Who's going to the WEP Conference this weekend? Fancy a thread?

[RhymesWithOrange]

I'm the only person I know going. I would be interested to get others MNers thoughts on the conference and the agenda as it happens.

And of course the emergency debate.

Yes I've read the parliamentary discussion from 2004. That was basically why the law was passed in its current form as it was expected to apply to so few people so they thought it wouldn't matter.

I think we can post results of votes etc Rhymes, they’re on the record.

2014 Telegraph article 'Facebook's 71 gender options come to UK users'

(extract)
"Facebook worked with UK groups Press for Change and Gendered Intelligence to add 21 new options to ensure the list best reflected the ways UK users may choose to describe themselves.

"Gender identities are complex and for many people, describing themselves as just a man or just a woman has always been inadequate," said Professor Stephen Whittle, vice-president at Press for Change. The European Court of Human Rights has upheld the right to develop our gender identity, as key to our personal autonomy.

"By challenging the gender binary, Facebook will finally allow thousands of people to describe themselves as they are now and it will allow future generation of kids to become truly comfortable in their own skins." (continues)

www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/10930654/Facebooks-71-gender-options-come-to-UK-users.html

I assume that WEP will be contributing to the GRA consultation?

I don't know what WEP will do about the GRA. From everything I've seen and heard I can't imagine WEP wading in deep to the gender ID debate. Rather they might just focus on women's-specific issues as laid out in their core policies.

I know that sounds like a cop out as for many of us sex and gender identity is the foundation on which every other feminist policy is built.

If as Christine Burns describes, the lobbying was 'on the quiet' and the legislation was passed without the press being able to 'throw a fit'. Then it is completely reasonable and appropriate to ask if proper scrutiny of the 2004 legislation took place.

YYY. And we should. Basically what is happening now is that debate is taking place. 14 years late.

I think the questions raised by the Sunday Times article today are without doubt an issue that affect women:
'Why was convicted paedophile allowed to move to a female jail?'
Showers and some “rooms,” as New Hall calls cells, are also shared. There are even children: a mother-and-baby unit accommodates up to 10 infants aged under two.

Into this safe and respectful environment was placed a convicted paedophile who was on remand for multiple rapes, with a long record of other sexual and violent offences committed, as a man, against women.

Yet Karen White, formerly known as Stephen Wood, then as David Thompson, told the authorities she now identified as a transgender woman and wanted to be sent to a women’s prison. Remarkably, even though her full offending record was available to them, her male body was fully intact and she had undergone no physical transition or legal change of gender, they agreed." (continues)

www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/why-was-convicted-paedophile-allowed-to-move-to-a-female-jail-nmpbfm272

Especially in the context of the findings of June 2018 MofJ Female Offender Strategy

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/719819/female-offender-strategy.pdf

Ok, so important voting news so far.

Sophie's emergency motion was carried. As far as I understand it this means that the proposer any motion, including that of the GRA motion, can choose to change their proposal from a motion (which the party will vote in) to a special debate (which will not go to a vote).

I won't post the content of the debate, but GRA was mentioned by every speaker, even though the motion doesn't refer to it.

• proposer of any motion

Hello - please could you clarify - was the barrister referred to in the thread linked below one of the barristers speaking about changes to the GRA - Claire McCann?
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3360110-The-Times-Trans-person-seeks-to-rewrite-their-criminal-history-on-basis-of-privacy

I can’t confirm 100% born but she certainly appears to be. R0wan is also on the case and I’m sure will be able to clarify further.
I’m not sure from Oranges’s posts how much McCann spoke last night but she was tweeting about being there.

Yes, barrister Claire McCann explained the GRA and EA at a party session yesterday. As described yesterday it was a fairly dry, factual discussion of the legal basis of gender ID and trans rights.

My perception is that it was subtly pro gender self ID. Fears about erosion of sex based rights were glosses over. Please may I emphasise that that is my perception only.

Thanks. Oh dear.

McCann’s presentation was dry, basic, and factual. And quite frankly somewhat patronising, to be honest. A single question was taken - from the barrister called Julian (sorry forgot her last name). Her question was excellent on whether legislation as existing/proposed can actually adequately protect women’s rights to single sex spaces, as she - as a barrister - did not feel it does. The answer was - it hasn’t been tested, we don’t know.

The session didn’t contribute anything either way. I know members on both sides of the debate who found it frustrating.

McCan is representing a transgender criminal who wants their record wiped clean. Correct? And this was not raised at all when she spoke yesterday? I would be in a rage if I were there.

@Floisme it wasn't that kind of session. It was a very dense lecture about legislation with some limited description of the impact of that legislation.

Yes many people (including me) found it frustrating but there were also some people who are at the very beginning of their understanding of GRA so they probably would have found it useful information. But that's all it was - factual, legal information given out. Not a discussion or examination or exchange of views.

Cwen

It was Julian Norman. I posted her recent article upthread. It's very good.

Onto a motion about a feminist foreign policy. All very good stuff.

Labour are hanging onto my membership by a thread. I have been a member for forever, even when they had as much chance of being elected as the WEP do now.

The WEP could easily win me over, if they would just pull their finger out and define a woman in terms of 'an adult human female'. Then I could cut the final thread from the Labour Party, it would be with much regret, but they are pissing me off with the self id nonsense. We all know it is a farce, even those trying it on for size.

Thank you all for the updates, and keep up the good work.

Thanks for explaining Orange. I am still gobsmacked though that someone who appears to prioritise men’s rights over women’s safety is given airtime at a women’s conference.

Has Julian changed her mind somewhat since writing this?
www.thefword.org.uk/2012/05/legalities_of_e/

Now onto a debate about VAW in video games. Followed by some important motions in health and social care.

Someone I spoke to (can't remember where) said she has changed her mind quite recently.

I'm in much the same position FlippinFumin.