Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

GRA Response from Ed Davey, MP KIngston & Surbiton - Lib Dem

44 replies

noddydognoddy · 09/11/2018 09:42

This response arrived this week from Ed Davey, my MP:

Thank you for writing to me asking me to attend a meeting to listen to a presentation from an organisation called Fair Play for Women, on the possible reform of the Gender Recognition Act.

Regrettably I was unable to attend. I have however been listening to different sides of the debate and trying to develop my own thinking, given this raises issues and principles I had not previously considered.

My party - the Liberal Democrats - have been considering the matter in formal policy groups, so I thought I should at least share the positions my party have reached to date - albeit, I myself need to reflect and listen further.

However, let me set out where the party seems to be.

Liberal Democrats have formally welcomed the discussion around the GRA, as it is designed to address genuine concerns and further greater understanding.

The Gender Recognition Act currently allows transgender people to have their lived-in gender legally recognised. Issues such as access to gender-restricted spaces and services are covered under the Equality Act, which incorporates much case law from the last 30 or so years.

However, the current proposal, as you say, seeks to go further and allow self-identification - something that various groups have raised concerns about, arguing, for example, that this could potentially place the rights of self-identifying transgender people in conflict with the rights of others, particularly women.

Liberal Democrats have set out first that only respectful and evidence-based discussion can resolve any conflicts - perceived or otherwise. We have noted that while it is absolutely true that women often struggle to have their voices heard, it is similarly true for transgender people who often find themselves the subject of ill-informed and misleading comment.

One possible starting point is the Equality Act. This along with various public order offences govern access to gender-segregated spaces and services. Any request to exclude transgender women from women-only spaces must be justified under that law.

One additional factor being raised is that transgender women also experience sexual abuse and domestic violence, and already access appropriate women’s services to assist them. Such services assess the risk any possible service user poses. Any woman, whether transgender or not, can be excluded from such services if they are deemed to place themselves, other service users or providers at risk. Given the lack of incidents involving transgender women in women-only spaces, there has to be strong case to change the existing law.

The publication of the all-party Women and Equalities Select Committee’s report on self-identification has led to some concerns - but it is only a report: it did not change the Equality Act nor any of the exemptions legally allowed. It was partly an exercise in gathering evidence and opinion. Like others, it has found that in countries such as Ireland, Norway, Malta and Denmark, there have been no reported adverse effects of a self-declaration process.

Liberal Democrats understand that the government intends its consultation on reform of the Gender Recognition Act to involve discussions with interested and affected groups, which will include women’s groups. Women have not been and will not be silenced during this process, Liberal Democrats will ensure this continues to be the case.

The number of transgender women is relatively small compared to the number of women overall, so it is unlikely there will be any substantial effect on data recording. It is the Equality Act that covers the concept of perception, so that if discrimination occurs on the basis that someone is perceived as a woman, then this counts as sex-based discrimination.

The current gender recognition process has been identified as cumbersome and costly, as well as demeaning to transgender people – they never meet the panel and there is no right of appeal. Other identity documents, such as passports and driving licences, have been obtained by self-declaration of gender for decades. The recommended changes cut an anonymous, bureaucratic process and give some dignity back to transgender people.

Whether by righting past wrongs, protecting citizens, or increasing freedom, Liberal Democrats believe that legislation defending rights and liberties protects individuals and drives opportunity for many under-represented groups. Liberal Democrats will continue to fight for the rights of these groups, including the rights of all women.

So the thinking in the party is certainly moving towards embracing some version of self-identification - though we are keen to see what the Government consultation reveals and what measures Ministers eventually propose.

I am conscious of my own responsibility to study this issue more closely before rushing to a judgement.

Therefore I am pleased you have contacted me about this - and would welcome any further comments.

Yours,

Ed Davey

Rt Hon Sir Edward Davey
MP Kingston and Surbiton (Liberal Democrat)

OP posts:
Materialist · 09/11/2018 23:31

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

GrimDamnFanjo · 10/11/2018 01:11

Gah I really think the libdems are a lost cause. I've not renewed my membership.

PurpleOva · 10/11/2018 04:27

I live in a self id country mentioned.

There aren't any huge issues. But... The population of all 4 examples given is a 10th of the UK or less. 3 hover around the 5-6 million mark and one is less than half a million.

