Does the government consultation re changes to the GRA start this week? Janice Turner thinks so

[R0wantrees]

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/this-gender-battle-is-harder-to-solve-than-brexit-0jc0pn867
Janice Turner The Times:

(extract)
If Brexit is the most divisive issue in British politics, requiring a talent for squaring ideological circles and cajoling compromises from bitter enemies, reform of the 2004 Gender Recognition Act (GRA) runs it a close second. The consultation, long-delayed while three successive ministers for women and equalities scratched their heads, is finally launched on Tuesday.

Although even that isn’t official. Bizarrely the government wouldn’t confirm (or deny) the date. But I’ve seen emails: groups will give evidence in late July, a sleepy summer recess slot calculated, perhaps, to contain the GRA firestorm. Some chance.

Opposing forces are drilled for battle. On one side the trans lobby, including Stonewall and Gendered Intelligence, who claim changes to the process by which a trans person acquires a gender recognition certificate (GRC) are merely a tiny administrative tweak. On the other, feminist activists who fear that a legal redefinition of “woman” from biological sex to the nebulous, inner feeling of “gender identity” threatens female safety and privacy....

Most controversially she sought to replace the GRC process whereby a person must live in their new gender for two years and have a diagnosis of “gender dysphoria” (a mental disorder whereby a person feels their identity is opposed to their biological sex). Instead Mrs Miller proposed “self-identify”, ie a man could simply declare himself a woman with no requirement to transition physically.

The report caused a furore. Without hearing evidence from a single women’s group, Mrs Miller also proposed abolishing exemptions to the 2010 Equality Act which allow domestic violence refuges or hostels to admit only biological women. Interviewing Mrs Miller last year, I was flabbergasted by how little she had thought this through. She saw no conflict of rights at all: women, she said, must learn to accept without challenge male-bodied people using their changing rooms."
(continues)

Link to previous thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3269463-Government-response-to-the-petition

Concurrent thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3292631-Janice-Turner-in-the-Times-today?

It’s important that all of the organisations we have formed respond as organisations because there will be clout there, and as many individuals as possible. Get your friends, families and partners to respond too.

Yes. I agree. I have a a dozen or so individuals who have nothing to with GC feminism but who have safeguarding concerns promising to complete this. Plus a couple of very small, grassroots orgs who can see the same issues.

Despite what interested parties might tell you, this consultation will have thousands of responses. Every single one matters. And you are not in any danger filling it out, no matter what gets hinted at hereabouts. This is just the usual employment of coercive control.

I was reading the privacy statement on an entirely unconnected govt public consultation last week. There are plenty of safeguards in place and it expressly said that you would be directly consulted before any disclosure if the relevant dept felt the need to identify respondents. Ignore the scaremongering upthread & check the privacy section on this consultation when it is eventually published.

I was reading the privacy statement on an entirely unconnected govt public consultation last week. There are plenty of safeguards in place and it expressly said that you would be directly consulted before any disclosure if the relevant dept felt the need to identify respondents.

I have the feeling you will be posting this a lot over the course of the coming months!

That applies to both sides, of course which will inhibit some trans people from responding

And some women as well, cos of all the doxxing mofo's out there

Sorry

Womyn so no one is confused

snappity

lang did ask you not to quote her

I have already built up a good network among friends and family, especially males, most of whom are intitially utterly befuddled, then have a wander around the internet and get it without any further prompting. I'm confident that they will complete the consultation.

What seems to get lost in the debate is that women wholly support the right to be trans, and have trans friends, family, lovers, colleagues, partners, neighbours and employees. What I want is for us to stand our common ground against our common threat. Male violence.

The lives of women, transwomen and transmen, men and all human beings are directly harmed by male entitlement, violence and the patriarchal structure. Gender is one of the mechanisms that gives this set of men the power to do this. If we work together to dismantle gender stereotypes, every one of us will benefit whatever our chromosomal make up or presentation.

The tiny group of TRA's are a part of that patriarchal structure. They need gender sterotypes to persist in order to prolong the patriarcy and retain their power.

Ouchiebum

The expectation is that the difference in age that people can receive pensions will become uniform. A case is currently being adjudicated.

