Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

The thread about Penny Mordaunt comments

47 replies

CuriousaboutSamphire · 28/07/2018 12:51

I wrote an email complaining the her statement theta the debate starts with "Transwomen are women" was not an open one and have had a reply... I am still pondering some of the less than clear areas!

I am writing on behalf of the Minister for Women and Equalities to thank you for your email of 3 July regarding the Government’s consultation on reforming the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) 2004. May I first apologise for the delay in responding to you.

Ministers are always grateful when people take the time and trouble to write on important issues such as those detailed in your email.

In your email, you commented on the statement made by the Minister in a recent interview, that trans women are women. Having witnessed the unhelpful and potentially damaging tone of the recent debate surrounding trans issues, the Minister felt it was important to emphasise publicly that people should be respected in the gender with which they identify and live in. The Minister believes that respecting the right of others to make choices about their own identities is an important part of living harmoniously together in a diverse society. Indeed, it is a right that is protected under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and it is the basis upon which the system for gender recognition was originally established back in 2004.

With regard to the GRA consultation, the Government wishes to emphasise that this is an open consultation – we are not putting forward any specific proposals for how we want the system to change, beyond saying that we want to make the application process less bureaucratic and intrusive for trans people. Only after we have gathered all the evidence and listened to all the views expressed during the consultation process will we make a decision on what the new gender recognition system will look like.

The Government wishes to make clear that this consultation is in no way a fait accompli – it is a genuinely open process, during which we want to hear the views and concerns of all interested parties, and no decision has yet been taken about the future of the GRA. We know that many have expressed concerns about the potential wider impact of any changes to the GRA; during the consultation process, the Government wishes to ensure that it deals appropriately with all the concerns that have been raised, from all sides of the debate.

From our extensive pre-consultation engagement work, we know that there are many people who have concerns about the potential knock-on effects of any changes to the GRA on the rights of women. We have heard, in particular, about the potential impacts on the right to operate women’s-only spaces such as domestic violence refuges. We understand this point of view and we know that many of those who express it are doing so from a place of sincere concern for the safety of vulnerable women. Indeed, we absolutely agree that maintaining access to single-sex spaces in some circumstances is important and helps to keep vulnerable women in particular safe.

That is why we have consistently made it clear that the Equality Act 2010, and its exceptions for single- and separate-sex services, will not change as a result of this consultation. The Equality Act allows service providers to provide single- or separate-sex services for women and men, or provide services differently to women and men, in certain circumstances. An example of such a circumstance may be the restriction of access to a domestic violence refuge to women only. A provider of such services is expected to treat transgender people according to the gender role in which they present. However, the Act permits the service provider, in certain circumstances, to provide a different service or exclude a person who they think has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment from the service, whether or not that person has a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC). This means that the current exceptions will continue to operate in the same way as before following any changes to the process of applying for a GRC. Trans women may therefore, in certain circumstances, still be prevented from accessing single-sex spaces under the Equality Act. However, this can only be determined on a case-by-case basis – service providers who make use of the exceptions must be able to convincingly demonstrate that doing so is a proportionate means of meeting a legitimate aim. It is up to service providers to interpret the law depending on the individual circumstances of the case.

We think that this approach, which has been in operation since 2010, strikes the right balance between upholding the rights of trans people, ensuring that the availability of women-only spaces is maintained, and entrusting the people on the front-line – the service providers – to take decisions about what is right for their service users.

The Government is actively considering the impact on the wider population of any changes to the GRA, and our consultation provides an opportunity for people to share their thoughts on such issues. In all our work on this issue, we are mindful of everyone’s concerns and we are seeking to find the most judicious balance of the various different rights that are in play here. However, we also remain convinced of the need to act in order to address the stigma and discrimination that trans people face in society on account of their transgender status. In pursuit of this goal, we will not undermine the hard-won rights of women but, equally, we are not prepared to take any course of action that risks marginalising further another historically marginalised group

OP posts:
Wanderabout · 28/07/2018 20:49

There’s about a thousand other things but it’s basically a done deal isn’t it? They will introduce self ID, say the EA isn’t changing and then quietly change sexual to gender at some point.

This is absolutely not a fine deal.

Penny Mordaunt may or may not be a lost cause on this and I share all the major concerns about that email.

But there are plenty of MPs and others who are aware of or beginning to become aware of the issues.

3 years ago women were looking set to lose all their rights - sex exemptions removed plus self-id bye bye rights.

I know it feels like shouting into a vacuum. But look at the ground women's voices collectively have already shifted the issue.

