House of Lords debate on 'gender recognition process'

[bakingdemon]

There's a 'short debate' in the House of Lords on 'gender recognition process and the Government's LGBT action plan' this afternoon.

The Conservative peer Lord Lucas (does anyone know anything about him and what his views are likely to be?) has called it and so far the other peers who are listed as speaking are Baroness Barker, Lord Cashman, Baroness Featherstone, Baroness Gale, Lord Scriven and Baroness Williams. As at least four of those of Liberal Democrats I'm not optimistic that women's concerns about self ID will be reflected.

Details are here: calendar.parliament.uk/calendar/Lords/All/2018/7/12/Daily

Someone whose ID is neither male nor female

What do you mean by ID?

Not a passport or BC I take it.

The German word über can have connotations of superiority, excessiveness or intensity, depending on how it is used; it can also mean over, around.

So am überfeminist would be someone who believes they are

• a superior feminist
• an excessive feminist
• an intense feminist

Or a feminist who is over and around (the meaning used for Uber taxis).

It is a lot by time since I read Zarathustra by Neitszche where he talks about the Übermensch. So I cannot make any connections there.

So Featherstone describes herself as either an Uberfeminist or an Überfeminist, I think the former. All around and over feminist, although I think also with connotations of superiority.

All around and all over - which is what you mean, I think, by inclusive Snappity. The thing is many years of feminist activities, particularly from the second wave on, but also before have been not about all over and around, but about boundaries.

Consent law sets boundaries (1885, 1929, 1990, 2010 (Scotland))

Married Women’s Property Law (1882, I think?) sets boundaries.

Provision of toilet facilities so that women could participate in public life - into the twentieth century, particularly World War One and World War Two so that women could serve their country in previously male jobs

Women’s refuges to keep women safe from violent partners - 1970s

Women’s Aid - 1985

These are just off the top of my head. I could also start about how feminism, the common or garden kind, not the Uber kind, has fought for maternity care and provision, childcare, things which affect women, the old fashioned kind.

Excess, superiority, intensity, all around and all over are not usually considered virtues. Discernment, boundaries, sensibility and respect usually are.

Shaming generations of your predecessors and fellow women is not the act of a feminist.

KataraJean that is an excellent post It should be sent to Lady Featherstone

Katara are you going to write to her? There’s plenty of anti-TERF vitriol to demonstrate to her she’s been completely hoodwinked.

Applause for KataraJean!

The video of the debate is here.

I also intend to write to Featherstone. I think I'll send an actual letter with a bundle of evidence of the threats, violence, intimidation and hostility from TRAs towards feminists.

I might also drop Williams a line to explain why 'what has stood well for 14 years' is already changing and how the pace of change is accelerating.

Great post Katara.

I think an issue that Williams would gladly tackle is that, as institutions are not compelled to utilise the exemptions or to undertake equality impact assessments there is no guarantee that equality of opportunity will be retained for women. The current situation requires women to fight for equality via the county courts. There needs to be a fairer and cheaper means of challenging inequality; particularly as women as a class have less spare money and time to address this issue and Stonewall et al have deep pockets and government funding.

Many public institutions have received training and advice from partisan charities and organisations which have deliberately avoided any guidance on appropriate uses of the sex exemptions. There has been no equivalent training provided by pro women organisations. How many local authorities have mixed up the protected characteristics of sex and gender reassignment? There is inadequate understanding and the advice received has not been impartial.

I’d love to be able to put some statistics together

Thank you, yes, I have been out for the day and calmed down somewhat so I will write with a bit more of a clear head. There is so much to pick apart.

Looking at Featherstone’s biography, it seems she supported same sex marriage and also positive discrimination- so it may well be that her default position is that anything which breaks down existing barriers is a good thing, and she is not really remembering that one needs to pay attention to the impact of change on the whole of society and its constituent groups.

But even then, the language in her speech was so breathtakingly upsetting (and offensive) that it is difficult to see how it furthers her cause. She has not told me why these ‘new women’ should be considered women only on their say so, or why women should give up hard fought for freedoms (and same sex spaces enable female freedom, privacy and dignity in civil and public life). All she has done is denounce women who raise those questions,

I'm glad that transpeople being 'shy' is a basis for creating public policy. That's nice. I'm reassured now.

