Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Equalities Minister 'taken aback' by feminist opposition to GRA reform

24 replies

Bluestitch · 01/03/2019 14:40

Baroness Williams has given an interview with Pink News. It seems quite vague to me. But I'm surprised at intelligent people being shocked at the strength of feeling on this issue. FGS a male rapist was put in a women's prison. And people still don't get why women are angry.

Here's the link.

www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/03/01/equalities-minister-shock-polarised-views-trans-rights/

OP posts:
OP posts:
Beamur · 01/03/2019 15:15

Well, you would hope that such a range of responses is taken into account. Otherwise it's not actually a consultation...

Manderleyagain · 01/03/2019 15:20

For a second I thought you meant baroness Shirley Williams and thought noooooooo....
But yes I'm still often surprised that people are surprised. It really should surprise no one. It shows how effectively they got out the message that are can be noserious objections, nothing to see here, no debate.

WeRiseUp · 01/03/2019 16:08

So when single-sex spaces are 'trans inclusive' does that mean that people can present how they like without needing to use the opposite sex space?

Or does it means that single sex space is no longer lawful?

userschmoozer · 01/03/2019 16:29

No it doesn't.
This is from the Govt guidelines for service providers and business;

page 7
''The Act allows the provision of single-sex or separate-sex services for men and women in certain circumstances.''
• Will a transsexual woman be allowed into a women’s refuge if she is subjected to abuse?
''It will be for the manager of a women’s refuge to decide on a case-by-case basis, depending on all the circumstances, whether it would be appropriate for a transsexual woman to be allowed to stay in the refuge''

page 8
''• Can a man just put on some lipstick and try to get into the ladies toilet?
No. A man who just puts on lipstick but does not wish to change his sex is not a transsexual person who is undergoing the process of changing his gender, nor is he likely to be thought to be transsexual, so he cannot rely on this protection.''

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/85008/business-quickstart.pdf

Trousering · 01/03/2019 16:32

She is speaking nonsense still. Single sex spaces are to be legally available to two SEXES? They will never be able to sort that one out will they? They are rabbits in headlights now.

The gender liars have been caught with their pants down. Literally.

TurboTeddy · 01/03/2019 19:41

I watched part of the debate in Westminster Hall back in November and I was surprised by how uninformed some of our elected representatives were. I think I'd always assumed you had to be fairly intelligent to forge a career and progress in politics but the scales fell from my eyes that day. Her comments are disappointing but no surprise.

One wonders if politicians have even heard of the internet, it took me about half an hours surfing to go from this doesn't seem right to what the fuck on this issue.

donquixotedelamancha · 01/03/2019 19:47

Q Would you feel comfortable sharing a bathroom with a trans woman, for instance?
A. I pretty much would, yes.

LMAO at that verbal tell.

Lumene · 01/03/2019 20:15

This isn’t true and is really concerning as an aim.

Unless she means insuring transmen feel welcome in female spaces?!?

“The MoJ’s review has caused a few jitters around the policy towards single-sex spaces. Is the government still committed to policies on trans-inclusive single-sex spaces?
A. Yes. We might need to look at the guidance around it, but I think definitely that we shouldn’t take a knee-jerk reaction to this.
We should make sure that single-sex spaces, which they have been since 2004, are trans inclusive.”

CallMeWoman · 01/03/2019 20:19

Liability. Why is nobody mentioning liability? It doesn't matter what anyone's feelings are, when the law is ignored and someone gets hurt, organisations will be liable for damages.

EugeneWrayburn · 01/03/2019 20:23

Well it’s irrelevant if she would feel ok sharing a bathroom with a person with a male body. Some women don’t.

SardineQueenII · 01/03/2019 20:26

"''• Can a man just put on some lipstick and try to get into the ladies toilet?
No. A man who just puts on lipstick but does not wish to change his sex is not a transsexual person who is undergoing the process of changing his gender, nor is he likely to be thought to be transsexual, so he cannot rely on this protection.''

This is ridiculous.
How is anyone possibly supposed to tell the difference? Unlike that MP whoever it was, most women cannot see souls.

++ lipstick not a requirement, that's imposing regressive gender norms

This piece of info is literally useless for real life.

merrymouse · 01/03/2019 20:27

Q Would you feel comfortable sharing a bathroom with a trans woman, for instance?
A. I pretty much would, yes.

Great.

The more relevant and difficult question is whether all women should be happy to share space with males in all circumstances, and if you don't, where you draw the line.

SardineQueenII · 01/03/2019 20:28

Also there are no laws about men in the ladies.

There is strongly enforced social convention.

All this weakens the strongly held social conventions.

Which is 100% the point of it.

OldCrone · 01/03/2019 20:47

One wonders if politicians have even heard of the internet, it took me about half an hours surfing to go from this doesn't seem right to what the fuck on this issue.

Their understanding of this issue does seem very poor. I don't know if it's because they rely on their assistants to do all the research and then brief them, or just listen to lobbyists, rather than just get on the internet themselves. Layla 'I can see into people's souls' Moran seems to have got all her information from Helen Belcher, for example.

I don't understand why Baroness Williams, like Maria Miller, should be surprised that it's feminists who are pushing against genderist ideology. Surely it's obvious to anyone with half a brain that feminists wouldn't be in favour of an ideology which is based around regressive sex-role stereotypes.

Needmoresleep · 01/03/2019 21:02

You are an ambitious junior minister. You are given a portfolio: could be equalities; could be immigration; could be farming.

Several senior politicians will have warned you not to fully trust your civil servants, or you may have seen a few episodes of Yes Minister.

First weekend what do you do.

