Annaliese Dodds: "sex and gender are different"

That also implies that there are such things as 'non biological' women.

I simply refuse to go along with any of this shit anymore.

Genuine question......but what do you imagine will be that different under a Kier Starmer Labour administration - beyond soundbites and warm sentiments?

Incoming: stonewall wall of words
https://www.stonewall.org.uk/about-us/news/stonewall-statement-labours-gender-recognition-act-reform-proposals

Stonewall statement on Labour's Gender Recognition Act reform proposals

As Labour’s Shadow Women and Equalities Secretary writes about what the Labour Party means by modernising the legal gender recognition process, it’s important we put on record Stonewall’s view on how to drive forward meaningful reform.

Let’s start with where we are. The UK has fallen off track as an international leader on LGBTQ+ rights. Just 8 years ago we had the best LGBTQ+ rights in Europe, in 2023 we stand in 17th place. We have fallen back by staying still, as other countries have progressed and modernised their legislation, particularly on trans and intersex people’s rights.

Legal gender recognition is one of those rights where the UK has gone from leading to lagging. Passed in 2004, the UK’s Gender Recognition Act is now far behind international best practice. Crucially the 2004 Gender Recognition Act follows a medicalised model, where a trans person has to hold a medical diagnosis of ‘gender dysphoria’, which currently takes years to obtain, and present years of proof of ‘living in role’ to an anonymous panel to apply for a certificate.

International leading practice has moved to a model based on legal self-determination. That is because it is inhumane and undignified to make trans people obtain a medical diagnosis to obtain legal gender recognition. An ever-growing number of countries have moved to, or are moving to, this model over the last fifteen years. In 2019, the World Health Organisation de-classified being trans as a mental health disorder.

If any political party wants to get the UK back on track for LGBTQ+ rights, they need to lean-in to international evidence, experience and best practice. Speak to Ireland, speak to Belgium, speak to New Zealand, Switzerland, Denmark, large parts of Canada, US and Australia. Review the evidence – which finds no known cases of fraudulent or criminal intent. They need to understand how legal gender recognition with a de-medicalised model is working in practice before formulating the detail of their policy.

It is wrong to suggest that safeguards cannot exist with a de-medicalised model. The Scottish Gender Recognition Reform Bill was the most scrutinised piece of legislation ever passed by the Scottish Parliament and was passed by a solid majority of MSPs with support drawn from all parties.

Safeguarding was extensively considered by Scottish parliamentarians over the course of the Bill, including several amendments that were tabled and included to explicitly bolster protections. One such successful amendment was by the Scottish Conservative MSP Jamie Greene, which created a new statutory aggravation offence connected to fraudulently obtaining a GRC. The safeguards in the Scottish Bill go much further than the UK Gender Recognition Act, and are much stronger and more specific than a GP being involved in the process, as was suggested by Labour today.
It is also important to note that the Bill was backed by every established women’s organisation in Scotland, including Women’s Aid, Amnesty International, Engender and Rape Crisis Scotland. The vast majority of women MSPs voted in favour of the Bill. The majority of Scotland’s women MSPs, feminist advocates and policy experts are satisfied that the provisions in the Bill do not have negative impacts on women and girls in Scotland.

If Labour are serious about reforming the Gender Recognition Act and enhancing trans people’s legal protections, we need a strategy informed by input from trans people on their needs and priorities, and a real understanding of how practice is working internationally. Not just on legal recognition, but healthcare, anti-discrimination and education.

There is a welcome intention to promote the dignity, respect and the potential of trans people, and it is now vital that they engage with communities and international experience before working on the detail of policies.

I signed up to twitter not so that I could tweet ( I never have and never will) but so that I could view. I've had no issue looking at twitter feeds - although it is helpful, and far easier, when people transcribe tweets for us all to see, and archive, on here.

No lawyer, just quoting re the gender identity in law. More I think about it more likely it seems

https://twitter.com/Jebadoo2/status/1683530211143368718

A totally cynical and strategic move by Labour/Stonewall ( indistinguishable from each other) in the wake of the resignation of Nancy Kelley, and the disastrous interview by Iain Anderson with Beth Rigby.

