Chair of LGBT APPG complains that deals worked out behind the scenes not adhered too

Saw this was bumped, link to relevant thread with update:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4185487-Crispin-Blunt-MP-ordered-to-apologise-for-breach-of-parliamentary-rules-over-attempt-to-make-secret-deal-on-self-ID

And if it is not an illness, either physical or mental, then there is not an argument in the world that the public should fund any body modification through the NHS. People should save up and pay for it themselves, like they do with a car or a house, if they are so determined to go through with transitioning.

I expect the protection from litigation is to try to get more surgeons and prescribing clinical staff into the trans area.

Sorry, in a bit of a rush and no time to read back and back and inform myself, but...

This mention of protection against litigation, when was that first written/ voiced? Was it part of the back-room deal Crispin though he'd done with Maria Miller or is that new — just as the law companies start offering clients the opportunity to sue?

Isn't the second paragraph a contradiction of the first? The meaning of the first isn't particularly clear.

Agree, that first paragraph is really poorly written, possibly to obfuscate?

An anxiety that has been reinforced by a narrowly, but strongly held view, that trans people demanding acceptance is an in-principle contradiction of sex and gender being in the reality the same.

What does trans mean?

“Trans is a general term for people whose gender is different from the gender assigned to them at birth. For example, a trans man is someone that transitioned from woman to man. Trans people do not feel comfortable living as the gender that they were born with. They take serious, life-changing steps to change their gender permanently.” 2018 Government Equalities Office Factsheet, Trans People in the UK. There are an estimated 200,000 to 500,000 trans people in the UK.

Isn't the second paragraph a contradiction of the first? The meaning of the first isn't particularly clear.

to allow for proper support to be given to trans people by GIDS, private or NHS, if they are regulated by the CQC, they should be exempt from litigation from wherever it comes

Quite apart from the odd concept that being unaccountable means you can offer more support, that paragraph just shrieks dodgy vested interest.

Crispin Blunt has some stupid and dangerous ideas. NHS trusts should not be immune from legal action because they are regulated. So patients should never be able to bring a case against anyone providing social care and health care in UK, because the provider is already subject to regulation by CQC. Yeah right.

if GIDS are regulated by the CQC, they should be exempt from litigation from wherever it comes.

Tactics - hide the truth, minimise exposure, block the sunlight, do back room deals, silence real people's voices, shame people, enact the ideology in secret, get the ideology into law in secret, present critical thinking as cruel,

And now Crispin also wants them to be immune from the legal action as a result of their own negligence too?

What. The. Fuck.

I completely agree with both of you.

They're unhinged.

Why are these TRA advocating so much harm and removing all protection from these children?

From the APPG report

"to allow for proper support to be given to trans people by GIDS, private or NHS, if they are regulated by the CQC, they should be exempt from litigation from wherever it comes."

Why? I can't see any justification for making this controversial service immune from litigation. Surely it should be on a case by case basis? If they're getting it wrong on a regular basis, big questions need to be asked.

[quote Kit19]This is the report the APPG submitted

www.appglgbt.org/news/delivering-respect-and-reassurance-around-trans-equality-in-the-uk

And a thread on the ‘highlights’

twitter.com/stilltish/status/1309957642505392128?s=21[/quote]
That report is dated 22 September. Where has it come from? I understood there was supposed to be some secret document from earlier, sent to Liz Truss before she and the government decided what to do following the consultation.

Back in the day, we'd turn to Amnesty International about prison scandals around the world.

Then Amnesty went full pimp.

We need an Amnesty Female International. These female prisoners held against their will with prisoners capable of raping and impregnating them, and being issued with contraceptive pills by the state are political prisoners now, in my view.

That APPG 'report' is an essay in abuse excuse.

Daft question, but how does that qualify as a report? I read it earlier and thought it was poor, I definitely wouldn't be crowing about it, let alone demand government adhere to its demands. It's what, just over 3000 words, and most of it emotive language, dubious statistics and not a reference in sight.

