Do you count GC feminists as LGBT?

There's a lot of murky stuff happening in the CPS isn't there in relation to gender identity? I'm sure I've read something somewhere about individuals with an agenda and weak management unable to manage them?
I always thought the toxic anti girl "school guidelines" the CPS produced and then withdrew rather than face legal challenge was a classic example of what out of control capture looks like in an institution.

Fwiw having just read Dennis Kavaughs breakdown of the proposed conversion therapy bill, which is a total and utter car crash as it stands and has learnt nothing from the ambiguity that poor definitions in the Equality Act has produced I find in insane the Tories are proceeding at all with it without settling the EA first due to the number of cases.

However since Labour are fully committed to the bill, regardless of whether it passes this parliamentary session or not and this is generally a huge issue across multiple parties, I can't for the life of me work out why we are singling out Kemi on this thread other than because she is a woman and wears the wrong colour rosette.

It's total bullshit.

Is there any particular reason we shouldn't be discussing both?

Other than the fact you clearly have a massive anti-tory agenda which is totally blinding you to the actual subject because you are more concerned about bashing party politics?

Just y'know. Curious.

Thelnebriati · Today 23:40

Currently the Gender Recognition Act states that having a Gender Recognition Certificate does not mean a man can't be charged with rape.

When Labour get in and 'update' the GRC, they need to leave that clause alone.

20 Gender-specific offences
(1) Where (apart from this subsection) a relevant gender-specific offence could be committed or attempted only if the gender of a person to whom a full gender recognition certificate has been issued were not the acquired gender, the fact that the person’s gender has become the acquired gender does not prevent the offence being committed or attempted.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/20

That is good, thank you for making that clear. (What a shame this uses the word ‘gender’ to mean sex in some places though.)

A problem is the greyer aspect of sex by deception happening in practice and the CPS being ‘captured’, and influenced no doubt by their interpretation of the EA protected characteristic of Gender Reassignment, and of the GRA.

The Gay Men’s Network have written to the CPS about that Nov 2022. (my bolding.)

“Male Homosexuals can be victims of sex by deception offences and “stealthing” (the practice of trans identified females concealing their true biological sex) is a growing issue in homosexual male spaces. We are therefore concerned to protect the interests of homosexual males against sex crime by deception and we believe that everyone should be equal before the law with no special treatment for some defendants and no second- class status for some victims”.

“We are deeply concerned that the CPS consultation document is written in the language of gender identity ideology. It speaks about sex being assigned at birth, “genderqueer” identities and imposes upon CPS staff the duty of assessing the veracity of various “gender identities” while simultaneously stating that they cannot be defined. This is incoherent. This guidance uncritically accepts and reproduces highly political and highly contested language”.

• “The proposed guidance creates a series of hurdles which mitigate against the prosecution of defendants which would have the effect of failing victims of sex crimes by deception. RASSO lawyers are mandated by this policy to consider irrelevant matters suggesting they should weigh against a decision to prosecute”.

“Specifically, this guidance would require CPS lawyers to assess whether a Defendant is successfully “living as a man/woman” or whether they have obtained a GRC. These matters depend on offensive and dated stereotypes about how men and women live and are irrelevant to the important factual question of whether a victim of sex crime has been deceived. This exercise is also completely unknown to law and there is no basis for it in Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) authority or statute”.

• “More worryingly, the guidance engages in “victim-blaming” mandating CPS staff to ask whether a victim of sex crime by deception “closed their eyes” to the obvious. This has deeply disturbing parallels to saying, “she was asking for it”. We consider this sort of rhetoric deeply unfortunate particularly in the context of this category of offending”
. The
© 2022 Gay Men’s Network 1 November 2022

Currently the Gender Recognition Act states that having a Gender Recognition Certificate does not mean a man can't be charged with rape.

When Labour get in and 'update' the GRC, they need to leave that clause alone.

