Nicola Sturgeon - Radio 5 Live - this morning

If these two organisations are, in fact, one organisation, then it is clear that if the information is held by one of them it is also held by the other.

Absolutely.

All power to your FOI requests!

That's convenient given that recently they essentially have merged to become a combined organisation.

Yes, I noticed that and mentioned it in my request for an internal review.

www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/equality_impact_assessment_for_d#outgoing-958220

On your website, www.england.nhs.uk/about/about-n... it states that “From 1 April 2019, NHS England and NHS Improvement are working together as a new single organisation to better support the NHS to deliver improved care for patients.”

The header in your reply to me says that it has come from “NHS England and NHS Improvement”. On the What Do They Know website I have noticed that the responses to FOI requests made to NHS Improvement are similarly sent by “NHS England and NHS Improvement”. I have also noticed that you host FOI releases by NHS Improvement on the NHS England website.

If these two organisations are, in fact, one organisation, then it is clear that if the information is held by one of them it is also held by the other.

Initially, NHS England said "Nothing to do with us, NHS Improvement were responsible for the document". Both organisations are now ignoring me.

That's convenient given that recently they essentially have merged to become a combined organisation.

improvement.nhs.uk/about-us/what-we-do/

If the Scottish consultation is anything to go by, they will only assess the impact on transpeople as that is the group that will be impacted by changes. The policy is not designed nto impact women therefore there will be no assessment.

I've been asking some public bodies about their impact assessments here: www.whatdotheyknow.com/user/e_williams_3

This is a summary of the responses I've received (not their exact words, obviously).

Response from Welsh Government about the Equality Impact Assessment for the Transgender Action Plan: "We did one, but we seem to have lost it and all the correspondence about it as well as all the drafts and minutes of meetings about it. In fact, all trace of it has disappeared".

Response from Denbighshire Council about their transgender policy for schools: "Here's an impact assessment which barely mentions equalities at all." When this was pointed out, they hastily cobbled together something with a bit more detail. "Sorry, we sent you the wrong one. Here's the right one" Revised version still doesn't mention the impact on girls.

NHS England and NHS Improvement about their "Delivering same-sex accommodation" document which says to put patients in a ward according to their gender identity, or if unconscious, according to their 'presentation'. Initially, NHS England said "Nothing to do with us, NHS Improvement were responsible for the document". Both organisations are now ignoring me. I'm currently going through the internal review process with both of them and expect to have to refer them to ICO to force a response.

People who talk about 'bathrooms' are thinking about US law, which has no relevance in the UK.

Yes, it really grates on me too. Alex sounds like Alex is repeating US TRA talking points verbatim in a discussion specifically about UK law.

Radio 4 Woman's Hour are asking for questions for a panel phone-in/email-in tomorrow. If you can face further prevarication and BS made-up statistics

If the Scottish consultation is anything to go by, they will only assess the impact on transpeople as that is the group that will be impacted by changes. The policy is not designed nto impact women therefore there will be no assessment.

That's not the point of an EIA. The point is to assess a proposed policy for potential impact on all 9 protected characteristics. I know they do this as you say but it is a misapplication of public sector equality duty.

does not refer directly to a right to enter women’s bathrooms

Sorry, but this is a pet peeve of mine.

The EA would not refer anywhere to 'women's bathrooms' because in the UK a bathroom is a space that contains a bath, and they are always in a private space .

People who talk about 'bathrooms' are thinking about US law, which has no relevance in the UK.

Where is the impact assessment for the change

If the Scottish consultation is anything to go by, they will only assess the impact on transpeople as that is the group that will be impacted by changes. The policy is not designed nto impact women therefore there will be no assessment.

Thanks Ereshkigal. Great breakdown of precisely how the lie is constructed.

No problem, the more sunlight on these people, the better.

Yes, here's a good example of that from TRA law professor Alex Sharpe.

That is an utterly lovely example. For those who can't be arsed to find it:

Sharpe makes this ridiculous claim:

by virtue of Section 7 of the Equality Act 2010, all trans women who have undergone, are undergoing, or intend to undergo a process of gender transition (this need not be medical transition) are, irrespective of whether they have a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), already, subject to some exceptions, legally able to access women-only spaces.

Katie Bryan pins her down over several comments, most relevant include:

KB When I look at schedule 7 it just defines what the protected characteristic of "gender reassignment” is? I can’t find where it specifies that people with this specific protected characteristic should routinely have access to the sex segregated spaces of the opposite sex? I’d really appreciate if you can point me to this in the text of the Equality Act

AS The Equality Act does not refer to any such right. It is a default right. In a liberal society people can do things provided they are not forbidden. The presumption favours liberty.

KB So the EA itself doesn’t actually give people with the protected characteristic of “gender reassignment” any special rights to access the spaces of the opposite sex?.......Your statement that it has nothing to do with the EA (which I feel you were a tiny bit misleading about in your blog when you said (paraphrased) “by virtue of section 7 of the Equality Act they can already access women’s spaces”) means that is true, surely?

AS What I meant to say before was that the EA does not refer directly to a right to enter women’s bathrooms etc. It does not say so in these terms. Rather, it is implicit. If discrimination is to be avoided, trans people covered by s. 7 must be treated in accordance with their gender identity, subject, of course, to the exceptions contained in Schedule 3. So there are positive rights here.

Followed by the obligatory:

I see that you, Kati, just want to score points rather than get to the truth of things. Accordingly, I do not see the point in any further engagement with you.

Because a mean lady quoted the text of the law and her* own words to a lawyer.

Thanks Ereshkigal. Great breakdown of precisely how the lie is constructed.

*caveat pronounor

Where is the impact assessment?