[quote Kit19]This is the report the APPG submitted

www.appglgbt.org/news/delivering-respect-and-reassurance-around-trans-equality-in-the-uk

And a thread on the ‘highlights’

twitter.com/stilltish/status/1309957642505392128?s=21[/quote]
Oh my fucking god, the material in that thread .... those poor women in those prisons. What do we do?

And yet the LD have told us we must not be bad women & suggest there’s anything like a trans lobby....

Maybe they weren't invited to be part of it?

Like Martin in Cabin Pressure saying that no, there weren't any secret clubs at his school

There is a real balancing act required in looking at special interest groups particular needs and balancing them with those of others.

Goosefoot I agree with this. Which means it needs to be done fairly and transparently. Fair consideration doesn’t prejudice any particular outcome and it takes into account the quality of arguments and information that are given and it scrutinises them with other views also considered in public on the record. APPGs are specific interest groups and that’s one thing, but anything that civil servants or regulators like EHRC or MPs touch on the floor of the house or in committee or in response to lobbying* must be done with probity and that’s why regulatory/institutional capture is such a worry.

*including lobbying from APPGs who usually have a secretariat run by an external group like a charity or a public affairs company and the content of the meetings are provided by external stakeholders to Parliament to inform MPs. Nothing wrong with any of that, MPs need to hear things from the horses’ mouth, or the representative groups for horses, but the same scrupulous handling must be given to APPG lobbying of MPs and Peers when it comes to actually making decisions about contested issues.

Allowing the focus in a women's rights campaign to rest on the needs of males is counterproductive in my view. We get little enough time to make our case, we need to spend it on us.

(My last paragraph corrected)

I'm not equating advocating for your own group's needs without first considering every possible impact on countless groups with

a) not caring about any actual negative impacts happening to others and

b) negative impacts on others always outweighing the needs of your own group so that we must abandon our aim and

c) negative impacts on your own group of not meeting your needs being outweighed by negative impacts on others.

I'm not sure why you do? Especially because that isn't what has happened in the context of this debate. And especially because when we navigate this debate, we have always acknowledged that some people do need special protections and have suggested a whole range of alternative solutions to give them that protection. To no avail.

There are legitimate reasons for looking at the potential negative impact on others and going ahead anyway, especially with a framework like the Equality Act 2010 to help us minimise the negative impact.

I mean the whole thing is just full of situations where protecting one group has a negative impact on others. But it's carefully limited where and when that is allowed, and there are plenty of circumstances where a group negatively impacted on in one situation is negatively impacting on that group (or another) in the next situation.

Things are rarely straightforward when it comes to exercising your rights. And we're not operating in the Wild West where we get to just do and take and damn the consequences. We're here, advocating for our rights, yes, and regardless of whether we consider negative impacts or not, we do not just get to do and take what we want. We still have to work within the law, and when it comes to policies or laws, there are people whose job it is to consider if there are possible negative impacts and who then consider what to do about it.

Maybe I'm simply not getting your point, but after having been involved in the defence of our rights, I can tell you that we have been most successful when we focused entirely on explaining the needs of women and girls and asserting our rights without engaging in any sort of discussion about the needs of the other side. Because then you get bogged down in various interest groups having various arguments raging in their community. You inevitably offend some of them, whatever you do or say. And the focus is, once again, not on the rights and needs of female people but on males who identify as trans.

Allowing the focus in a women's rights campaigners to rest on the needs of males is counterproductive in my view. We get little enough time to make our case, we need it to spend it on us.

CharleyParley

Actually in my experience 9 times out of 10 on this board when someone tells someone else that they aren't centering women, it's not because they are saying feminists need to advocate for anyone else. It's because they have suggested that some idea being proposed would have unacceptable results for other people.

I haven't suggested a need for people to be experts on everything. I am saying that if people really think it is ok for advocacy groups to pursue policies that are only good for their group, and will be detrimental to others, and to not care about that, they have zero reason to complain about the types of policies trans advocates ask for, or men's rights people, or any other group that clearly doesn't care about the rights or needs of others. That is exactly what they should be doing.