Responses to Scottish Govt GRA consultation now online

[howonearthdidwegethere]

www.gov.scot/Topics/Justice/law/17867/gender-recognition-review/review-of-gender-recognition-act-2004-list-of-orga/published-responses-from-organisations

Not sure what the deal is with individual responses. None published. Maybe the SG don't publish them as a matter of course or everyone opted not to have them in the public domain.

I think I'd rather have NO rape crisis centres than one where I am forced to share my "safe" space with someone who bears the exact same genitalia that forcibly ripped my vagina apart and tore my anal passage.

The Govt need to listen to the voices of ACTUAL WOMEN who have taken the time to respond, not the responses of organisations who are under financial duress to say they support self ID.

Take Engender for example. Virtually all of their funding is from the govt. They and all the other organisations saying yes to these harmful proposals know that money can be easily taken away which would lead to slashing services, job losses and even potential closure.

It’s awful. And the Government will use these organisations replies as proof that self id is a great idea because look at all these womens organisations who agree. EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE NO FUCKING CHOICE BUT TO AGREE!!!

Im thankful for the few churches and christian orgs, plus Critical Sisters, who have put their neck on the line and publically said "No"

Socio x

It'll be interesting to see the summary of individual responses.

So sorry socio. So so sorry that a man did that vile man

This is when I need a nice padded, soundproof room, where I can scream until my ears and eyes bleed. Fucking hell. What in the name of all that's holy and unholy is happening?

I honestly don't understand how a rape crisis centre can be ok with making survivors share a space with penises? What's their justification? I don't get it, surely it defeats so much of the objective of a rape crisis centre?

Ouch, Socio

It's short-sighted in the extreme. Very few women will access these centres once it becomes common-place to find men in them.

Oh God Socio! It's disgusting that a rape crisis shelter should be prioritising the feelings of men over the safety of women. I think that was the one that depressed me the most.

I also note the glee which councils are suggesting named person could get involved with young children. We need to get No2NP on this!

Did you see the Free Church of Scotland response? I clicked on it as I used to know some people from a local church.

They are having no truck with it whatsoever. Many mentions of biology...

I also filled this in with comments so it'll be interesting to see the individual responses.

It's complete madness. I'm so angry that vulnerable women - all women - are being sacrificed

So reading the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre response, they have allowed trans women in for 10 years so self id wouldn't make a difference anyway? So if you were accessing the centre in Edinburgh, you could find yourself there with someone who is obviously male? And this has been the case for 10 years?

Bizarre.

Did you see the Free Church of Scotland response?

Aren't they the ones who tie up the playground equipment on Sundays?

I am going through each of the responses individually to see what we are up again. i have only looked at 11 so far but its not filling me with hope.

My heart sinks when I read the cut 'n paste chuntering about peace and love, inclusivoty for everyone, rights for all and sparkly bloody rainbow unicorn vomit (they don't actually mean 'for all' though do they?) What about women?

Fekko, that's the thing, the myth of inclusivity.

It's not inclusive of disabled people who get their facilities appropriated by able bodied men to adjust their lippy.

It's not inclusive of abuse survivors who arre driven from the very shelters that are supposed to offer protection.

It's not inclusive of young girls at risk of sexual predators.

It's not inclusive of women who are prevented by religion or culture from dressing in spaces with men.

Is not inclusive of women who are being gaslighted by abusive partners and now are being told that the gender change of a partner is not sufficient reason to divorce them.

It's not inclusive of anyone who doesn't actually fit stupid, regressive stereotypes.

It's not concerned with lower socio-economic groups, the sick, the old, the young.

It doesn't care about the harm to young girls, especially those on the spectrum or lesbians.

But it does include white, heterosexual, middle-class, university educated men with fetishes. Which is the important thing.

Funnily enough, the only people I have met in real life who have been pro self Id and agree that women can have willies (didn't ask if they thought a wan could become a man) have been trendy right-on Asian men. Can't see them dating or marrying a transvestite/sexually though.

That's the thing when they say inclusive they only mean inclusive for them women can just fuck off and put up with it. The ones that are pro don't even mention it and I know its not because they don't know about it it just they don't care.

Yeah, for inclusive read "inclusive of the dominators and JUST STOP OBJECTING" :(

Is not inclusive of women who are being gaslighted by abusive partners and now are being told that the gender change of a partner is not sufficient reason to divorce them.

Can I just clarify, is that what that 'spousal permission' thing means? It reads like it means that if someone wanted to change gender, their spouse would need to give permission. But does it also mean that that someone couldn't use their partner 'changing their gender' as grounds for divorce?

I read it that way, Mrbatmun

What ARE the divorce rules in England and Wales? I think in Scotland, you can divorce someone 2 years after separating, whether they want you to or not. Is it the same for the other countries?

That was 2 separate questions. So many on there saying that your husband deciding that he is now actually Delilah La Belle is no grounds (in itself) for a separation.

I have to say, I (thankfully) don't know much about divorce rules.

So at the moment, Andrew can't become Andrea unless his wife says it's OK? I can see the issue with that, so Andrew should be allowed to transition even if his wife doesn't want him to. But then surely his wife should be able to use the fact he is now Andrea and she is unhappy with that as grounds for divorce?!

Sorry, I don't know anything about this area of the law.

sociopathsunited