Maybe that’s the repetitive question we need to be asking.

Where is the impact assessment for the change?

Where are the ScotGov guidelines for schools after the LGBT Youth ones were withdrawn as they disadvantaged girls?

Yes, here's a good example of that from TRA law professor Alex Sharpe. It's worth reading the comments, where Kati Bryan, someone I know who posts here from time to time (waves) calls Alex out on this directly and despite a valiant attempt to fob her off Alex eventually has to admit that there is no specific legal right granted by the EA for MTF trans to access women's spaces.

theconversation.com/what-would-changes-to-the-gender-recognition-act-mean-two-legal-views-103204#comments-container

Yes, but framing it as if the Equality Act 2010 specifically grants this claimed legal right, as she and many TRAs do, is wrong.

I agree. I think she/they are deliberately playing a linguistic trick to misrepresent the law; backed up by threats of various kinds to get organisations to go along with it. Sadly, I think it's working.

That depends, in almost all cases, on whether the service provider/premises owner makes the service single sex or choose your own gender.

Yes, but framing it as if the Equality Act 2010 specifically grants this claimed legal right, as she and many TRAs do, is wrong. The EA does not deal with the subject of allowing males into female spaces apart from when discussing the single sex exemptions.

Here we have all the "women's" services in Scotland falling over themselves to prove how woke they are

www.commonspace.scot/articles/12402/what-you-need-know-scotland-s-women-s-sector-speaks-out-gender-recognition-trans

But the point is that they have no legal right to enter them.

That depends, in almost all cases, on whether the service provider/premises owner makes the service single sex or choose your own gender.

The Genderists are winning because they are convincing organisations that it is mean/damaging/unlawful to offer single sex services.

I'll bet that what Sturgeon said is true of most women's shelters in Scotland- because funding gets withdrawn if they try to be single sex.

It's true of Girl Guides because their legal advice is that it's too risky to hold the line.

It's true of several shop changing rooms, who don't want the negative publicity the Genderists were so good at producing.

It's true in prisons FFS.

All this Genderists have achieved despite the single sex exemptions to the EA still being in place, despite a duty on state organisations to consider the impact of policy on women.

What are the additional trans rights that will reduce transphobia?

The only use I can see is to get around the places that are trying to provide single sex services. There will be no situation where the EA can be applied to women, as a class, once self ID comes in.

Self-identifying Transwomen can already access single-sex spaces - yes, they can, if they "pass" and nobody notices. But the point is that they have no legal right to enter them. They can try, but if they are spotted they can be removed.

Giving any male who wants one (not just "genuine" transwomen) a GRC gives any man a legal position to argue that he can't be removed, no matter what his motive for being there. GRC makes it more difficult to exclude. (It shouldn't, but it does)

I agree that I'd rather politicians just started being honest about this. The gig is up. We know what the law says, we've had to work it out ourselves because all the public bodies who are meant to advise us (EHRC, Citizens Advice, etc) have all been captured.

& if trans women are women what are they trending to?

It’s like the 7th secret of Fatima

What is the benefit for trans people in getting a GRC? If it confers no benefits why are they so keen for it to be easier?

And why would anybody want one if it can be obtained by anyone and nobody knows what it means?

What are the additional trans rights that will reduce transphobia?

How can trans rights be protected if 'trans' has no meaning?

It's all a mystery.

women's refuges are currently accessible to transwomen

That is because she made it a condition of receiving Scottish government funding. The fact that this means women are excluded from refuges or at least have to risk suffering further trauma to access them is by the by.

She's a big fan of "trans rights", there's lots of transphobia in society, there's no tension between "trans rights" and feminism, women's refuges are currently accessible to transwomen so enabling that further won't cause problems, she's not proposing to amend the Equality Act, it's the Gender Recognition Act that she wants to change and since you don't need a GRC to access single sex spaces as things current stand, effectively nothing changes.

Changing the Gender Recognition Act will change nothing beyond simply enabling trans people to get their GRC.

Or in other words, “We are already flouting the law, and have been doing so for several years without anyone noticing, so now we’re making what we’ve been already doing legal.”

I suspect that might be how she sees it. They have introduced all these bad practices that are detrimental to women, but as nobody has objected within my hearing (until recently, but that’s just evil transphobes who can be ignored) I fully intend to storm ahead.

I confess that one of the most surprising things in all this, is that in the recent past, the SNP have been generally popular as they’re better at reading the room than some of the other parties. But this, when people actually understand what’s on the table, is very unpopular. Digging her heels in is quite a remarkable reaction.

Tbf, at least Nicola answers the questions directly. Most politicians just dance around the issue cowardly.

That's a sticky one isn't it....

General public do you prefer a politician who won't actually answer a question and commit to an answer that makes them look bad...

Or one who looks you straight in the eye and directly lies to you such as 'there's no conflict with women's rights'?

Frankly I've got more time for the ones with enough conscience to actually hem and haw. My ideal would be someone with the guts to look women in the eye and say 'this absolutely fucks women over and reduces them to lower class citizens with males controlling every single space and many vulnerable women driven out of society. And I think this is good because...…(never yet heard a reason other than poooooor men) so vote for me.'

If they believe in, stand up for it. Own it. If it's the right thing to do, argue for it and explain why, honestly. If you can't explain it and justify it without sympathy bids and lies, then they know as well as I know that it's as crooked as a dog's hind leg. The general public learned a lot from Tony Blair; they're not trusting and they're not stupid.

Because OldCrone at the moment we aren't being nice and if there's one thing that is paramount above all others it's to be nice.

(But don't go expecting niceness in return. Or that other groups should also have an absolute entitlement to receiving niceness.)