Ultimate betrayal by the WEP

[Procrastinator1]

Dr Stock has just tweeted this text of a motion to be put to the party conference in September

d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/womensequality/pages/5826/attachments/original/1532600430/Fnl_Gender_recognition_act_motion_final.pdf?1532600430

Obviously the motion hasn't been passed yet.

Motion text: 1 The Women’s Equality Party recognises the damage done by socially constructed gender 2 stereotypes and supports changes to the Gender Recognition Act 2004. The Women’s Equality 3 Party supports changes to the current process by which transgender people are able to receive 4 legal recognition of their changed gender.

5 The Women’s Equality Party supports a process of legal recognition of changed gender which does 6 not require medical reports nor two years’ worth of documentation but a process of self- 7 determination of gender. The Women’s Equality Party supports legal recognition of non-binary 8 people.

9 The Women’s Equality Party calls on the Governments and administrations of the UK to make the 10 following changes to the current process as they revise the Gender Recognition Act 2004:

11 ● Change to the requirement to submit two supporting medical reports, one of a diagnosis of 12 gender dysphoria and one detailing treatment received. Change to the requirement to submit 13 documentation to prove the person has lived as their acquired gender for two years. Instead 14 require a self-determination process to change gender and to obtain a Gender Recognition 15 Certificate and new birth certificate. 16 ● Remove the requirement of spousal consent to obtain legal recognition of changed gender for 17 married people. 18 ● Allow people to change their gender to a third gender option as well as to male and female.

Motion rationale:

19 The Women’s Equality Party should clarify its position as changes to the Gender Recognition Act 20 (GRA) 2004 are being considered by the Governments and administrations of the UK. This change 21 would add depth to the already stated Women’s Equality Party position of supporting the right of an

Men, not ,en!!!

Was initially ready to scream at WEP (again), but to be fair this isn't actually policy yet and it's clear that a number of genderists have joined the party specifically in the hopes of "proving" the women have cocks and mostly support this kind of nonsense. Anyone who can make it to the conference should go in order to make it clear that they're incorrect on both counts.

WEP member. I canvassed for them. Have my ticket for conference already. I’ll be voting against this. It’s ridiculous.

I've just had a look at the conference programme.

www.womensequality.org.uk/conf18_programme

There will be two lawyers talking about "Changes to the Gender Recognition Act: What will legal changes mean for the interaction between gender and sex based rights?"

Sounds good, no? So I looked them up

Claire McCann, Cloisters: www.cloisters.com/barristers/claire-mccann
"HIGHLIGHTS A case heard by the Supreme Court in July 2017 concerning trans equality and privacy rights" Has offered evidence to Parliament, regarding this example:

􀁸 A group counselling session is provided for female victims of sexual assault. The organisers do not allow transsexual people to attend as they judge that the clients who attend the group session are unlikely to do so if a male-to-female transsexual person was also there. This would be lawful.

"Ms McCann advised us that “this example is drafted too categorically”. While it demonstrates a “legitimate aim”, it gives “insufficient information […] to show that the exclusion of trans people is appropriate and reasonably necessary (i.e. proportionate) to meet that aim”. She further suggested that in the instance cited it may only be lawful to exclude trans people if they do not hold a GRC: "I would doubt that a service-provider of single-sex or separate services could turn away a trans service-user who holds a GRC because this is unlikely to be proportionate."

Michelle Brewer, GC Law www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk/barrister/michelle-brewer/
Is a founder of www.teli.org.uk

Here's McCann's twitter feed: she's a fan of Leanne Wood's statement on the GRA and Stonewall's misinformation campaign.

mobile.twitter.com/clairemccann72?lang=en

It’s strange, because Sophie Walker recognises sex work as the exploitation by men as a class of women as a class. This is a view that usually goes hand in hand with being GC.

I realise this motion didn’t come from her, but I’m sure it will be passed.

It's liberal feminism that doesn't scare the horses.

Yes Orchid. I have actually felt like this about the WEP from the beginning. So I’m not immensely surprised. I think Sophie Walker herself probably has slightly more radical views than she lets on, but doesn’t have the backbone to be honest about them.

So that's basically 'there will be two lawyers telling women that their concerns about self-ID are silly and they're a bunch of transphobes'

Is there anyone positing a different view point?

Yes the WEP scared me off with their men on postnatal wards bollocks.

Just the suggestion of the possibility that I might encounter one of the men who raped me overnight when I was vulnerable with no recourse to have them removed and have a small baby to protect gave me night terrors (I was pregnant when I read about it)

Lots of rapists are ‘family men’ FFS. Women who know and care about protecting women know this.