The Tories finally saw their moment to capitalise on the chaos, and now Dodds, in response, has come out with this PR exercise. They think if they remove reference to the words 'Self Id' that those stupid women will give thanks and go home.

Kemi on fire, and totally on the ball, as usual. She'll be brilliant in opposition.

Meanwhile in Scotland things are getting interesting. From there is is clear British Labour by coming out against Self ID have now really messed up things for Scottish Labour who have a completely different policy. Great article looking at this. How will this work in an election? Wait and see.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/national/scotland-today/23675290.labour-rules-self-id-u-turn-gender-recognition-reform/

Same applies to Welsh Labour of course.

Also remember Dodds article comes out of the debates at the Labour National Policy Forum. Guardian article:

"As well as economic issues discussed at the NPF, delegates also agreed a position on the Gender Recognition Act that supported reform but not “self-ID”.
The wording of the policy, seen by the Guardian, said that the current process of gender recognition was “intrusive, outdated and humiliating”.
Labour will commit to “modernise, simplify and reform the gender recognition law to a new process, taking into account international evidence of what works effectively”, the document said. The party will continue supporting the implementation of the 2010 Equality Act, “including its provision for single-sex exemptions”.
In addition, it was agreed that the party will “end discrimination against trans people, non-binary and gender diverse people, and ensure they are treated with respect and dignity in society”.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jul/23/keir-starmer-excludes-uncosted-policies-in-victory-over-unite-and-activists

So it sounds like Labour wants to go into election championing the rights of Ezra Miller and Sam Smith to have special status. Should be interesting.

Not buying it. A period of reflection, on what exactly? Proven how? New shade of lipstick?

I think it’s because they’re linking it in their minds with being gay and how that used to be listed as a psychiatric disorder but it’s obviously not comparable.

Contact the Women's Rights Network they seem to be good at organising locally and have a process for vetting members.
https://www.womensrights.network/get-in-touch

Or post on Mumsnet/twitter and put together your own local group.

@BellsMoon thank you for those screenshots.

Good on Kemi

It's complicated.🤣🤣🤣

We need to recognise that sex and gender are different – as the Equality Act does. We will make sure that nothing in our modernised gender recognition process would override the single-sex exemptions in the Equality Act.

The Haldane decision said that people with GRCs are a ‘sex’ in law. Biological males with a GRC are ‘legally female’ and biological females with a GRC are ‘legally male’ ( except for biological females inheriting estates and titles or being called their child’s father).

Therefore people with GRCs cannot be kept out of single sex spaces. If GRCs become easier to get, then even more ‘legally female’ males will be allowed in single sex spaces.

Meanwhile as no one can ask to see a GRC anyway, in practice, any one who wants to be can count as gender reassigned and gain entrance to single sex spaces.

So why hasn’t Kier explained how, legally, they will make single sex spaces, prisons, hospitals, rape crisis centres, refuges, health services, sports and all women short lists, genuinely single sex - meaning biological/natal sex?

If she really thinks the GRA 2004 and The Equality Act are Labour’s crowning achievement, then heaven help their kingdom.

And if she really thinks they now understand what transgender people need, that’s a fallacy too. We are only just beginning to find out the many factors involved.

I don't think I will ever trust Labour again at this point. I never, ever thought I could be persuaded to vote Tory but Labour have been unforgivable on this issue.

At the moment you only needs 2 medical type reports and a fiver to get a GRC so I can't see AD's suggestion changing much.

These days you do have to have a Twitter account to see more than one tweet at a time, so I’m very grateful to those who C&P all the tweets and/or screenshot them.

Posting the link would just let me see Tweet 1 of 5 in this case, for example.

In response:

A few weeks ago that was true, it is not now I clicked your link and got ONE tweet number 3/5 so don't tell me I can read all the tweets because they no longer come up as they used to.