I am liaising with my kids single sex school to help them be prepared to respond to the consultation.

We need to know what will be consulted upon but I’m guessing that sports organisations for women and girls should be nudged by us to respond.

One clear suggestion to add is that the GRA should be explicit that natal sex should be considered for the purposes of the Equality Act sex exemptions and that legal sex cannot take preference .

This should be fine by TRAs as they have been saying this is the case all along. It should be fine with the government as that’s their response to the petition. It helps cement the exemptions into the GRA

I'll be suggesting that a DBS-type procedure is instituted to cover all jobs and volunteer positions advertised for women only, using the exemptions.

Good one Lang! I'll do that too. I'm not sure how anyone could object. Well they will of course, but I'm not sure how any such objection could be seen as reasonable.

One clear suggestion to add is that the GRA should be explicit that natal sex should be considered for the purposes of the Equality Act sex exemptions and that legal sex cannot take preference

This should be fine by TRAs as they have been saying this is the case all along. It should be fine with the government as that’s their response to the petition. It helps cement the exemptions into the GRA

Also a great suggestion and point Elletoro.

Good one Lang! I'll do that too. I'm not sure how anyone could object. Well they will of course, but I'm not sure how any such objection could be seen as reasonable.

A privacy exemption, as it were, if you see what I mean.

It is really important to clearly articulate the difference between natal/biological sex and "legal" sex which is the legal treatment of someone who has a GRC as the opposite sex. The EA exemptions are clearly about biological sex or there would be no exemptions permitted.

A privacy exemption, as it were, if you see what I mean.

I do. They'd have to do it if they wanted to work with children (at least I hope they would and I think there are special procedures) so I don't see anything wrong with extending this process to other protected roles.

Just remember that you will need to respond to the consultation in your real life name which, on the basis of past consultations, is generally published

And since you are doing absolutely nothing wrong there is nothing for anyone to worry about - please don't be put off. I shall definitely be responding. This isn't North Korea.

Just remember that you will need to respond to the consultation in your real life name which, on the basis of past consultations, is generally published.

Why would this put anyone off?

Responding in good faith to a government consultation is not illegal and cannot be used against an individual in any way.

This seems to be this week’s theme. watch what you say women! We doxxed man Friday, and we will make sure there are consequences if you speak up! The police might be after your posting history! Your Facebook! Be afraid!.... and so on.

There is no need for anyone to be fearful filling this consultation out. On either side of the debate. It cannot be used against you. It is your democratic right to do so.

That goes for transpeople as well as anyone opposed to the changes.

lang did ask you not to quote her

And I have explained that in a debate I am entitled to quote anyone.

It is really important to clearly articulate the difference between natal/biological sex and "legal" sex which is the legal treatment of someone who has a GRC as the opposite sex. The EA exemptions are clearly about biological sex or there would be no exemptions permitted.

Whatever definition of sex you come up with, that's what the process in the Gender Recognition Act applies to. That's the human rights position.

Just remember that you will need to respond to the consultation in your real life name which, on the basis of past consultations, is generally published.

DUN DUN DUN! And other ominous noises. Possibly some vague suggestions that prosecution may be in the offing too.

Snappity: we have a definition of sex. You don't. We have a definition of gender. You don't. What's more - you never will. This means we don't have to keep changing our argument like you do, or resort to scare mongering, bullying, doxxing, implicit threats and emotional blackmail.

No one is afraid. The one thing people can do without fear, even if they won't sign a petition or go to a meeting, is respond to this consultation.

This seems to be this week’s theme. watch what you say women! We doxxed man Friday, and we will make sure there are consequences if you speak up! The police might be after your posting history! Your Facebook! Be afraid!.... and so on

Indeed. As I said upthread, we'll be seeing a lot more of this. More Duluth wheel behaviour imminent. It's almost as though people being able to say what they want in a democracy is somehow a) a bad thing and b) deleterious to the cause!

Snappity Sun 01-Jul-18 22:58:39

lang did ask you not to quote her

And I have explained that in a debate I am entitled to quote anyone.

From the guidelines: No trolling, misleading or deliberately inflammatory behaviour

This is deliberately inflammatory behavior on the part of a person who refuses to take no for an answer and has been reported as such.