SCOTTISH GRA REFORM ANNOUNCEMENT BROUGHT FORWARD

[Mbwashenzi]

It was going to be announced on the 25th - now moved forward to Thursday. Anyone going to join me in the public gallery at Holyrood??

twitter.com/wornoutmumhack/status/1140953953758261248?s=19

Not read the whole ft.

'the Equality Impact Assessments will be very telling if done properly I think'

Can't they just do it like they did the one for putting transwomen into women's prisons, that some one saw a copy of and posted on here?

Section for impact on porridge characteristic of sex, just write 'n/a', jobs agoodun.

Protected not porridge!

We reeeeeally need Joan (or anyone) to make sure that the scope of the IA and consultation a) includes women b) includes gender critical women c) includes the actual service users of women's orgs (women in prison/ shelters) not just the captured people running them and d) starts from the POV that TWAM. If we can't do that then the whole consultation will be worthless.

Yes.

I plan to write to MP and MSPs next week to raise points of concern.

Who else should I write to? Somerville (again), McAlpine? Is there a particular committee in charge of this consultation?

I'm not convinced they will 'reach out' to anyone and especially not individual wummen.

If some of the various Peoples' fronts of Judith would put together a letter that we could sign, I'd be happy to do so?

• yes, ByGrabthar. A letter/statement/request setting out immediately what concerns we have, who needs to be included in the discussions and questions about the terms of the debate.

Me too. For the first time in all of this we're at the front in terms of knowing what's going on (ish) so we can start trying to predict the next move and get ahead of it rather than being on the back foot.

Who else should I write to? Somerville (again), McAlpine? Is there a particular committee in charge of this consultation?

The consultation will be done by the Scottish Government - specificially Anne Somervilles department. Individual MSPs don't have a role except possibly asking q's of relevant Ministers

What might be useful is lobbying Somerville about the nature of the consultation - and getting the government to encourage organisations providing services to women to consult with service users and providers before responding.

The last time round a lot of organisations - Women's Aid, Zero Tolerance Rape Crisis etc - seemed to send in TRA supporting statements, with no internal discussion (that anyone was aware of anyway).
The idea that their is a connection between them knowing - and providing - the opinion the Scottish Government wanted and their dependency on grants from the Scottish Government is a difficult one to shake .. Some pressure on Shirley Anne S to try and dispel that wouldn't be a bad thing.

Informing the wider public of what the actual implications of any changes will be crucial too, alongside asking politicians to consider the impact on women and girls

We reeeeeally need Joan (or anyone) to make sure that the scope of the IA and consultation a) includes women b) includes gender critical women c) includes the actual service users of women's orgs (women in prison/ shelters) not just the captured people running them and d) starts from the POV that TWAM. If we can't do that then the whole consultation will be worthless.

THIS

I think the Scottish Government should actually run proper surveys with prisoners and service users of eg refuges where the survey responses are mailed (freepost) directly back to the dept running the consultation. Internal focus groups and surveys are open to fudging of the findings, particularly if the managenent believe their funding is at risk. The voices of women and girls who will be affected need to be unmediated.

@Mbwashenzi I was in public gallery. Trying to do live tweeting....

It seems a bit ‘peoples (sic) front of Judaea ‘ up there

It’s actually been a good thing. Means women get together and find their way of getting involved. Don’t have to answer to a central committee! I think we will co-ordinate over the consultation stuff, but, for me, I think it’s been quite a good thing. Obviously not perfect, confusion can be a problem, but good that women are getting together to do whatever they can.

I note they carefully avoid the gender/pronouns of the person who attacked Julie though by mentioning male violence the implication is clear.

Something current that we can do is challenge this legal definition of women which was posted upthread.
The consultation is ongoing.

consult.gov.scot/equality-unit/gender-representation-on-public-boards/ closes 4th of august

Super boosting this - they even talk about how reporting on gender equality on boards links up with their requirement to report under the Equality Act with no mention that that requires reporting of sex.

2.12 Section 2 of the Act provides that for the purposes of the Act, “woman” includes “a person who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment (within the meaning of section 7 of the Equality Act 201010) if, and only if, the person is living as a woman and is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of becoming female”.

This would suggest women aren’t actually included at all as it makes no mention of actually women but only ‘includes’ men.

Legally, I don't see how including men without a GRC is correct? You can only carve out a group for special treatment based on a protected characteristic, in this case sex... and only men who have fully transitioned and hold a GRC are ever eligible to be treated as their new "legal gender" (and even then, can be excluded under as exemptions ...).

The case of Green established that the comparator class for men in such circumstances (ie only en route to a GRC) is a similarly situated male.

Something current that we can do is challenge this legal definition of women which was posted upthread

Yes. In trying to circumvent us accusing them of turning us into walking lipstick/high heels, they've turned us into walking gas bills.

It's fucking insulting.

Can't they just do it like they did the one for putting transwomen into women's prisons, that some one saw a copy of and posted on here?

Section for impact on protected characteristic of sex, just write 'n/a', jobs agoodun.

MenuPlant, I think you might be thinking of the impact assessment they did for the first Scottish GRA consultation.

See Annex N at the end of the consultation document here:

consult.gov.scot/family-law/review-of-the-gender-recognition-act-2004/

It was shocking! They know they fucked it up though, that was clear from the statement.

Worryingly, the EHRC now appear to be downplaying the importance of Equality Impact Assessments more broadly. This was a response from Rebecca Hilsenrath giving evidence to the Equality Act Inquiry:

One recommendation that we have asked to be taken forward is on whether the public sector equality duty could be more effective going forward. Our proposal is that, instead of the broadly process-orientated way it works at the moment, in terms of carrying out equality impact assessments, we want to look at it much more in terms of outcomes.

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/102794.html

but isn't assessing the impact of a proposed change on equality looking at outcomes?

Yes. In trying to circumvent us accusing them of turning us into walking lipstick/high heels, they've turned us into walking gas bills

Holy fuck! They have!

We used to say ‘a woman is not a feeling inside a man’s head’ now we’ll have to argue that ‘a woman is not an administrative process’.

I don’t want to be a gas bill 🤦‍♀️

But don’t worry about whether men meet the definition of women after all:

2.15 The Act does not require an appointing person to ask a candidate to prove that they meet the definition of woman in the Act.