20 Gender-specific offences
(1) Where (apart from this subsection) a relevant gender-specific offence could be committed or attempted only if the gender of a person to whom a full gender recognition certificate has been issued were not the acquired gender, the fact that the person’s gender has become the acquired gender does not prevent the offence being committed or attempted.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/20

It is on the thread about a female only lesbian members club.

This is the sort of absurdity of the of the interaction of EA and the GRA.

To see what I mean see a horrible trans activist graphic image posted on another thread on this board here tonight of a transwoman rapist sitting on a frightened woman, boasting ‘Yes it is a penis you feel’ and with a caption ‘Welcome to the 21st Century’

A man with a GRC could rape a lesbian ( EA Sexual Orientation protected) female (EA Sex protected) by deception, but then claim it isn’t deception and isn’t rape because he has a GRC/ is legally a female for all purposes.

If only Rishi would do some reviewing of the unintended aspects of the Equality Act that are of concern.

Speaking of Scotland, it is worth seeing the current active thread on this board if you haven’t already.

Thank you for the links related to the source for what you had said about Kemi Badenoch planning to remove the Equality Act.

I see Sunak/Badenoch referred to a ‘review’ and Sunak and that they would ‘keep’ legitimate protections.

So presumably no one could start saying ‘no blacks or Irish’ when letting houses or B&B rooms; pregnant women shouldn’t loose their jobs, or women be paid less for the same work.*

*(On this last point, as an aside, interestingly, as things stand in the confusion between the Equality Act and the GRA, according to Dr Foran a legal expert who spoke at a Parliamentary Committee over Scottish GRA reform a year ago, if Lady Haldane is correct, a pregnant transman with a GRA who is legally male might end up with discrimination difficulties,as could a gay man - please see Dr Foran’s Orr’s citing these examples of current GRA/EA potential legal problems in the screen shots from the link below.)

A review related to confusions or contradictions in the EA is not therefore negative by default as you seem to suggest, nor is it the same as removing it.

https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/12639/pdf/

Yes, it's nice, and what nice people think, therefore won't have unanticipated effects.

Many kinds of legislative change can have some immediate beneficial outcomes, but that doesn't always mean they don't also have unanticipated or problematic ones.

There can also be more than one way to achieve the ends you want, policy wise, so jumping on one approach as the only good one is foolish.

Avoiding rushing in to make these kinds of complex changes is not a bad thing, that is why we are in the situation we are in. And the Tories haven't been immune, it's the spirit of the age, it seems, to just make these legal changes without really trying to see how they will shape the bigger picture over the next 50 or 100 years. If they've realized they need to be more careful that is positive.

I would also like to know the source of this suggestion.

AdamRyan
I don't support her for precisely that reason. We are all benefitting from the EA and it would be very short sighted to support its removal.

I was aware she was involved in exploring the need for clarifying ‘sex’ as meaning biological sex as opposed to legal , GRA’, sex (really gender).

I did not know that Kemi Badenoch wants to remove the Equality Act. Please would you point to a source for this?

I believe, but only from reading in these boards generally, that many of the protections in the Equality Act already existed as acts of their own for our benefits but the Equality Act sought to bring them together. But it was unfortunately completed in a rush before the ensuing election and it’s coordination and wording as regards its interaction with the earlier GRA was not well worked out. I am not sure which elements of protection were missing before the EA was created.

As I said though, I had not realised KM had ever planned to remove the EA/leave landlords with the right to say ‘no blacks or Irish’ - where has removal of the EA been mooted?

"Often it seems that there is very little sense of the long term, deep implications these will have, but anyone who wants to talk about them, or voices a note of caution, is accused of not supporting the vulnerable or minorities or whomever."

This is so true RTB. It's seen everywhere with people hanging onto political allegiances and advocating for at times sheer nonsense, despite all the evidence. It doesn't benefit society for political purity to replace the knowledge that life's complex.

