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

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.

Yes consent is generally considered a safe and civilised expectation. You have taken onboard the deliberate negative characterisation of the Spousal consent to their own marriage contract being changed as a veto on the other spouse. I suppose any person wanting to not have something done to them can be reframed as unreasonably withholding something instead can't they?

Thanks kistanbul!

WRT scope, you should try to stick to the qns, but if you think something needs to be said on the issue, say it.

Don’t respond by explaining why the inquiry or the qns are wrong.

Just answering some qns from yesterday -

Feel free to point to data to back up the points you make about personal experience. I just meant that they don’t need “amateur academics” - hope that’s not offensive to anyone.

@stumbledin As odd as it might sound, this inquiry is not part of the government consultation process or any potential legal change. The role of select committees is to scrutinise the work, policy and spending of the relevant government department. The committee will look at the issues of trans rights and make recommendations to the government. Usually committees will be critical of the government, but that could be because they think the government has gone too far, not far enough or the wrong way.

@Imnobody4
There is no minority report. All committee reports have to be agreed by all committee members (or those who show up to the report agreement meeting at least)

I posted something similar on the other thread but it seems to have sunk: I'm a bit concerned about how to keep responses 'on track' when the terms of reference seem to be so narrow, with virtually no reference to women. I have a bad feeling - hopefully groundless - that submissions could be thrown out for not being within the scope of the inquiry. So I think I will wait and study the guidance from FPFW and c/o first.

[quote Escapeplanning]@TeaPoweredScientist

Have you noticed that you have changed the quoted name of the Spousal Exit Clause to Spousal Veto which is a phrase that a) means something completely different to the actual clause and is b) not the actual clause, and then you pontificated at length about the wrong word you switched it to?[/quote]
@Escapeplanning 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.

Never heard it called an "exit clause" before as every piece of media I've seen discussing this talks about either "consent" or "veto", but I was trying to understand Tinsel's point of view—while also sharing my own. Sorry if that constitutes "lengthy pontification"??

Ah well, I was half-expecting someone would accuse me of being a man (based on describing my partner as "she"), so at least I'm relieved that didn't happen. For the record: woman here, just not a straight one. 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), and mostly lurking this thread and others to try & figure out how we address that concern while also protecting these spaces where they're needed.

It was said in sympathy chatty, as in, he's friends with Rosie Duffield, is horrified about the abuse she has received.

He believes in gender identity, we had a long civil discussion, he agreed my position isn't hateful, just a difference of opinion.

But he is aware that he is free to express his opinions and I'm not.

I don't think he realises how truly shocking a statement that is. Never mind the actual discussion, to be content to push forward an ideology which attempts to stop women engaging publicly has got to be the height of misogyny.

We are well able to answer questions, transparent about grassroots funding, and after all, you'd really have to be a 'bogus popup woman' to be a member of a 'bogus popup women's group'. Slightly smiling face

Most want to be seen as their transitioned sex.

But most of them aren't seen as the opposite sex because their sex is obvious. There's very little anyone can do about it. I don't think we should encourage the belief that you can actually change sex. So I agree with the pp that that's a reasonable compromise.

More homework chattylion, I've not seen that thread, do you have a link?

Testing

Also, I think i might include this example of a one-sided list of invited responses to which anonymity can’t be guaranteed, within a wider political context that means women are already being silenced.. in my submission about standards in public life that is currently looking for evidence - about Parliament, civil service, political parties etc:

The Committee on Standards in Public Life
Standards Matter 2: Public Consultation

The Committee on Standards in Public Life is carrying out a landscape review of the institutions, processes and structures in place to support high standards of conduct. The terms of reference for the review are available on our website.

This consultation runs to 18 December 2020.
Anyone with an interest in public standards may make a submission. The Committee welcomes submissions from members of the public. Replies to this consultation should be emailed to [email protected].

Consultation Questions:

Question 1: Standards of Conduct in the UK
A. How well do you think ethical standards - as enshrined by the Seven Principles of Public Life - are upheld in public life today?
B. Do you believe that there have there been any notable shifts in approaches or attitudes to ethical standards in public life in recent years?
C. What do you see as the most significant threats to ethical standards in public life today?

