Gender Recognition Act letter - response from Justine Greening

[ShotsFired]

I've just scanned the thread titles for the past week, but can't see anything obviously similar to this - apologies if I am repeating something.

I wrote to my MP and to Justine Greening some weeks ago. My MP responded (supportively) within minutes, but nothing from JG till this week. It's mostly pre-approved waffle, but there do appear to be concessions towards the need to consult with women's groups and also the ongoing need for certain sex-segregated spaces:

===============================================
Thank you for your email of 3rd August to Justine Greening. I have been asked to respond on her behalf.

In the Government response to the Women and Equalities Select Committee report into transgender equality, we committed to reviewing the Gender Recognition Act in order to de-medicalise and streamline process people use to change their legal gender. We have completed an initial internal review and we are convinced of the need to reform the Act. This is why we are now committing to publish a formal government consultation document later in 2017.

We want transgender people to be healthy and happy and to live their lives free from discrimination and distress. We know many transgender people feel the current gender recognition system is inaccessible, intrusive and bureaucratic. This is why we are delivering on our commitment to review the Gender Recognition Act and move to a gender recognition system that works better for trans people.

Attaining quick, accessible and transparent legal gender recognition helps transgender people live more comfortably and free from stigma and discrimination. This should not mean that there is a hierarchy of equality: we want all people to be safe, healthy and happy, irrespective of their gender identity. We will consult widely on the detail of proposals to change legislation and this will include with women’s groups.

As a person’s gender has important legal and social consequences, we will consider carefully the impact of self-declaration in our policy development and we will consult widely on proposals to reduce medical evidence requirements.

We also recognise that the provision of changing rooms and other single-sex or communal facilities is a particularly sensitive issue. That is why we have issued guidance for service providers to help them create comfortable, welcoming environments for all their customers.

I hope that this response helps to address your concerns and thank you again for your email.

Yours sincerely

Government Equalities Office

name removed by MNHQ

The NHS guidelines mentions roles that can only be completed by someone of a specific biological sex. The example given is that of a rape crisis counsellor. That position was specifically challenged by Mr Morton in the report made by Maria Miller, and she supported him.

There's no mention of people who's religion demands they see staff of a specific sex. But religion is a protected characteristic along with sex
I have no intentions of changing my religion to protect my rights.

Maria Miller believes that people who think we need single sex services for Rape Crisis and DV are bigoted. Research demonstrates that men change the dynamics of mixed groups. Women want single sex trauma therapy groups and services, and I cant imagine men want them mixed either.
There is no mention of religion in her report. I dont see why places of worship should be exempt when trauma therapy has to be mixed sex.

There is no mention of religion in her report. I dont see why places of worship should be exempt when trauma therapy has to be mixed sex.

Me neither.

We've someone at work who's just come out as MtF and without any medical changes, physical or chemical, just a change into female clothing 'she' is now using the female shower room. Needless to say the females have stopped using it.

That is shocking. So all the women no longer have a shower room, but she does.

I think the women's groups they choose to consult on this matter will be very carefully selected.

(Btw, I've posted here before but changed my name etc. as I had my phone stolen)

Manclife
We've someone at work who's just come out as MtF and without any medical changes, physical or chemical, just a change into female clothing 'she' is now using the female shower room. Needless to say the females have stopped using it.

This is why women say that trans rights erase womens rights. Women have protection as a class; the workplace must provide them with suitable accommodation.
Both groups cannot be supported at the same time.

If trans people introduced these changes gradually,. people would get used to them over successive generations. But they refuse any compromise.

I've told them to make a group complaint but they're too worried of being criticised for being transphobic. In law they're still male.

they're too worried of being criticised for being transphobic.

So they've decided they would rather be sexist instead. Okay then.

That sounds like victim blaming to me.

Oops, sorry I think I misunderstood your post

I thought you meant your workplace was worried of being accused of transphobia but I see you were talking about the women who no longer wanted to use the shower facilities.

Haha! No problem. Yeah! The women are scared. I was fucking fuming on there behalf as the person involved is quite happy for it to all 'hang out' and makes them even more uncomfortable.

To clarify, they were fuming, I was fuming in sympathy.

The reply came on 5 September. It's has some of the text asShotsFired's but it's longer. Perhaps they are elaborating their response as they realize that the bill is more controversial than expected?

Particularly annoying was their lack of interest in sex offenders becoming women: "unable to comment on the legal issues surrounding the treatment of criminal acts committed by individuals who currently or subsequently identify as transgender ... outside the department's remit." My complaint was not about the treatment of the criminal acts (act should be punished the same way no matter if person is male or female) but rather with the treatment of the criminal actors. To put it bluntly, when a man has raped a woman, how can the legal system take his claim to be a woman as anything more than a sick joke?

(There was another threat with MPs letter but it's disappeared)

Thanks crome. It's interesting to note the difference between Justine Greening's concilatory language here and Maria Miller's earlier sneering response to feminist concerns about the bill. As you say it shows that they are at least aware that the bill is controversial.

The stuff about male criminals in the female estate not being part of her department's remit, when this is literally what her department is pushing for via this bill, is unbelievable.

There's a lot of obfuscating in this letter and possibly even a few outright lies. This bit is particularly puzzling:

However the proposed de-medicalisation of the process does not involve the removal of regulation to the extent that an individual may legally change gender without a thorough and robust evaluation.

Who is going to conduct this 'thorough and robust evaluation', if not medical professionals? Why the need to 'de-medicalise' at all if a thorough and robust evaluation is still essential to the process of changing legal sex? And isn't the whole point of this act - the rationale of which was set out in the Women's and Equalities Committee's report - to do away with the idea that trans people need to 'prove' their identity claims to anyone, and that evaluation by a board, doctor's reports, etc, were going to be replaced by simply filling out a form?

Some of the other language is encouraging, though, especially when she says they will be consulting with women's groups (after the W&E committee roundly ignored their submissions), and where she acknowledges that predatory men using gender self ID to enter women's spaces is an area of 'critical concern'. All in all I'd say this letter shows that the government is on the back foot somewhat over this bill and that they have registered women's concerns, which means that all the letters from Mumsnetters are having an impact. That's encouraging, and million thanks to all who took the time to write.

(Full disclosure: I'm Australian so this bill has nothing to do with me, but as a woman it has everything to do with me, since it effectively extinguishes women as a legal class, and if it passes trans activists will use it as a template to push for similar laws all over the world.)

Er, just realised that the letter is not from Greening but someone in her department But the point stands: their language is getting more conciliatory and less blustery over this issue

That's a nice textual analysis DonkeySkin. They are certainly contradicting themselves.

At the moment there are no strictly medical requirements (e.g. hormones, surgery), but rather a certification of 'gender dysphoria' by a doctor. That's an unobservable internal state (and you can obviously find out how to pass the test by studying www.reddit.com/r/asktransgender/) . How can they make this more accessible while providing a robust evaluation?

I had to pay about £2000 and go through all kinds of intrusive bureaucratic procedures to get UK citizenship. This was a hassle but it was hardly 'stigmatising'.

Anyway, although I can't imagine that a few dozen (?) letters would make a difference, perhaps it is.

I'm from NZ originally, and it seems that all the Anglophone countries move in synch, or rather they leapfrog each other. Canada seems to be the furthest along the path.

Under existing legislation all you need to change your sex on your passport is a deed poll certificate and a letter from your gp confirming your intention to live permanently as the opposite sex. That's all. Then you have a cast iron id (which you can then use for everything else. So no new birth certificate but that's about it.