  1. Look at the most obvious internet sites, read articles that come up via Google, and plung into a few interesting rabbit holes. Though there will be Government policy and you will have ypur own vews, you are a politcian and at minimum will want to know what arguments you will need to defend against.
  1. You start selecting a wardrobe compatible with your newely elevated position. (Note this is a gender neutral comment.)

If the latter you are likely to be surprised at opposition to your policies. Your Civil Servants probably downplayed how controversial their policy recommdations might be.

DangermousesSidekick · 01/03/2019 21:02

"We just need to be sensitive to the needs of everybody in our society"

Is that a joke? When has anyone been sensitive to the needs of women, particularly women and girls from the lower socioeconomic groups? What's the rape conviction rates again? The domestic violence rates? The sex pay gap? How much porn is in the mainstream? Which sex has to spend more time looking after and is penalised for children?

IDoN0tCare · 01/03/2019 21:09

What she really is saying is:

We just need to be sensitive to the needs of every male body in our society

stumbledin · 02/03/2019 00:29

I dont know which is worse. That she is that uninformed, or that she is tailoring her replies to the potential readers.

Also it makes her look out of step with various other members of the Tory Government who have made (sort of) soothing noises about recognising women's concerns.

So why is she inflamming the situation with this whatever trans want is right line, when others have been backing off.

Still with so many resignations I supposed they just had to appoint the nearest available person.

(The language in the interview is cloyingingly sycophantic.)

stumbledin · 02/03/2019 00:34

Have just seen this. An earlier thread about her not grasping the EA.

Not sure is @Artesia got a reply.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3490436-Response-to-Baroness-Williams-Minister-for-Equalities

Ineedacupofteadesperately · 02/03/2019 05:04

"We just need to be sensitive to the needs of everybody in our society"

Is that a joke? When has anyone been sensitive to the needs of women, particularly women and girls from the lower socioeconomic groups? What's the rape conviction rates again? The domestic violence rates? The sex pay gap? How much porn is in the mainstream? Which sex has to spend more time looking after and is penalised for children?

Agree 100%

CharlieParley · 02/03/2019 17:27

The sentiment of surprise at the strength of feeling on the issue was also expressed, several times, by MSPs at the recent Scottish Parliament Census Bill debate.

They were incredulous that a one page Bill should have led to a huge report. The bill, they kept saying, was only ever supposed to be about allowing the posing of two additional questions.

But what did they expect?

After all, the accompanying documents conflated sex and gender identity as well as trans and intersex and suggested changing the sex question to add a third option. They consulted mainly with TRAs and their orgs and neither women nor data users were really asked for their opinions.

I'll tell you what they expected. For twenty years or so, our politicians have been lobbied behind the scenes, away from public scrutiny, on trans rights and trans inclusion. The first, uphill struggle was to protect transsexuals from discrimination and allow them a legal status that protected their lived identity.

Fine, of course, except that unbeknownst to the public, who had barely heard of let alone understood the Gender Recognition Act, the actual goal even back then was apparently legal sex self-id.

Whether that seemed too out there for our politicians, whether they thought that in order to get support for the GRA they had to tread lightly at first, whether TRAs were advised from the start that self-id would be a step too far or whether they tried pushing for it but backed off after experiencing resistance, I don't know.

Fact is, the GRA was passed without the public taking any notice. But what did not go unnoticed by the TRAs was where the strongest objections had come from. I find it striking that the same sports bodies for instance who warned back then that legally female but biologically male athletes would be a disaster for women's sports, are today not just embracing the idea but are rejecting any opposition to male inclusion in the by now familiar manner.

The strategy clearly was one of attempting to change opposition to self-id from within the organisations voicing it. And they succeeded, even with our erstwhile feminist organisations.

But again, that was a strategy out of the public eye. Both policy makers (in govermental bodies and NGOs) and TRAs were used to getting things done behind closed doors. No one ever thought to ask the public, and like the boiling frog metaphor, the changes were so gradual, no one understood the consequences until it was too late.

The latter, of course was aided by the fact that the first to suffer, our most vulnerable women and children, are largely invisible and voiceless. Even if individuals were brave enough to raise concerns, it was far too easy to ignore or silence them. If your life and that of your children may depend on the organisations helping you, you're going to be scared that continuing to speak out or even bringing it up in the first place may result in support being withdrawn.

But now self-id is everywhere and people are taking notice. Several MSPs raised the point that during the initial stage of the Census Consultations none of the established women's organisations responded and neither did the grassroots women's rights groups who are active now.

Hence they thought nobody cared.

Only, all of the grassroots women's rights groups who are raising concerns now, didn't actually exist during the initial consultation period in the 2015/16 winter. They were founded in 2018, largely in response to the GRA consultation that brought the issue to the attention of the public. And the people are not pleased. In fact, they are opposed to self-id, by a huge margin.

And although on this isse it takes a while for people to understand that the self-id campaign is neither like the gay rights campaigns nor an actual trans rights campaign, once they do, most are so shocked at what's been happening that they are very vocal and willing to take action. Just like me. In my entire adult life, I've never campaigned on anything. Now I'm a member of several women's rights groups all founded in 2018, have leafletted my local high street and all my neighbours, friends, family and anyone I meet.

Politicians better get used to the strength of feeling on the issue - seeing the rights of women and girls under attack is bound to incense a lot of people. We are half the population after all and closely connected to the other half.

misscockerspaniel · 02/03/2019 17:44

If they are surprised at the backlash from "feminist groups", they would be gobsmacked that many of those women (and men) who are against self-id would never have considered themselves to be feminists.

And, by the way, this "ambitious junior minister" stood twice, and failed twice, to be elected as a Tory MP before being made a member of the HoL. Democracy in action.

Ineedacupofteadesperately · 02/03/2019 19:45

Great post Charlie

New posts on this thread. Refresh page