The govt had said it has not decided to do self-id. It has said it will not advance trans rights at the expense of women's rights.

Keep making the case as to how and why self-id impacts female rights. To your MP, to parties you are a member of, to the consultation, to friends. Doing this is working. We need to keep doing it.

What Penny Mordaunt is saying, for whatever reasons she is saying it, is not the same as what the government will decide to do.

Wanderabout · 28/07/2018 20:50

Fine deal? Done deal that should be.

Although it is also very true to say it is not a fine deal.

Bowlofbabelfish · 28/07/2018 20:52

wander I do hope you’re right. I feel somewhat pessimistic.

But you are correct thatctehres been a huge increase in visibility on this issue and that can only benefit us.

I shall keep fighting. All chins aloft.

thebewilderness · 28/07/2018 21:20

Having abrogated their responsibility to half the population, and all other protected groups under the EA, in order to prioritize the gender reassigned group they now are looking at ways to make it easier to join the group that has been given precedence over all other citizens.

Can you mandate belief?
Can you codify into law the idea that some people can mind over matter themselves out of material reality and into the opposite sex and must be treated accordingly?
It is a belief that no one actually believes.
Will you allow people to drug and mutilate children based on this belief that no one believes?
How will you punish non believers?

History teaches us that mandating belief is the most self destructive thing a government can do.

Procrastinator1 · 28/07/2018 21:44

I don't know what legal advice Mordaunt has been receiving. I have had a quick google and the most recent case on Art 8 seems to suggest that although a state should not insist on permanent physical change, I think bottom surgery, it still can insist on gender identification dysphoria before allowing a change of sex. My reading of the case might be wrong and there might be more recent cases, I'm not a human rights lawyer.
I don't think that we should rely on the government about the interpretation of the ECHR decisions.
I think some kind of legal opinion was obtained on the evidence in the leave.eu and vote leave spending issues.

I think it would be great if WPUK or Fairplay for Women or anyone concerned with women's rights should consider getting an opinion just to prevent Mordaunt saying she hasn't any choice in the matter.

littlbrowndog · 28/07/2018 21:46

That penny a total tool. Has no idea wha5 the country thinks

She lost in her Westminster bubble

Not 1 person thinks a guy can turn into a woman.

Feck she shuld be ashamed of herself. Not caring about women and girls. Not one care about us.

UpstartCrow · 28/07/2018 21:51

Procrastinator1 that link is to a file on your PC, which we cant access.

OldCrone · 28/07/2018 22:03

Procrastinator1

That's my understanding, too. The most recent case that I know of was last year, Garcon v France, and a medical diagnosis was required, but surgery is not. They said that the medical diagnosis was for the benefit of the applicant, so that they did not "embark unadvisedly on the process of legally changing their identity”. So the ECtHR is actually against self-ID.

Link here to the case
A.P., Garçon and Nicot v. France, April 2017

Procrastinator1 · 28/07/2018 22:20

Thank you, Old Crone, that was the one and exactly my understanding. That's why I was a little concerned about the mention of Art 8 in the letter from the government department. Politics these days seems to be all about blaming someone else for the bad decisions the politicians make. They shouldn't be allowed to do it.

Apologies for the bad link.

Macareaux · 28/07/2018 23:10

Might be worth the OP going back and querying the article 8 interpretation?

I don't think the reply does conflate sex and gender. Indeed I'd go so far as to say that although the writer referred to the minister saying TWAW, and excused it on the basis of the minister feeling sorry for trans people, the writer does have a grasp on the difference between sex and gender.

I'm not saying the response is great but we are in a better place than two years ago. Must keep on keeping on.

OlennasWimple · 29/07/2018 01:24

Three particularly invidious things jump out to me about the "case by case" approach to whether a TW can use certain facilities, such as a swimming pool changing room or a refuge

  1. it puts everything onto whether or not the TW "passes" - which of course goes against most TRA rhetoric, and is so subjective it is hard to see that it is a fair and reasonable test in the legal sense

  2. it puts a huge onus on the "gatekeeper" (leisure centre receptionist, changing room attendant, refuge reception worker) to make a decision how to proceed - often a snap judgment, in potentially difficult situations. Few good decisions are made in those circumstances

  3. it offers TW no certainty - if I were a TW looking for a swimming session, I wouldn't want to risk going to the leisure centre only to be turned away because it was a female only session and the receptionist decided that I didn't fit the criteria. I couldn't call in advance, because we've already determined that the test is basically "do you pass", which can't be done over the phone. How does this actually help TW?

