘case by case basis’ refers to the specific set of circumstances under which they are precluded, i.e. ‘case by case basis’ refers to circumstances, not individuals, and this is how services such as group counselling sessions for female victims of sexual assault can lawfully be provided for natal females only.

The kinds of misrepresentations and incoherent positions regarding the EA that we have outlined here are contributing not only to a great deal of confusion around the EA, but also to a climate where those who would invoke those protections are particularly fearful of doing so, as they will be attacked as being transphobic and/or as ‘rolling back trans rights’, and by organisations, not just individuals."

I agree that in certain jobs it is best for safeguarding for the employer to know the sex of the applicant.

When working with children & vulnerable women, its essential.
Sex is a significant risk factor.
To hide sex of someone employed & therefore with power is a failure in the Duty of Care.

A potential employee who sought to hide a significant risk factor should also be regarded as representing potential risk.

Thank you Rowan Thats helped. I agree that in certain jobs it is best for safeguarding for the employer to know the sex of the applicant.

Personally, I'd worry about the reliability of the DBS system where a name change is almost certainly involved but that is what DV refuges rely on, ie. if they do any checks at all.

I wonder if there has ever been an audit?

The whole system is back to front, trying to introduce safeguarding for the more vulnerable by trying to patch holes in a system designed to protect the less vulnerable.

The safest option would be:

1. look at tightening up the EA and GRA to ensure ease of excluding transwomen entirely.

2. then and only then consider a proven, reliable system for inclusion. Which would mean looking at the integrity of the DBS system.

I'm not the brightest, but that's confused me mole! Wouldn't "Leonard" be the previous name? Sorry if derailing.

THe current name ( Letitia) would be at the top of the paperwork

The convictions listed would not indicate were committed by anyone else but 'her'
1/3/1980 Shoplifting goods value £10 fine £15

The previous name would not appear when there has been a 'gender change', though with other job applicants, all previous names are listed & therefore known to the employer.

But what if Letitia has been living at her address for 5 years, on electoral roll etc and chooses not to declare previous names. Would DBS actually check back beyond 5 years to see.if this person existed before then?

DBS has to first confirm identity (from birth) & then search for convictions / serious intelligence (if enhanced)

There is a direct process so that the person in an organisation who checks id is not alerted to a 'change of gender'
The applicant contacts DBS directly & provides all information there.

Given the nature of organisations which are required to carry out DBS & the type of work (Safeguarding children & vulnerable adults) it makes no sense to me that they are not entitled to have relevent risk information about applicants eg their sex & also able to manage such information confidentially.

It creates a loophole & whilst there are theoretical protections in place, it will be tested by those determined to.

The bottom line is that with any Safeguarding work, the priority should be the at risk children & vulnerable adults who are requiring a service. When protecting/validating the 'identity' of a potential employee is the driver for changes in Safeguarding frameworks, something has gone very wrong.

HepzibahGreen The DBS certificate would still show the criminal record, just not the previous names and original sex. So "Letitia" would have a DBS showing the same convictions as "Leonard".

I'm not the brightest, but that's confused me mole! Wouldn't "Leonard" be the previous name? Sorry if derailing.

Anybody who knows about refuges knows that sometimes you get women turning up, if they are lucky, with a bin bag full of stuff and the bin bag full of stuff is sometimes just the children’s toys, because they have picked out what is the most important to them.

Fuck. I was doing so well, angry at reading, then I got to this bit and involuntarily sobbed. This is the truth of refuges.

The DBS certificate would still show the criminal record, just not the previous names and original sex

But what if Letitia has been living at her address for 5 years, on electoral roll etc and chooses not to declare previous names. Would DBS actually check back beyond 5 years to see.if this person existed before then?

@HepzibahGreen The DBS certificate would still show the criminal record, just not the previous names and original sex. So "Letitia" would have a DBS showing the same convictions as "Leonard".

The sensitive applications route gives transgender applicants the choice not to have any gender or name information disclosed on their DBS certificate, that could reveal their previous identity.

What the actual FUCK? ?
So, a man could terrorise his wife for years, beat her senseless, abuse his children, build up a string of police incudent reports and social worker involvement, then call himself Letitia and get a job with access to women and children and no link between his male identity and his new identity??
What is the point of DBS then?

This video by Tranime Girl (transwoman) puts a good case for denying rapists the right to change Gender Identity and for revoking GRCs of rapists on medical grounds:

Rapists' Pronouns

Transcript

I need to talk about rapists and their pronouns. I'm appalled that I need to talk about the pronouns of rapists, but here I am. Let's just take a head first dive in to this.

