Penny Mordaunt has made her position at Women & Equalities Committee

[SwearyG]

She said what trans people face is misperception.
She said that this is like the fight for gay rights in the 80s.
She said we are frightened and have no experience of trans people.
She said that the videos and lectures going around are bigotry
She said that they need to show solidarity, but that won’t be set out in anything because questions have to be asked neutrally.

She’s a fucking woman and she said that we’re (and I am paraphrasing) misinformed bigots for caring about the rights of women and children.

I am so right now.

Religious beliefs.

Yes and no. If you want to use your religious belief to use the lawful exemptions that religious organisations are permitted to use, the burden of evidence is great. Self declaration won't cut the mustard.

Canaries in coal mines trying to warn frogs re: their potential for being boiled...

If you want to use your religious belief to use the lawful exemptions that religious organisations are permitted to use, the burden of evidence is great.

Absolutely; that's the difference between utilising the equality act exemptions surrounding protected characteristics, and claiming someone is getting a protection on the basis of them.

It was a bit confusing back there; posters were talking about protections (protection from discrimination, presumably), but self-ID'ing as female doesn't give you any greater or lesser protection from discrimination on the basis of your sex than being male.

In terms of exemptions, sure, you'd be considered to share a sex with someone who had self-ID'd into it; but those people could equally be excluded if necessary.

I have only recently realised quite how unfair this is:

• to maintain sex segregation it needs to be agreed to be an exemption on a case by case basis
• i.e. if this doesn't happen - automatic entry to men identifying as women

rather than:

• two competing protected characteristics being treated as equally important ... so that when they come into competition, an equality impact assessment is done ... i.e. treated as equal from the start

At the moment being Trans trumps being a woman.... NOT APPROPRIATE

a proportionate means to a legitimate aim.

Weasel words. Utterly subjective. What is proportionate in that context? What is legitimate in that context?

Put six different people on a panel and get six different views.

It's a bit like defining "reasonable". What is reasonable to one may be unreasonable to another.

All part of a bend over backwards fashion to curry favour with a very small part of the population at a potential cost to half the population.

I was so sympathetic to the trans population in the past. Like many I thought it was populated pretty much entirely by men or women who who suffered gender dysphoria/dysmorphia and whose lives were being ruined by an inability to marry their body with their mind and who were prepared to go to extraordinary lengths to square that circle.

Now I realise it can be any Joe or Josephine who fancies having a crack at "being" the other sex without any treatment at all or indulging whatever narcissistic or sexual trait they fancy without any consideration whatsoever for women. my well of sympathy has pretty much drained dry.

It's just a shame that the genuine "transexuals" are collateral damage in this situation.

Weasel words. Utterly subjective. What is proportionate in that context? What is legitimate in that context?

Well that's the whole point, isn't it? It's literally the wording used in the legislation, I presume just for that reason; so that it can account for common sense. And we have courts of law to be the arbiters of common sense; I think it's a pretty good system, personally.

Common sense - hmmm. Don't think are politicians and law makers are overly endowed with that. And, whisper it gently, judges and lawyers aren't always overly endowed with it either.

If you have to rely on common sense and the courts to interpret any new legislation, it pretty much guarantees a bugger's muddle.

Welcome to the new law of unintended consequence Penny Mordaunt.

If you have to rely on common sense and the courts to interpret any new legislation, it pretty much guarantees a bugger's muddle.

We rely on the court's interpretation in relation to any and all legislation, don't we?

The thing is the whole point of that phrase is to say "you can't discriminate against someone (this is a good thing, surely) except when you have a good reason to, and only as much as is necessary". So the aim, I would suggest, is the right one. How else would you express that sentiment when you can't possibly know all of the possible occasions to which it might apply?

I actually agree with Rat

The problem is that institutions are not balancing rights and that the EHRC guidelines on “case by case” application have neatly sidestepped the massive body of case law on objective justification for indirect discrimination which is also a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

The EHRC guidelines are suspect IMO and if that is resolved then we are much further towards achieving a balance of rights

The problem is that institutions are not balancing rights and that the EHRC guidelines on “case by case” application have neatly sidestepped the massive body of case law on objective justification for indirect discrimination which is also a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

The EHRC guidelines are suspect IMO and if that is resolved then we are much further towards achieving a balance of rights

YY

Agreed Elletorro, the guidelines should really be more balanced.

I think they foresaw their main purpose to be to prevent discrimination (for the good of those with certain characteristics), and didn't put enough thought into how the EA should be used to enable discrimination (for the good of those with certain characteristics).

So how to use it to both include AND to exclude when necessary.

They preferenced the former, but it really needs to be both.

The trouble is that by discriminating against you (not you personally) are assuming that the victim of the discrimination will be the self ID person. But it could equally well be the natal sex person. For example, you are discriminating against the natal sex person's right to privacy by allowing a self ID person into their safe space against their will. Where does the default of inclusion take you then?

I am not comfortable posting a photo of the letter but will quote:
Girl Guide Assoc.
"The GGA sets its own policies.
Not appropriate for government to judge whether those policies breach the equality act.
The equality act allows for the provision of single sex overnight accommodation and for the exclusion of transgender individuals from these services if doing so is a proportionate means of meeting a legitimate aim."

Sporting competitions:
"There is a gender reassignment exception for competitive sport in the Equality Act, allowing for safe and fair competition for participants. We do not intend to change this."

Crime stats:
"It is important that we continue to collect the data on self identified gender the way we do......We do not expect this to distort crime figures to any discernible degree."

She did not answer my questions about changing rooms and swimming pools.

WRT puberty blockers and hormone therapy she says that these will only be offered to over 16s (rarely offered to under 16s) and only after careful diagnosis and following protocol. These are fully reversable.
surgery is not offered to under 16s

(This is from Penny Mordaunt)

Sorry - I can see that the thread has moved on a lot, but I was asked to post information from Penny Mordaunt's letter to me.

There is considerable lobbying by some prominant TRAs to enable 'bridging prescriptions' for blockers to be able to issued to young people by GPs prior to being seen by Tavistock. Also in parallel, an apparent push for other clinics (private ones?) to privide the service for young people questioning their gender identity.
The push for this is focussed on waiting times.

There have also been direct challenges by some TRAs to the Tavistock model of care and protocols.

Some relevent discussions:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3228409-DM-Article-NHS-sex-change-drugs-are-putting-hundreds-of-children-at-risk-each-year-warns-top-doctor

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3229756-Transgender-child-on-R4-World-at-One

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3249035-Stephen-Whittle-s-blog-on-Genderquake-with-a-detailed-briefing-for-panelists

Thanks End appreciate that.

"we need to show solidarity with the trans community"

Where is the solidarity for women, children, for young lesbians who are not being allowed to grow into themselves, for girls who are being pressured into unwanted sexual activity, for girls who are being pressured into dangerous medical "treatments", for girls whose mental health is being neglected, for the women in refuges and rape crisis support groups, for women in sport, in any segregated space, in healthcare, in politics, for the women who want to speak out about the abuses being perpetrated ? Where is the solidarity for those in real need of it ?

I will never show solidarity for those who beat up women and are sentenced for it; I'm not a bigot for thinking such thoughts.

I will never show solidarity for those who beat up men and are sentenced for it; I'm not a bigot for thinking such thoughts.

The problem is that institutions are not balancing rights and that the EHRC guidelines on “case by case” application have neatly sidestepped the massive body of case law on objective justification for indirect discrimination which is also a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

The EHRC guidelines are suspect IMO and if that is resolved then we are much further towards achieving a balance of rights

Spot on.

Where is the solidarity for women, children, for young lesbians who are not being allowed to grow into themselves, for girls who are being pressured into unwanted sexual activity, for girls who are being pressured into dangerous medical "treatments", for girls whose mental health is being neglected, for the women in refuges and rape crisis support groups, for women in sport, in any segregated space, in healthcare, in politics, for the women who want to speak out about the abuses being perpetrated ? Where is the solidarity for those in real need of it ?

Strange isn't it? Almost as if there was some kind of all encompassing system in place that exists to prevent females from having an equal say in what is considered fair and reasonable.

Has anyone seen the consultation done with LBGT community. Was it a questionnaire or asking for submissions?