BirthCanal · 29/07/2018 01:33

Good points ow

loveyouradvice · 29/07/2018 04:44

Have they ever clarified that case by case means EACH transwoman rather than EACH organisation? is there still some ambiguity and belief that it MIGHT be an organisation e.g. refuge can decide that it is proportionate to exclude EVERY transwoman because of the trauma caused to other residents?

BirthCanal · 29/07/2018 06:51

Probably it's a matter of a decision being made about each transwoman separately and their effect on each woman separately.

Anything that makes the sex exception unworkable in real life.

Bowlofbabelfish · 29/07/2018 06:53

O don’t think there’s been any clarification on what by case means. I suppose it could be at the level of a venue, a specific service or a specific person. I’d imagine the space/service level would be the most likely.

However if they face a lawsuit each time they will cave. That’s why clear guidance is needed and why self Id sets up the conflicts.

Floisme · 29/07/2018 12:58

And now of course Jess Bradley, and in particular, any role they have played in advising the government.

CuriousaboutSamphire · 29/07/2018 13:30

I had already added Jess Bradley to the list... a point well made!

OP posts:
CuriousaboutSamphire · 03/10/2018 10:14

I've just sent a fairly rambling email to my local MP again, with thanks to Bowl (I've already sent that to Ms Maudant)

Hi XX

I would like, again, to raise the question of Ms Maudant's personal politics contradicting her public position. The sight of the Minister for Women at a Stonewall reception is a worrying one for many women. Not for any reasons of 'transphobia' but because, yet again, she seems to be pre-empting the outcome of current government consultation, she is certainly forgetting who she is supposed to represent!

mobile.twitter.com/stonewalluk/status/1047218495895814144

I would again ask XX to stand up and be counted: counted as seeing the danger in accepting Self ID as an open doorway for other men like Karen White, Jacinta Brooks, David Challenor and an ever growing list of others doing lots of those things that supposedly would never happen if/when Self ID becomes law.

I would also hope that he would NOT agree with Leeds City Counci'ls recently decision to ban a women's group from using council rooms to discuss the consultation and would openly decry the ludicrous non reasons given for it. Again women were silenced by aggressive men... why?

Sorry, I would like to have written much more coherently, but this has been a week of some great disappointments. Women are being done a great disservice by those who will not stand up and shine a light on the strange trans activist behaviours.

I would also sincerely suggest that XX NEVER looks at the campaign Stonewall are waging to encourage primary age children to complete the consultation!! Once seen that can never be unseen!

twitter.com/ollypike/status/1047218961107046400?s=21

Basically I would ask XX what he thinks about the conflicts set up if self ID is brought in and the EA is retained.

If self ID is brought in, and everything has to be done on a case by case basis, this shifts the focus to individual service providers. We have already seen how much they can be harassed by TRA activists, no company will want to do anything other than toe the TRA line.

I’d ask how he can reconcile the fact that for a long time we have had single sex spaces that are deemed necessary and proportionate simply because men are a danger as a class and now we must justify case by case. That’s a significant shift in thought. Why?

I ask XX if he believes humans can change sex, and to make it very clear this is not to be answered by waffle about gender feelings, as that would be both disingenuous and insulting!.

There are about a thousand other things I'd like to add, but it’s mostly I want XX to appreciate that many women see this a done deal and are angry about it. You will introduce self ID, say the EA isn’t changing and then quietly change sex to gender at some point. This is undeniable, as many organisations and government departments already have done so, the BBC included, The Girl Guides are currently in some trouble because of it - I checked XX, you do still have Sex as a protected characteristic, thankfully!

Yours
A Constituent

OP posts:
CuriousaboutSamphire · 03/10/2018 10:14

God, that's long!!!

OP posts:
OldCrone · 03/10/2018 10:35

You will introduce self ID, say the EA isn’t changing and then quietly change sex to gender at some point.

They won't even need to change sex to gender. If everyone is free to choose their own legal sex, then the protected characteristic of sex in the EA would be meaningless.

It's ludicrous to expect every organisation to use a 'case by case basis' to deal with every gender non conforming person and every person who doesn't look like the sex they claim to be.

CuriousaboutSamphire · 03/10/2018 10:39

I'm hoping to get a direct response this time. He doesn't know it but I can quite easily just happen to be in some of the places he frequents and could ask him about this in public.

I haven't because I run a local business and have already had a few run ins over gender id! But I could throw caution to the wind!

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread