CALL FOR ACTION Women&Equalities committee calling for evidence on GRA reform - again?!?

I feel I can't submit anything because of the chance my name would be published. I just can't get past that.

What happens next? Does that stranger take us at our word & let us use the toilet? That's self-identification, and with far fewer legal barriers than anything that's ever been proposed for the GRA.

Or perhaps the onus is on us to "prove" our womanhood, if our word isn't enough? So, should we start carrying around copies of our birth certificates so we can show them to anyone who challenges our presence? That's dystopian as all hell, and also reveals my (rather uncommon) full name to a potentially-homophobic stranger who might use this information to stalk, threaten or harass me. If we don't want to present our papers before we're allowed to relieve ourselves, then what? Should we submit to strip searches to prove our sex? That's demeaning at best & traumatising at worst, but hey, maybe our mental health is considered an acceptable casualty in the quest to make sure that no penises enter the ladies' room?

And remember, whichever "solution" you choose for us, you have to also apply to the trans woman who comes into the bathroom an hour or so after us, and who also responds to any challenges with "I'm a woman, this is where I pee".

Watermonster thank you very much for enquiring.

Apparently the Women and Equalities select committee could give more assurances about this IF they think its ‘personal’ or ‘sensitive’ info that is likely to be submitted. Seems unbelievable the women and equalities select committee appear not to think it would be.. but frankly they seem pretty amateurish, so fortunately there seems to be another overarching Commons office to appeal to about this. This other office says:

What if I don't want my name or my evidence to be published?
We usually publish evidence, because it’s important that the public can see the information the Committee has considered in its inquiry and who wrote it. But if there is an important reason why your evidence should be anonymous or confidential, tell us.

You may want your evidence to be anonymous—meaning we’ll publish your evidence, but not your name or details that could identify you.

You may want your evidence to be confidential—meaning we’ll read your evidence but we won’t publish it.

If you want either of these things, tick the box on the website to say so when you are sending it to us. Please explain at the start of your evidence why you are asking for this.

We can’t guarantee that this will happen, because the Committee has the power to decide whether evidence is kept anonymous or confidential.

Sometimes the call for evidence will say whether or not the Committee will accept anonymous or confidential evidence for that inquiry. This is more likely when the subject is personal or sensitive.

You can contact us before you send your evidence if you have any questions about this.

More info on contacting them here:
publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/written-evidence-guidance.htm

This troubles me too, especially after reading Caroline Nokes' article in the Times yesterday. I am surprised to see that a committee chair - whose role I assume is to ensure submissions are dealt with impartially - would be so comfortable nailing her colours to the mast.

This is the reply I have received from the Committee (nb the member of staff has helpfully added her pronouns- she/her' !).

I find it extremely troubling that members of the committee seem (and in Caroline Noakes case are) very biased towards gender ideology. I have no trust in them to look at this in a partisan nor fair manner. I feel they will be dismissive to G woman's views.

The rest of the time females can feel as upset and traumatised and excluded as they like and no one cares.

Or accuse them of obsession and hysteria, of being 'vile' - the same old gaslighting women have always been subjected to.

@AnyOldPrion @Chattylion
I have already asked re confidentiality, as I think it's a valid concern- women getting rape/ job/ death threats, transpeople wanting privacy etc. This is the reply I have received from the Committee (nb the member of staff has helpfully added her pronouns- she/her' !).
She says
'You can request that your submission be kept confidential. However we cannot guarantee that your submission would not be published... People should only submit evidence if they wish to do so under the terms of the inquiry. If you only wish to submit evidence with a guarantee of confidentiality they we would advise you not to submit.'

From what I understand there are 2 levels of confidentiality- one is name not being published, the 2nd is your whole submission not published. I would think name confidentiality will be respected with such delicate subject matter but I would assume submissions may be more likely public??There is a box to tick. Maybe someone else with more expertise can advise?

The MPs hearing the oral GRA evidence in the sessions...

Women and Equalities Committee current 11 members:

Rt Hon Caroline Nokes MP Conservative Romsey and Southampton North Chair

Sara Britcliffe MP Conservative Hyndburn

Theo Clarke MP Conservative Stafford

Elliot Colburn MP Conservative Carshalton and Wallington

Angela Crawley MP Scottish National Party Lanark and Hamilton East

Alex Davies-Jones MP Labour Pontypridd

Peter Gibson MP Conservative Darlington

Kim Johnson MP Labour Liverpool, Riverside

Kate Osborne MP LabourJarrow

Bell Ribeiro-Addy MP Labour Streatham

Nicola Richards MP Conservative West Bromwich East

Session from 2015: parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/15db70eb-8e9a-4a29-82ee-78a13d802802
Witnesses: Susie Green, Chair, Mermaids, Anna Lee, Vice President, Welfare and Community, Lancaster University Students’ Union, Dr Ashley Miller, Senior Clinical Psychologist, The Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust, and Dr Jay Stewart, Director, Gendered Intelligence

They have been lied to. The Chair of the Women and Equality Committee said that most people responding to the consultation wanted to remove the Spousal Consent. There were a 105,000 people and only 7,000 of them ticked trans that responded. So most of the people saying they don't believe women should be allowed to consent or exit a contract with a man before he fundamentally changes it are not the women affected. The people saying that they want it removed are asking for the non existent Veto to be removed.

Even Ruth Hunt had to be picked up for lying about the nature of this in the House of Lords.

This is indicative of the nature of most of the trans rights PR going on. People think they are pro the the rights that is not actually what they're told at all.

Fundamentally dishonest. And that's based on those figures unless we are supposed to believe that most of 105,000 people haven't read Stonewalls lies and actually voting against women having consent. This is not a sweeping generalisation.

Fuckers.

I cannot understand why anyone would want to remove this option for the spouses of people who decide they are actually the opposite sex. Its a little barbaric to me, that you would want spouses kept in a marriage they no longer want to be in, and where terms have changed considerably.

It's everything that is wrong with trans activism in a nutshell.
I don't think I'll ever get my head around the fact that some people are ok with a system that allows middle-aged married fathers to apply for a document that says they were born female, and yet these same people want to deny women who are married to such men an easier exit from the marriage.

Testing sounds like you had a proper conversation with your MP. But like you said if they can acknowledge women being silenced and not do anything- that’s an anti-democratic red flag that they should all be massively concerned about, regardless of their personal views on the actual issue.

I can’t find the thread on the Committee on Standards on public life now.. wierd. I hope I didn’t imagine it!

I keep spotting other things to add to the list to send them, like the EHRC, like the Law commission, sad to say, there’s too many examples..

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/a4043925-Law-Commission-consultation-on-including-women-in-hate-crime-legislation-but-they-talk-about-gender?msgid=100636821#100636821

Again, there's definitely an agenda to reframe the legitimate exclusion of males who are presenting as women as a negative for women who are not especially feminine in appearance.

Rather like claiming the word 'woman' on sanpro is distressing for women who can't or have ceased to menstruate as a means to bolster and legitimise an agenda that has nothing to do with interest in the feelings or realities of 'menstruators'. Women don't give a damn what's written on sanpro, they never have. It's bizarre how female issues are only ever of interest when they actually support an argument that benefits the ideology. The rest of the time females can feel as upset and traumatised and excluded as they like and no one cares.

No bother, just felt a bit weird having my say when someone (many someones, but you seem the most prominent!) is here who knows this topic inside and out, feels a bit like trying to explain sciencey stuff when bowlofbabelfish was on a thread! I genuinely have no idea how you manage to remain so calm in the face of relentless bullshit. I couldn't do it.

No it's fine @NRatched please go ahead! I've very limited time or patience to keep making these same arguments over and over again, so I'm more than happy for other mumsnetters to make them

Apologies tinsel, didn't realise you were still on the thread..and obviously its better coming from someone whos actually been through it and would definitely understand it all a lot better than me.

I was trying to understand Tinsel's point of view—while also sharing my own.

My point of view, and more importantly the law, is explained at length in the linked article below, which I wrote.

I would imagine that after heterosexual women married to male transitioners, the group of people most likely to be affected are lesbians in same sex marriages, this is not my specific focus (as I can't do everything!), but I do mention that in this earlier article

makemorenoisemanc.wixsite.com/mysite/post/trans-widows-and-the-spousal-veto-a-modern-fable-of-male-entitlement

The 'spousal consent' thing is not how trans groups make it out to be. AT ALL. Its simply about giving spouses a way to end the marriage before it would become a 'same sex marriage'. Partners cannot delay a transition, nor block it entirely as TRAs will wail. Thats not and never has been what it is.

I cannot understand why anyone would want to remove this option for the spouses of people who decide they are actually the opposite sex. Its a little barbaric to me, that you would want spouses kept in a marriage they no longer want to be in, and where terms have changed considerably. Of course the option of getting out of it all should be there.

I wonder if the potential of just removing GRCs alltogether is possible here. It seems to be coming to the attention of the higherups (and not just in this country) how unworkable it all is in practise. And afterall, it was only ever a stopgap to get around legalising equal marriage, and the equalise pension ages, its original inteition is totally moot now, so whats it for really? Of course, people who already have them will keep them, I think its called being 'grandfathered'? But no more issued. It would be quite delicious if stonewall and such actually indirectly caused some sense to be injected into the topic.

As soon as we allow obvious men in, I'm thinking of most transwomen I have met, (not even the most manly butch women I know actually come across as men once they move or speak) we lose the ability to raise the alert when a man is in the women's spaces.

That's the problem. Not that occasionally women will be asked if they're in the wrong space.

Again, there's definitely an agenda to reframe the legitimate exclusion of males who are presenting as women as a negative for women who are not especially feminine in appearance. There's no link at all. It's just a desperate attempt to deflect as ever.

TeaPoweredScientist
Slightly concerned about how enforcing of single-sex spaces sometimes ends up throwing butch lesbians under the bus (since we're seen as not looking feminine enough to belong & are also challenged)

I am not a butch lesbian, but I have a deep voice and generally wear men's jeans and have been mistaken for one occasionally. I have also been challenged about using a women's lavatory.

I don't see a problem here. As far as I was concerned the onus was on me to say that I'm not a man, not on all women to be compelled trustingly to assume I am not a male however I may present. The trick is probably not taking offence where none is intended.

(It didn't do me anything like as much harm as being sexually assaulted by a male did.)

Ah butch lesbian bingo!

Actually I changed it to "spousal consent", which is the same term the government legislation uses for it. I then went on to mention "spousal veto" to cover a more general concept of people needing a permission slip from their partner before they can do certain things.

It's not a permission slip. The GRC enables the trans person to get an altered birth certificate. If the state has to be involved in this charade, it's only right that the spouse gets a chance to leave the marriage at this point. The trans spouse can carry on with the new birth certificate application after annulment.
It's about transparency, and it also means that lesbians won't have to find themselves married to someone who was 'born male', when they know they married a woman. That would be abusive, state-level gaslighting.