There is an odd phenomenon of the "transgender community backing the "trans identity" of rapists. We're talking about male-bodied individuals who forced the most male part of their body into an unwilling victim, claimed they are transwomen, got placed in a women's prison based on their supposed gender identity, who the proceeded to attack female inmates.

They are so insistent that these alleged "transgender" women are indeed transgender women that they spend an obsessive amount of time shouting about it on Twitter, insult women who disagree, and some have gone as far as it being one of the reasons they are threatening to dox me!

Yes, the "trans community", whom for years has insisted that you must never out trans women, will post the private information of a transsexual woman because I refused to believe a male who forced his male genitals in to someone against their will is a woman.

If these are the people who make up "transgender", then there is no reason transsexuals should be supporting, or included in, "transgender".

To be a transsexual, one must be dysphoric about their sex. If someone can take the set of genitals they were born with and force them on to another human being while they fight against the attack, clearly, clearly that person is not dysphoric about being the sex they were born with.

There's no gray area here.

The entire concept of protecting the pronouns of a rapist hinges on the extremely false premise that a "transgender identity" can never be spoken as a lie. They insist so-called TERFs lie, and "TruScum" lie, but when it comes to stating oneself is "transgender", suddenly the concept of lying doesn't exist.

This isn't about taking someone's identity away for bad behaviour. I'm not going to claim a transsexual woman is a man if she vandalizes a car or knocks over a liquor store. This is about someone demonstrating in themost extreme way possible that they are not dysphoric.

If you want to rebut this by saying there are women who rape, then I ask you, where are the post-op rapists?! Where are the transwomen who raped AFTER their surgery?! Why is it every single "trans" rapist I can find either didn't get the surgery at all or only got the surgery after having raped preoperatively?! Maybe there's a post-op rapist out there somewhere, but certainly not enough for me to find them easily on Google.

With places like New York City allowing people to change the gender marker on their identity documents without any affidavit from a doctor, psychologist, or any other documentation from any other medical professional at all what-so-ever, the stage is set for male rapists to claim to be women to be put in women's prisons with a whole cage full of new victims who can't run away!

That's what "transgender" activists are backing! I'm not sure what their motives really are, but I can more than understand why so -called "TERFs" are up in arms about this! Things like this are precisely why I was willing to talk to them. It turns out a lot of them have no issue with transsexuals. Unsurprisingly, they don't like rapist defenders! No one does!

They've gone on some tirade , insisting I'm some sort of "Token to the TERFs", a "TERF lap-dog", and that I've sold out my community! I can tell you this, I don't need a feminists, Trans-exclusionary or not, to tell me rapists are bad. I figured that out on my own.

I refuse to allow "transgender" activists to make me in to the Trojan Horse that brought rapists in to women's spaces. I will NEVER grant a rapist their "preferred pronouns"!

"Transgender" activists insist that by allowing these rapists to be denied their pronouns it will set a precedent that "trans identities" can be taken away. False!

The fact that I refuse to give pronouns to rapists sets the precedent that someone who commits an act that flies in the face of their claimed dysphoria in the most extreme of ways was never a transsexual to begin with.
It sets the precedent that trans means something and you can't just lie your way in to it.

Conversely, protecting the preferred pronouns of a rapist sets the precedent that "transgender" activists do not care about the people they share space with. They have selfishly, foolishly proclaimed that the act of misgendering someone is worse than the act of rape!

They have set the precedent that "transgender" has little to no meaning at all what-so-ever as absolutely no one, not even those who demonstrate they are clearly not dysphoric, will ever be rejected from "transgender"!

I didn't sell out my community. "Transgender" never truly was my community to begin with! They're trespassers who see transsexuals as a way to get what they want.

If you disagree with me on that statement, show me otherwise instead of protecting the precious feelings of rapists!

I'm done with this topic! Anyone who demands I respect the pronouns of a rapist can fuck directly off! You will not use me nor my dysphoria to back rapists! I think rapists should lose any possible access to transition or identification changes.

I've had more than enough! Don't @ me on this topic, I am done with this topic!

Austin Powers: Right, let me show you baby! That ain't no woman, It's a man, man.

it’s pretty awful that Stonewall erased vulnerable women (and their children) in this

Yup, only men count.

Any male who wishes to be in a refuge and have his identity as a ‘transwomen’ validated by vulnerable women and children has failed the values part of safer recruitment procedures and therefore should not be there.

This is exactly it. Like a Ben Elton routine from my childhood on machine gun licensing - only one question required 'Do you wish, to own a machine gun?' and if the answer is yes, you clearly aren't a suitable person to have one.

@Janie143 I can't see any other way to protect DV service users other than by requiring DBS checks.

In the Westminster meeting that Karen Ingala Smith attended recently I am sure that it was said that the DV Refuge in the South West (can't remember exactly where) did DBS checks routinely.