I do support all forms of accessibility, and therefore for me screenshots of tweets give me accessibility.

You could have asked for the link to be included instead of your demand to the poster not to screenshot tweets and include them as a photo but as is par for the course with you you demand that everyone falls into line with you.

As for the comment about ramps, you have no idea what you are talking about in regard to me or indeed who you are talking to.

Copying a wall of text from the tweet wouldn't satisfy you either as it would fall foul of your need to verify stance.

The impression you give on this Board is that you want everything your way, you complain if more than one thread is started on the same subject, you complain how people quote when responding, in fact you complain an awful lot. This Board is not your personal fiefdom.

1. you dont have to be on twitter to read tweets

2. not posting words as a graphic image is in line with disability awareness guidelines - why wouldn't you support accessibility - even on a basic human level it is considerate.

Hardly a demand or preferred rules.

What a very strange response to suggest being more inclusive. I suppose you resent those who have a ramp as well as stairs at an entrance to a building.

And if there is an issue about not accessing twitter, what is the difficulty in copying the text.

Photos are for images not text.

I'm not on Twitter so I appreciate those who post screenshots of tweets, they are certainly not barely legible for me so I would hope people do not do what you demand, you do seem to demand a lot on these Boards wanting the Board to accede to your preferred rules.

Crikey, you could almost be trans with that volume of stereotypes pouring out of you.

Kemi Badenoch talks that way does she?

Here's the full thread https://twitter.com/KemiBadenoch/status/1683537279770566656

Brazen stuff from@AnnelieseDodds
. Labour have had YEARS to think of a new policy on gender recognition but they didn’t. Because it’s a very difficult area that requires bravery and being honest with people. It’s a lot easier to copy and paste our policy from 3 years ago…(1/5)

Today Dodds has announced the same policy, pretending it’s new thinking -we announced improvements to modernise 3 years ago and finished them last year! This is bare-faced hypocrisy from Labour…

How can anyone trust Labour on these issues? Today Dodds says a medical diagnosis is ‘important’. Yet here’s Keir Starmer two years ago announcing the complete opposite. Will he tell us why he has changed his mind? Will he admit that he was wrong? …(3/5)

Will Starmer and Labour apologise to all the men and women insulted by Labour MPs for this policy they now claim as their own? Will they work with us to do the right thing? Or keep shouting “culture wars” anytime ministers discuss these sensitive issues? …(4/5)

Make no mistake. Labour are embarrassed at being on the wrong side of history with numerous court cases on this issue and scandals like at the Tavistock. They want to fool people and hide what they really think. They want you to think they have changed. They haven’t. (5/5)

Yeah, they're going to have to wine and dine JKR publicly before I believe a word they have to say on this.

'Leading on trans rights' in reality means 'leading on destroying women and children's rights and equality in law to benefit T+ men'. We might as well be honest about this.

Can people who posts tweets put the actual link to the tweet.

Photos of tweets are barely legible and for those with visual impairments unreadable.

And if wanting to quote these tweets need the link to authenticate them, rather than only having a photo which may or may not be true.

She does at least talk about retaining single-sex exceptions for “biological women” but surely to do that requires amending the Equality Act to clarify that sex means biological sex, in line with the Sex Matters demand.

As it is at the moment for "all purposes" sex can include those with a GRC, which is why the Labour Party, who wrote the EA very kindly, for those of us who are old dinasours, said it would allowable for a very few single sex (ie based on actual biology) services. The examples given are Rape Crisis support. And although within the existing law any number of services could choose to argue for the absolute need for women to have a single (biological) sex service, NHS care, toilets or whatever, most dont bother as the sheer fact of how the EA is written says biological women aren't not as important as trans women. (And Stonewall has made many think this is true)

If the EA was changed so that every reference to sex in the EA excluded trans women then that would mean it would be much easier for shops to provide single sex changing rooms etc..

Although unfortunately the whole gender woo has so captured large parts of the country including companies, that many wouldn't bother to provide women only facilities or services.