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.

So why are the cyclist and the rugby player and the cricketer in women's events and teams?

The above point is clear guidance that these are the exact circumstances where it is legal to favour biological sex over gender reassignment. (I would assume gender sex affected sport to be one where physical size and strength have an impact as opposed to say dressage, where women and men compete against each other)

So why are the cyclist and the rugby player and the cricketer in women's events and teams?

TRAs are confidently aggressive. Women who object are called stupid names like "transphobe", ostracized, even threatened with losing sponsorship.

It's plain old misogyny.

Also, in today's climate the fear of being called "transphobic" is also a fear of losing your platform, and being attacked.

I've had a response! So I now do have some information. But I specifically asked for the groups before consultation and that wasn't what was supplied. Why can't it be straightforward?

Please can I have the list you mention here?

Yes, here it is!

Rather than what I got which was more like:

Please can I have the list you mentioned here?

Here is a list which is of everyone at any stage. Not what you asked for, but you asked for a list and here one is!

@Sicario

*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."*

So they want to identify as an independent group when questioned about their motives but have no problem appropriating the label of woman when it suits them.

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.

Yes. Like in Scotland where they consulted Engender, who not only can't define what a woman is, but also depend on them for funding.

Hmmm... you are required to use your ‘real’ name. Do they allow self-ID?

Update:

The only list available includes everyone met with before, during and after the consultation. There is no list of the organisations who were involved in the production of the consultation document.

Is anyone surprised by that? (I'm not)