Question 2: The Seven Principles of Public Life
A. Do the Seven Principles of Public Life accurately describe the appropriate ethical responsibilities for those in public roles, including both political and non-political office-holders?
B. Would you amend or replace any of the principles or their descriptors? If so, how?

Question 3: The UK's arrangements for regulating standards
A. Are you confident that the UK's arrangements for regulating ethical standards are robust and effective?
B. Are there any areas of public life where regulation on issues of ethical standards is not strong enough?

Question 4: Best practice in standards regulation
A. What makes an effective standards regulator?
B. Do the UK's standards regulators have the right powers and remit to act effectively?
C. Should the independence of standards regulators be enhanced and protected, and if so, how?

Question 5: Creating ethical cultures
A. How can the Seven Principles best be embedded within a public sector organisation's working culture?
B. What are the most significant obstacles to embedding high ethical standards in a public sector organisation?

www.gov.uk/government/consultations/standards-matter-2-public-consultation-and-public-sector-survey

We have a separate thread about this consultation but I just thought I would mention it in case anyone had missed that one.

This is not the same as the 2017 cluster fuck of nonsense

They don't even get the year right! 2018 was the year of the public consultation.

I will definitely include in my submission that my MP told me he knew I am not free to express my views publicly. That's an outrageous statement for an MP to make and not speak out about.

Having read the call for submissions from the Women and Equalities Select committee.

I want to respond (though I am concerned about the lack of anonymity) but I am amazed that a parliamentary committee get to be so leading on their questions by saying ‘we only want to hear from you on these questions’.

Usually select committee inquiries set out to investigate a theme or at least attempt to include balanced questions or say please respond on ‘questions including xyz’. So they are deliberately trying to off-put women it feels like.

I agree with anyone complaining that respondents can’t have a guarantee to be publicly anonymous. It’s going to deter a lot of people if the committee will decide if requested anonymity will be OK when the committee also decide whether or not a response will be published..

This is a massively sensitive area and part of the whole point is that women who want to talk about women’s rights in this clash of rights have been doxxed and been threatened with their employer’s involvement and been sent rape and death threats.

It would have been fine if this committee had simply and in an open way asked for views on what people thought of the government’s recent response. And allowed anyone who wanted to be anonymous, not have their name revealed in public.

Is there a way to complain about select committees and get them to change it so that anyone can be anonymous? (Anyone know?). Should we contact the committee itself about this?

I missed out on the first GRA consultation so happy to contribute my views this time round!

Yes, same. I'll do this over the weekend.

Having read the useful advice from Maya and Ralph Lucas, I've put together a first draft/ outline. I will find references/evidence to support my arguments.

I found it easier than expected - I've given these areas so much consideration that my views are now clear and easy to express. The questions that they've set out also help with structuring. Although at first glance, they look to be coming from a pro-gender ideology perspective, there's ample opportunity to express a view that centres women.

I missed out on the first GRA consultation so happy to contribute my views this time round!

Thanks to mumsnet for drawing my attention to this Call for Evidence!

@TeaPoweredScientist

Have you noticed that you have changed the quoted name of the Spousal Exit Clause to Spousal Veto which is a phrase that a) means something completely different to the actual clause and is b) not the actual clause, and then you pontificated at length about the wrong word you switched it to?

See also numerous threads passim.

Oh look, someone trying to imply that even if only a few trans people respond, there would have been many, many more, if only they weren’t so terribly oppressed....

Why isn’t there a roll-eyes emoji???

Here:

uncommongroundmedia.com/spousal-exit-clause/

I'm also not comfortable with the idea of Spousal Vetoes in general: my life is my own, my partner's life is her own, & while we each try to take the other's feelings & wishes into account, we're also each the ultimate arbiters of our own choices. She could choose to do all sorts of things that would massively impact our relationship, like enlist in the armed forces or leave the country to start a new life in America, and while I would be very upset at her choosing to do either of those things, I would have no legal power to stop her. I feel like "get a GRA" should be in the same category, but I'd be interested to understand why you feel differently.

The only ‘Shady US links’ I’ve seen are big pharma and very very wealthy individuals pushing medical interventions.

Oh, the shady links to the US right. Has anyone ever produced any evidence of these shady links? Or are they purely fabricated?