So it's comparing apples and oranges.

None of the self id countries mentioned have a huge outspoken TRA movement that you see on twitter and youtube in the UK. At least the one I live in doesn't!

It's a bit disingenuous to say that because those 4 small countries haven't had problems, it must be OK anywhere.

frankexchangeofviews · 10/11/2018 06:35

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

NopeNi · 10/11/2018 07:04

I wonder how many women it has to affect before an official government representative needs to pretend to care? Is there a quota?

Ereshkigal · 10/11/2018 07:25

He sued a gym because they didn't allow him to get naked in women's dressing area

And the fact that they weren't going to allow him in gives the lie to the "everyone else is fine with men in their spaces and it causes no problems" argument.

ChattyLion · 10/11/2018 08:23

It really worries me that an experienced and reasonable politician like Ed Davey is saying, effectively, that yes we hear all the problems but we still want to let this matter of highly complex and problematically sexist stereotyping idealogy-based fundamental legal change be pushed through...... because it won’t affect that many people..

What? Has Ed Davey got a crystal balll? How can he (or any other MP who believes this tosh) possibly know how many people will be affected?

And- in any case, where the fuck are the principles of women’s freedom of speech, identity, movement and the right to free association with other women, and safety and dignity in public spaces here?

As PP have said, do MPs require some kind of critical benchmark of women and children who will become unable to use public toilets and changing rooms?

Shall we put numbers on the women prisoners who will be forced to be housed with male rapists and sex offenders like they already were in the case of Karen White? With the inevitability of sex-based attacks on women prisoners happening? Like it already has done with Karen White?

B) MPs and everyone else have no idea how many people self-ID will affect or not. The fact it is self-ID does not permit any numbers to be put on it.

CLUE IS IN THE NAME: ‘self’ ID.

You don’t even have to tell another person that you self identify as a woman under self ID. You don’t have to dress any differently, you don’t have to act any differently, because SELF ID exists as a legally protected concept despite being ALL in your mind and must be legally recognised and protected even your acquired female status ONLY exists in your mind. No outward manifestation or declaration whatsoever required.

So with self ID you can just ‘become’ a woman by your intention to walk into the Ladies’ and then getiing your cock out to do whatever. Which in any other circumstances would get you arrested.

But hey, thanks Parliament! All good now.. not too many people are going to be affected by this, so nothing to see here!

‘Small numbers’ not even a slightly credible argument to make in favour of self ID.

And anyway even if only a small number of men deter a massive amount of women from rightfully accessing women’s spaces- so fucking what? That small number of men should not be allowed to do it in the first place!

Don’t MPs find that prospect and the lack of ability to compile any future statistics on this, even slightly worrying????!!

How naive are MPs? Really.Hmm

merrymouse · 10/11/2018 08:41

I think you should respond to him on some points.

He seems to be confused about gender and sex. Gender is not a protected characteristic and there are no exceptions in the EA on the basis of gender. The question is not whether anything should be segregated by gender, but whether it will still be possible to segregate by sex if the need to segregate by sex is justified and proportionate.

Any woman, whether transgender or not, can be excluded from such services if they are deemed to place themselves, other service users or providers at risk.

This is nuts. If it were practical or relevant to exclude people on a case by case basis there wouldn't be any need to allow sex segregation in the first place. Everything would be unisex. However, the reason that men are sometimes excluded from women's services is not that all men are dangerous, but that sometimes there is a need for a service to be single sex.

(Also, I will never understand why excluding people on a 'case by case basis' doesn't just allow plain old discrimination)

He should look at this from Karon Monaghan QC.

data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/women-and-equalities-committee/enforcing-the-equality-act-the-law-and-the-role-of-the-equality-and-human-rights-commission/oral/92165.html

Other identity documents, such as passports and driving licences, have been obtained by self-declaration of gender for decades.

That is fine, but if nobody cares whether sex on a driving licence is correct, isn't it more relevant to question why it is necessary to provide information on sex at all?

The number of transgender women is relatively small compared to the number of women overall, so it is unlikely there will be any substantial effect on data recording.

As already pointed out, this is irrelevant where the number of women in a particular group is very small.

