What's wrong with the GRA consultation?

[naivetyisthenewblack]

I need to compile a list of everything that's wrong with the GRA consultation so I can send it to my MP.

Anyone fancy helping me do this?

So, for example, it's really badly written isn't it - biased and hard to understand. (Have there been any good articles on this? Or can anyone recommend a link on the iportant of plain English?)

Then there's also Stonewall and the Green Party running their own version which seems pretty dodgy to me.

What else should I include?

Does anyone know if it's been translated into different languages? How would I find out?

Thanks.

importance of good English!!! (And - note to self - of decent spelling!!)

Is there anything else I should include?

First thing under 12's are encouraged to be hero's and fill it in.

The fact that it is online.

That the government has done no advertising to the general public about it.

Penny Mordaunt stated that the consultation starts from the premise that transwomen are women. So a total whitewash from the outset.

That women who try and talk about it are accused of hate speech.

The fact that hardly anyone knows it's happening.

At the beginning it says something about 'trans people are valid'. I think that isn't a neutral statement. It rather implies you are a bigot if you don't respect trans identities above all others in your answers to the questions. What does the statement even mean?

It doesn't ask women how they feel about losing sex-segregated spaces. It is concerned with the feeling of trans people only.

Some of the questions seem to be pretty confusing. I needed guidance to know how to fill it in.

my brother, who is fairly brainy looked at it and if you don't know the law, its a mind fuck, he found it really hard to understand.

I sorta feel what right with it - nuffink.

I found the Fair Play for Women website very helpful when filling it in.

That anyone can fill it in, no matter the age of that person or what country they are in.

The secrecy for a start - public consultation?? That no one has heard about?? I have just spent the last couple of hours handing out FairPlayforWomen leaflets to rugby fans heading to a local match. Chose my victims carefully I admit, ie friendly looking groups, not too drunk etc, couples. Started off with that nice leaflet about sports which is a great icebreaker and talking point. NONE of them had heard about it. They all got it straight away. Had a nice little printout of Jacinter too, just for added effect.

Also when you go to fill it in it is very offputting - it looks as if only trans people are meant to be filling it in. I didn't know where to start and would have made a compete hash of it, or not even done it, if I hadn't had FPFW and WPUK advice to look at whilst completing it.

Being on line only is very non inclusive, I know some older people are very adapt silver surfers, my Mum is for a start, but plenty aren't, or don't have access to the internet.

It's not very inclusive to the disabled.
I had to ask here.

It's not a consultation.

For a consultation to be fair it has to exist in an environment where it can be discussed freely.

There are many many reasons why this has not been allowed to happen, and not all stakeholders have been identified.

Government should encourage public meetings - that includes local government.

They should facilitate and encourage debate. They shouldnt be retweeting or supporting individuals that try to shut down debate. They should be using inflammatory language and they should be critical of those who do and trying to calm things public rather than hiding under the desk for the subject out of fear.

They should understand conflicts of interest, they should understand where certain groups or individuals have multiple roles which restricts and narrows voices (eg Stonewall saying it represents all trans people, lesbians and gays and this being accepted despite many being very critical of it)

They should be correcting when lies are told about current law and where the law is heading.

Talking about unintended consequences should be encouraged.

They should understand which groups have particular vulnerable or reasons why participating might be more difficult. There should be a plurality of cultural backgrounds - not just white middle class student politics.

Honestly the whole thing is a disgraceful episode in how not to encourage healthy public debate.

It's hard to find many things that have been done well.

I'm going to take all this and write to my MP too. Thanks for this thread OP, it's basically written my letter for me!

Thanks everyone, this is really useful.

So, which communities should they have consulted particularly?

• women in general
• domestic violence experts and DV survivors
• rape crisis centres and survivors
• prisons
• religious communities
• BAME communities
• lesbians (and gay men?) because of loss of single sex spaces
• sports groups

Who else?

Yeah, I am not resident in the UK and I filled it in with no issues. Now I think I was justified in doing so because I am a British citizen with full voting rights in the UK, but there was no system in place to check that I was.

It's quite obviously wide open to 'brigading' from activists in other countries, on either side of the issue to be fair.

And of course every other point mentioned above. I am not very experienced in government consultations but my god, if that was a typical example I am not impressed. It's a complete shambles.

I found it very difficult to understand. I had to read the questions a few times to get what they were actually asking, especially the questions about whether the 2004 provision should be retained. It felt as though it was worded to catch respondents out rather than elicit what they actually thought. If I’d come across something that badly worded in a work context I wouldn’t have hesitated to knock it back as not fit for purpose.

The easy read version was rather biased wasn't it?

The fact that it starts by asking if you are trans or not.

It should begin with something like.
Do you consider yourself to be a stake holder in this consultation? Which group(s) do you belong to-(tick all that apply)
-woman
-trans
-parent
-religion/faith

• scientist
• etc, etc

It is really off putting that it is worded in such a way that doesn't invite all stakeholders to submit.

It gives the impression of a forgone conclusion.

Also a lot of the questions were leading and presumed a particular starting point that was not the case for me. There were several questions that were worded in such a way as to imply that only certain groups’ responses were relevant- I think the non-binary questions were particularly bad for that.

This is the guidance they should adhere to

www.gov.uk/government/publications/consultation-principles-guidance

So scope to put the sheer awfulness in context, plus perhaps a complaint to that bit of the Cabinet Office

Excellent thread.
naivetyisthenewblack: So, which communities should they have consulted particularly?
To your list, I would add people with disabilities (rights to consent to care, and rights to refuse it).
Also elderly people (rights to consent to care, and rights to refuse it).

First thing under 12's are encouraged to be hero's and fill it in

Is that the Mermaids video?

Pop'n'ollie
With lots of encouragement from stonewall.