We have met with many women's rights stakeholders..

[TheShoesa]

I am considering a FOI request regarding the above statement, which is on documents relating to last year's GRA consultation document. I would be interested to know the names of the organisations involved, but wondered whether that info was already public (I might be searching the wrong terms, but haven't found anything relating to this)

Apparently an equality analysis was also done, which is another document I am having difficulty finding.

Sorry about the confusing opening post. I suppose what I am asking is - does anyone know which women's rights groups were involved in drawing up the GRA consultation before I officially ask the question?

Another point I'd like clarification on if possible is the '80% of TW keep their penis'. I have raised that point in conversation, but would like to be able to back it up with a source if possible. (The nearest I have seen is an assumption based on the numbers of TW versus the number of specialist surgeons)

Go for it. A FOI request could be highly revealing given (i) some people's definition of woman and (ii) that some funding may be being restricted to those groups who accept that males can be/are women. It would be interesting to know who "they" consulted with.

I recommend an FOI as well and maybe look up previous ones if you want to see similar on the surrogacy consultation or the one E Williams did.

It would be good to see who they actually met with. I think E Williams went to internal investigation in the end as documents were 'lost'.

fairplayforwomen.com/penis/

Fairplay has a section on this - it's deduction based on populations and the possible number of surgeries performed (and it seems they might be being conservative at 80% - from reading that it's likely much higher)

Under current rules the 4900 or so covered have to be transsexual not transgender and to be medically assessed by doctors who need to endorse - giving an independent person to come back on if problems result.

Being able to sue a doctor for letting someone inappropriate through is a sensible fall back to guard society.

Around 60/70% of transsexuals do have surgery as it is about sex dysphoria around the body and not gender identity dysphoria (self perceived gender roles) as with transgender.

I think the decision not to impose surgery as a necessity (which I know some transsexuals recommended to the GRA consultation) was partly to do with European human rights and also seems to have been to a degree based on the differing situation in 2004 when passed. As about 5000 transsexuals only who would apply were identified to the government committee. Which proved a very accurate estimate that the government now tell you means the GRA is 'obviously' not working.

In 2004 there were limited surgical options for transsexual men compared to nowadays. And about a quarter of GRC applications come from transsexual men.

I know several transsexuals do argue to impose either SRS or medical evidence (as has recently occurred in Japan in response to changing times) and emphasise why gender self identity is inappropriate as a gateway to the consequences of the GRA.

But as you can imagine the whole self ID ideology of identity is based purely on what you say regardless of any meaningful physical transition or assessment by others and so to them that is unacceptable.

Transgender outnumber transsexuals by at least 30 to 1.

Hence the push to remove all medical and psychiatric checks and balances - coming from the ones who do not have a medical problem but from what I can see often do have more obvious psychiatric problems than most well adjusted transsexuals who have been through that process.

From my contacts many covered by the GRA now feel that the gatekeeping needs strengthening, not removing.

But nobody actually asked those with a GRC before the government created their new ideas. Those were based on the ones who presently did not qualify making demands to be let in. Which explains why they wanted the rules removed, not just adapted.

From my recollection the GRA consultation was effectively kept under wraps, and it was only through the hard work and determination of a few women that news started spreading about it.

It was conducted in a highly-suspect manner, with the (biased) questions designed by Stonewall. The attitude was "Why would we ask women about this? It's a trans issue. It's not about women. It's about US."

Trans activists and lobby groups ignore the law. They steamroller through any rules standing in their way. There are no impact assessments, no consultations with women's groups.

Read this thread if you're not familiar with it. Absolute case in point and all the relevant files have been "deleted". Like they ever existed in the first place.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3652524-Welsh-Assembly-and-the-lost-equality-impact-assessment

How can people who can't even define what a woman is define what a woman's rights stakeholder is? I mean, I'm sure they talked to someone, and I'm also sure it was someone who they already knew wouldn't object to their plans.

Thanks for the replies and links. It was the Welsh Assembly thread that made me think I should ask the question and it was written in some newspaper or other fairly recently that the government had met with over 140 organsiations in getting to the published GRA document, so I was interested to know how many of those groups were looking out for women's rights.

I'm just a bit nervous about officailly asking, in case there are repercussions!

*officially

Please do go ahead with your FOI requests. It's so important. There are so many of us each doing a little bit of the big picture. It's hugely time-consuming, and some days it feels like wading through treacle.

Everybody.... puuuuuullll!

Use the "what do they know" website TheShoesa It's really easy.
It was interesting to see a similar FOI regarding the surrogacy consultation. It seems these consultations only want to hear from "stakeholders" the definition of a "stakeholder" being someone who totally supports the proposals.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/list/all?#results

On the 80% (which is really closer to 99%):

GIRES submitted evidence to the Trans Equality Inquiry in 2015 at which they stated that of an estimated trans population of 1% of the populace, only 5% of that 1% had sought any medical assistance at all.

That is, only 5 of 100 persons identifying as trans had gone to their GP about being trans.

GIRES then estimated that by 2020 around 20% in total would eventually seek help from health care professionals.

This estimate was based on figures from trans populations in other countries where studies researched the issue.

I think that estimate is wildly off and the real number will be much smaller, because those studies looked into transsexuals and those with gender dysphoria and not the now much more prevalent transgender population, a majority of whom insist that one does not need to have GD to be trans.

Please note that seeking help from health care professionals does not equate to genital surgery.