The original trans orgs (eg Beaumont Society/ Northern Concord/Full Personality Expression/ Society for the Second Self etc) didn’t want to be associated with homosexuals (because they saw gay men* as undesirable degenerates). It was only after the LGB gained full legal rights that the T glommed on.

it’s annoying that the T have recently beatified Marsha P Johnson because the early T orgs wouldn’t have touched Marsha (an effeminate male prostitute who wore bits and pieces of ladies wear in a look he**described as ‘partial drag’) with a barge pole.

That Marsha was likely unlawfully killed and someone got away with it/the current Queer movement never even mention it infuriates me. They use Marsha as a way to claim the Stonewall Riots as a T event (‘Gays owe their rights to the transgender people at Stonewall!’) but they don’t give a shiny shit about Marsha the person nor what happened to him.

*I don’t imagine they gave much of a thought to lesbians in the 50&60s beyond making their heterosexual wives roleplay as such, but willing to be corrected. I know that by the 70s some were trying desperately to barge their way into the women’s movement generally, and obvs a lot of the key players in that movement were lesbians.

**Marsha is on video saying ‘I’m a BOY!’ in footage taken shortly before his untimely (and mysterious) death, so don’t smite me for using male pronouns, MNHQ!

The legislation was written with the concept that all makes who present as females are good law abiding individuals who have nothing but respect for women and have the same social issues as women.

It was written from a position of huge privilege and naivety.

It hasn't helped that activists have deliberately tried to campaign to exploit this naivety to its fullest and to redefine words to remove some of the protections explicitly detailed in the legislation.

The biggest issue has been the failure to address the point about human rights being a balancing act not a hierarchy.

The legislation is about doing impact assessments involving all vested interest parties

The problem we have seen is women's groups have been deliberately and systematically excluded from this and there has been an effective monopoly on who is said to represent the interests of the LGB community. One organisation dominated and was seen to have legitimacy in this area.

The trouble is, it had an internal conflict of interest from the very beginning because it was supposed to represent the interests of both those to whom sex and sexuality was an essential part of their identity as well as those who rejected the very concept of sex. They totally failed to do so. They'd already had a unilateral internal decision to only represent the latter group with a total disregard to the former.

And here we are, due to the naivety, privilege, lack of foresight and ongoing dereliction of duty of politicians to recognise the principles of balance and multiple interest groups.

I do't even think that "T" should be in with the "LGB", because it isn't a sexuality.

But I'm only a woman, biologically determined by my chromosomes and anatomy, so what the fuck would I know?

It's that "luxury belief" isn't it @TempestTost? An irrelevant and often anti social, anti community and anti women belief that's imposed by a privileged class and works to destroy rather than support communities. Usually enforced with a mix of fervent bullying, contempt and exclusion of anyone who protests.
Currently seen running through most political parties who will shortly demand that we give them our vote as they work against our interests.

It isn't necessarily all that easy to change this kind of legislation.

This seems to be a real failure particularly for people at the moment who think of themselves as progressive. There is this idea that it is pretty simple and straightforward to deal with these kinds of very complicated and technical laws and acts, which have very far reaching consequences not only on society, but within the law itself.

Which is perhaps part of how we have ended up where we are, not only in the UK but across many countries. People pushing through this sort of well-intentioned, but poorly crafted, and sometimes quite radical legislative actions, that change the way so many laws will have to work, and so many systems will work - employment, education, access to health support.

Often it seems that there is very little sense of the long term, deep implications these will have, but anyone who wants to talk about them, or voices a note of caution, is accused of not supporting the vulnerable or minorities or whomever. In very much the way the GRA was treated. There is this weird naive assumption that nice legislation to help the poor people must be a good thing, and fair, and won't create any conflicts because that just wouldn't be nice.

I think that we may have entered a period where a lot of this is going to begin to unravel and in fact we are already seeing some of that in society, and it will be rather ugly.