That Travis one looks everso demure for one and the video of Speakers' Corner shows Tanis to be particularly quiet and reserved so all good yeah?

How do you weigh in on the consultation please? I haven't been able to find it.

Cheers.

MipMipMip - here's the link: www.gov.uk/government/consultations/reform-of-the-gender-recognition-act-2004

Many public institutions have received training and advice from partisan charities and organisations which have deliberately avoided any guidance on appropriate uses of the sex exemptions. There has been no equivalent training provided by pro women organisations.

This 100%

You can pretty much track back any of the really ridiculous things going on with obvious and huge negative impact for women and girls back to this. Lobby groups who have openly campaigned for the removal of women's legal rights have advised the government, written policy and trained organisations from police to education at all levels to sports bodies to civil service.

No consideration has been given to the impact on women and girls. There is a complete political failure in that no one is representing the specific and unique interests and legal rights of biological women and girls to government. Which are in direct opposition to the lobbying aims of Stonewall.

Groups like WPUK and Fair Play For Women have sprung up to try and fill the vacuum. Unlike the vast swathes of trans lobby orgs they have no government funding etc.

So you have trans lobby orgs like Stonewall who have openly stated they want women's legal rights removed and are giving some hugely biased if not incorrect advice out to weaken those rights anyway. They have Penny Mordaunt signed up as an ally.

Then you have women who are receiving bomb threats and having to hire private security just to try to meet to talk about defending those rights.

Conflict of interest between trans and women's rights, biased advisors and consultation and consultation process. Women in refuges and academia writing about the fact they are too frightened to talk.

Where the fuck is the Minister for Women when women need her to stand up for them?

MipMipMip if you follow @fairplaywomen and WPUK on twitter they'll have guidance out on completing the consultation soon. We have a few months so worth waiting for. You can save and revisit answers until completed apparently.

Wanderabout

Hear hear

Thanks Wimple and Wander. I've been off Twitter a bit and missed that.

Kat on a

We should inundate her with letters, Lady Feather. She's really got my goat.

Clip of Lord Lucus pointing out that people should not be restricted on gender was just on BBC Breakfast politics round up. Very short.

Agree re inundating Featherstone with letters. She is an absolute disgrace and should be held accountable for the appalling way she has spoken about women. By actual feminists.

Uber feminist. What a joke. She is an insult to feminism.

Some excellent posts, Katara especially.

I too will be writing to Lady Featherstone, the self-titled uber fem. Are we expected to be 'nice' due to our lifetime of female socialisation?

Does Featherstone have a clue what is going on with TRAs? How dare she make those comments about feminism. Nobody made such comments about the actions of TRAs. This shows me she is out of touch, brainwashed by advisors (Mermaids?) and/or too scared to speak out.

I feel so disappointed that there are women who happily support the removal of safe places and other rights for women and children. Why?

We've outlined why we oppose the withdrawal of such rights, but I don't understand why any woman supports this. Why that is a 'good' thing?

Furthermore, will she be happy to be called Ci* Lady F or lose the 'lady' as it might offend. Or am I right in thinking there are exemptions for peerage in the GRA?

This fanatical assault is not feminism, it is false protectionism—mistaken protectionism.

This is very odd language. Sex, and sexual orientation are protected - they are literally protected characteristics.

I looked up 'protectionism' but the only stuff I could find relates to trade, economics and fair competition. 'Woman' and 'lesbian' are not some sort of market to which all must have fair access. We're not a resource, a product or a service. We shouldn't have to compete for sex based rights with men.

Has anybody come across any other uses of the word 'protectionism' in relation to equality or human rights issues?

used here

The anti-transgender bathroom myth appeals to the same paternalistic, protectionist impulses.

Same shit then. Interesting.

Actually with a bit more context, subtly different shit:

"Such a fear energized conservative women against the amendment, but it also rallied their husbands to protect their wives and daughters from the dangers of sex-integrated bathrooms,"

The use of 'protectionist' in the article does relate to women as a resource - as the property of conservative men.

Conservative men think women are private property.
Liberal men think women are public property.

Maybe 'protectionism' is used appropriately in this article