Not sure about the name Biology Party. Trying to think of a clever name like Genversity but am failing lol. Think any party to have success it will need to make it clear that diverse gender expression is accepted! Loved! Encouraged! Men in skirts? Great! And that it is purely sex based differences and services that we want clarity on

“insufficient information […] to show that the exclusion of trans people is appropriate and reasonably necessary (i.e. proportionate) to meet that aim”.

^this argument is so disingenuous.^

What it actually says is traumatised women, and what people tasked with helping & supporting those women through their trauma know about the environment required to help them open up about the trauma they've suffered, isn't a good enough reason to exclude a trans person from that environment - the understood reasoning for a safe and secure environment for those women is "insufficient information" being dismissed as discrimination against a trans person and challenged as not a justifiable reason to exclude. That someone can argue that as not being a proportionate means to a legitimate aim i.e. the environment required to help & support traumatised women through their trauma to achieve some degree of recovery, is disproportionate because it discriminates against a trans person despite it being necessary to help a larger group of women, is utterly callous.

The focus of the needs of one person to the detriment of so many others is typical of the callous disregard of women & their suffering as a result of male violence & abuse. Scottish Trans Alliance have been blatant in this by pushing for the removal of sex based exemptions under the EA2010, while also pushing for trans only support for trans people.

This entire movement is riddled with people determined to minimise or erase entirely the cruel reality of women's suffering due to male violence & abuse because it's inconvenient to acknowledge women have justified reason to need safe women only spaces.

I wonder how many women at this WEP conference will just sit there and accept lectures telling them that women don't need those safe environments because their trauma doesn't come close to that of a trans person so they should go along with their removal because trans people need that more than women do. If these arguments are accepted and voted through, it'll be a massive betrayal of women & they should be ashamed of having "women" in their title.

I think Karen Ingla-Smith is a member - wonder if she will speak up if she's attending this conference?

I remember Karen Ingala Smith tweeting that she was joining WEP and that when people expressed their surprise, her answer was something along the lines of, 'Wait and see'. She seemed very confident about them. I can't see anything on her current feed about this.

I’ve only read the first page so I’m sorry if I’m just repeating what other people are saying but what is the point of a Woman’s Equality Party if we can just identify ourselves out of inequality?

TensionWheelsCoolHeels

Excellent analysis. And I'd go further than calling it callous, I think it's misogynistic.

Sophie Walker has tweeted about a consultation in Brighton

"About to kick off Brighton consultation on equal healthcare: the importance of recognising women’s biological difference in medical research & the ways in which gender constructs act as extra barrier to diagnosis and treatment. Thanks to all who are here for this key discussion."

So Sophie understands Women’s biological differences in medical research & the WEP motion wants to ignore that entirely for the purpose of supporting self ID.

Wonder if she'll have her speech from today's consultation handy for her upcoming conference where this motion will be presented for voting on?

It will be satisfying to retweet that to people who think biological sex is a made up social construct.

I was PICO'ing several clinical papers recently (you pick out the Participants, Intervention, Comparator and Outcomes) and I was specifically wondering about this as you have to identify whether the participants are:
Male;
Female;
Male and Female.

Lots of the screening approaches to clinical trials depend on tightly-controlled age, reproductive status, sex etc.

It will be interesting if Self-ID is implemented everywhere except for research exemptions. Because some trial recruiters more or less do some checks by taking a look at your Photo ID (passports etc.) but if those can be changed...

Passports can already have their sex changed without a GRC. As long as the person can get a doctor to write a letter saying it's a permanent change.

So now I see why so few people bother to get a GRC....self ID is already happening in practice, even if it doesn't have a legal standing

Do WEP members that can't/don't attend conference get to vote on the motions, does anyone know?

I'm not a member right now, and am pretty sure WEP are a lost cause on the kool aid front. But a little bit of me does think that this motion getting defeated would be a really useful symbolic "win". So that little bit of me is wondering about joining, to vote against it.

Nope only members attending conference get to vote to pass motions or not.

(Not happy about that either)

@JackyHolyoake is there anything equivalent for London? I looked at the London network and seems really inactive?

I'd love to vote for a GC party. No-one else appears to be safeguarding the rights of women and children. I know this is a motion and not policy, and I get that this is a chance to debate, but even so. I would have thought this was the one party where this needn't be entertained.

The TRAs will move a procedural motion before this motion is discussed to formalise/limit speakers and/or to prevent "unsafe" discussion. Honestly. I'd just walk away at this point. It will be too frustrating. This Sophie character sounds like a cowardly fool.

‘Unsafe discussion’

There’s a chilling phrase

Unsafe discussion?

Safe for the penis owners' feelings. Unsafe for women.

The title Women's Equality Party is a lie.

TensionWheelsCoolHeels
Apparently Sophie Walker's tweet about recognising women's differences in biological health care has been deleted.

I'm not very good at twitter but a blank appears when I click on it.

Sorry, still there if you look at twitter @SophieRunning.