In an ideal world, one where HCPs seek the best outcome for anyone with GD, the steps are:

-diagnosis
-therapy
-cross-sex hormones plus suppressants of one's natural hormones
-hair removal
-speech therapy
-a range of other non-genital surgeries ranging from shaving down an Adam's apple to facial feminisation surgeries to breast implants for men
-mastectomies and chest shaping for women
-removal of gonads for men and women
-hysterectomy
-finally, genital construction surgeries that involve removal and reshaping of existing organs and constructing of facsimile of those of the opposite sex

In terms of prevalence, imagine the first medical step (diagnosis) as the base of a pyramid and the complete genital surgery as the very top. So that theoretical 20% who seek any help at all are not all going on to complete genital surgery.

The last time I looked this up, I found one study that didn't just show how few patients even proceeded to genital surgeries at all (

I think Shoes the what do they know website is anonymous - it's good to use that as the replies are public but your name doesn't need to appear, just use a different name for your profile.

This might be what you are looking for - it relates to Maria Miller's enquiry pre public consultation.

publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmwomeq/390/390.pdf

OhHoly The What Do They Know website says you have to give your real name, as the FOI request can be refused (see below from the site)

By law, you must use your real name for the request to be a valid Freedom of Information request — but see the next question for alternatives if you do not want to publish your full name.

Can FOI requests be made under a pseudonym? #

Technically, you must use your real name for your request to be a valid Freedom of Information request in law. See this guidance from the Information Commissioner (October 2007). However, the same guidance also says it is good practice for the public authority to still consider a request made using an obvious pseudonym. You should refer to this if a public authority refuses a request because you used a pseudonym.

Be aware, though, that even if the authority follows this good practice, the pseudonym will probably make it impossible for you to complain to the Information Commissioner later about the handling of your request.

There are several good alternatives to using a pseudonym.

Use a different form of your name. The guidance says that “Mr Arthur Thomas Roberts” can make a valid request as “Arthur Roberts”, “A. T. Roberts”, or “Mr Roberts”, but not as “Arthur” or “A.T.R.”.
Women may use their maiden name.
In most cases, you may use any name by which you are “widely known and/or is regularly used”.
Use the name of an organisation, the name of a company, the trading name of a company, or the trading name of a sole trader.
Ask someone else to make the request on your behalf.
You may, if you are really stuck, ask us to make the request on your behalf. Please contact us with a good reason why you cannot make the request yourself and cannot ask a friend to. Do not impersonate someone else. This is an abuse of our terms of service

Waterl00 Thanks for that - you may well be right, although I suppose I was expecting something titled 'Equality Analysis' and which looked at the impact of any changes on all of the protected groups rather than just focusing on the one group. (At this point I feel the need to point you to the Comedy Says It Out Loud thread)

I have only skim read through that document, but I have already spotted the names of our dear friends James Morton, Jess Bradley and Anna Lee with their contributions quoted as part of the document, so I am not feeling particularly hopeful as to the input from any groups looking out for women's rights

I'm not an expert but I have used a name I am widely known as without any issue.

The only time I have heard of it being an issue is when the requester is asked for the email address which would then be made public so then you can revert to email. My friend did this and then continued with the FOI offline.

The benefit of using the website is that anyone can look the replies and can follow for updates. I've done this before and found it really useful.

OhHoly I am just such a mouse in real life and would hate for this to come back to bite me or my children. I might just have to brave it though!

I agree that it is really useful to have other requests and responses on there for public viewing, it's a real eye opener.

Even mice can be brave online! I'm sure you're a lot braver than you think and it's always ok to ask questions

As the advice states you could ask someone to put in the FOI for you.

TheShoesa
I have an email I set up in my maiden name for occasional private use and used that for the What do they Know website. No one at work would know my maiden name. The chances of anyone spotting my request and linking it to me are minimal. I used it to make an FOI to my employer.

The only time I have heard of it being an issue is when the requester is asked for the email address which would then be made public so then you can revert to email. My friend did this and then continued with the FOI offline.

There's no need for anyone to ask for an email address on the WhatDoTheyKnow site. I assume if a public body asked for this it was to try to keep the correspondence more private, so I would refuse.

TheShoesa Unless you have a very unusual surname (and you have a choice of 2 if you're married), if you use initial + surname or Ms/Mrs + surname, it's quite unlikely that the request would be linked to you in real life.

CharleyParley lassupthebrew they make for interesting reading and if you can find any links that would be great (but I have read and saved so many things now that I lose track of what I have saved where so appreciate it might not be possible!)

It's back to the TS vs TG isn't it? And although I rarely agree with India Willoughby I can see why India feels that the transsexuals' cause has been damaged by the wider trans movement.

I've done them under a pseudonym.

Google gave me this today, which may be the document I was after

assets.publishing.services.gov.uk>file>GRA-PSED-Assessment

(it won't let me do a link)

Point 20:

The Equality Act 2010 provides exceptions where what might otherwise be unlawful
discrimination against individuals with the protected characteristic of ‘gender
reassignment’ is permitted, such as in gender-affected sport, single and separate-sex
service provision, employment, communal accommodation, the armed forces, and
employment-related insurance services. These exceptions are often intended to allow
for privacy and dignity of individuals. These provisions will stay in place after any
reform of the GRA; the consultation contains no proposals to amend the Equality Act.
The Government is keen to gather further evidence on this point for us to identify any
possible impact. The consultation asks questions about how reform of the GRA will
affect the operation of the Equality Act exceptions, to enable the Government to
gather further evidence of the impact of any reform on women. The consultation also
asks about how reform of the GRA might impact on single sex service provision.