If gender is just a feeling that you are either male or female, he really should explain why so many more men are MPs, and the masculine traits that stop women, for instance, leading the Liberal Democrats.

merrymouse · 10/11/2018 08:50

It's a bit disingenuous to say that because those 4 small countries haven't had problems, it must be OK anywhere.

Canada seems to have dropped off the list of 'non-problematic countries'...

However, 'problem' always seems to be defined as a trans woman attacking a woman, ignoring the inherent sexism of classifying people by gender.

Zeugma · 10/11/2018 08:58

What about the appalling case ongoing in Canada of the creep pursuing and harassing women to get them to wax 'her' cock and balls? There's a thread about it on here (sorry, on tiny mobile device so a bit tricky to link).

The other thing that makes me despair is the continual trotting-out of the 'onerous and expensive' argument when it comes to the documents for applying for a GRC as the process stands now. Really?

Show me one single adult person who hasn't had to go round the houses with official documentation, spending time and money filling out forms, submitting photos, paying money etc etc. We all do it, all the sodding time. We pay for passports, for visas, for ESTAs....so why is it OK for all the rest of us to carry on doing all that but filling in forms and handing over £140 for a GRC is SO DIFFICULT and TRAUMATIC?

I just don't comprehend this. People want to make what must surely be the biggest, most momentous change to their entire lives that they'll ever make, and filling out some forms and paying £140 is too oppressive and 'undignified' and must be done away with?

Needmoresleep · 10/11/2018 09:01

According to the Governments fact sheet attached to the consultation 5000 people have GRCs whilst they expect between 200,000 (as I recall) and 500,000 to take advantage of the proposed changes. That would be massive.

merrymouse · 10/11/2018 09:04

He is in a group of South West London marginal seats - Richmond Park, Twickenham, Kingston and Surbiton. Vince Cable and Ed Davey have both lost and regained their seats in the past decade. The Lib Dems lost Richmond Park, won and then lost again by 40 seats. I lived in one of them for decades and my family still do.

I have voted Lib Dem in every election.

Now my only question is how best to spoil my ballot paper.

ChattyLion · 10/11/2018 09:10

Unless these same politicians who say TWAW have a secret national plan to use all taxpayers’ money to convert ALL existing women’s toilets and changing rooms into fully functional floor-to-ceiling, self-enclosed spaces opening directly onto safe, busy open corridors... then they have absolutely NO right and NO business to be taking protective social norms away from women by imposing new legal restrictions on them such as ‘TWAW’.

Unadapted women’s toilets and changing rooms in the whole of the UK will no longer be safe or comfortable for women to use if self ID comes in, due to the presence of dicks in them.

Timefortea4 · 10/11/2018 22:28

Hi he is also my MP and I'm awaiting a reply from him.
I'm planning to request a meeting but it would have more impact if there was more than just me. Fancy joining forces?

VMisaMarshmallow · 11/11/2018 09:22

Women’s only services include prisons, point out Karen white in person and see if he can wiggle out of that.

hipsterfun · 12/11/2018 09:40

It really worries me that an experienced and reasonable politician like Ed Davey is saying, effectively, that yes we hear all the problems but we still want to let this matter of highly complex and problematically sexist stereotyping idealogy-based fundamental legal change be pushed through...... because it won’t affect that many people..

See, I no longer care if it affects many people or absolutely nobody. I’m uncomfortable about law based on let’s pretend when it flies in the face of what everyone perceives as reality.

As has been said on here a lot recently, it’s much healthier to come to terms with reality. The -phobia suffix is overused, but enabling reality-phobia won’t help anyone in the long run.

LangCleg · 12/11/2018 09:48

Why not ask Ed why he hasn't considered telling the menz to stop being so transphobic and to welcome their non-conforming brethren into their spaces?

theOtherPamAyres · 12/11/2018 10:06

Ironically, the Green Party of England and Wales is the only party that is pushing against the TWAW mantra. It is challenging the LBGTQwerti within its own ranks, and prominent green politicans are kicking their arses, publicly.

If they carry on like this - putting biology, facts, evidence and women's legal status first - then they may take votes from the parties that believe in unicorns and illusions - like Labour and the Lib Dems.

merrymouse · 13/11/2018 20:02

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3421864-Ffs-lib-dems

Would love it if he could comment on some of the points raised on this thread.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page