The GE - Party responses to questions regarding the eradication of female rights

[midcenturylegs]

So, A few of us emailed the major political parties about their policies around:

1. female sports
2. female toilets / changing rooms
3. female rape/Crisis centres designed for women being accessed by men
4. the new punitive measures in place for women speaking up (pronouns etc) in the work place

From the Green Party:

A woke yet empathic response, glossed around some questions but have asked for further clarification.

"(We) believe that a person with a gender recognition certificate should be recognised as the gender it states on that certificate. As such I believe, as my Party does, that trans women are women, trans men are men and that non-binary identities exist and are valid.

I do understand the implied scenario behind your questions, namely that an abusive male could obtain a female gender recognition certificate in order to gain access to women through it.

Sadly however, we live in a society where abusive men do not need to go through the (extensive) gender recognition process in order to abuse women. Misogyny and resulting violence against women is entrenched in our society and needs to be tackled through comprehensive action, including the following Green policies:

•	Making misogyny a hate crime across the UK
•	Increase the police’s capacity to deal with domestic violence and misogynistic hate crimes.
•	Implementing a UK-wide strategy to tackle gender based violence, including domestic violence, rape and sexual abuse, FGM and trafficking.
•	Rolling back the cuts to domestic violence support centres and women’s refuges and increase funding to provide more safe and secure accommodation for women and their children.
•	Establishing a new press regulatory regime which will allow women to make formal complaints about media coverage that will encourage misogyny against women.
•	Properly funding training to support the delivery of comprehensive, age-appropriate Personal Health and Sexual Education (PHSE) lessons in schools covering all aspects of sex and relationships, with a focus on consent.

I recognise the concern behind your email about the abuse of women, and suggest respectfully that they way to address is through actions such as the above – not through assigning malicious motive to the tiny minority of people, often the subject of abuse themselves, who transition to a female identity.

I hope this clarifies my views for you.

I appreciate that we may well disagree on this issue – I recognise the strong views that exist on all sides of this debate, and offer my own in a spirit of respect for all viewpoints."

quite different from the last time I asked the questions. And clear that they are referring to legal gender reassigned persons only when they say TWAW. Suggests the landscape has altered.

Is this a small step?

A long way from women being called "non-men" (was it Labour who did that)?
Basically my votes are hinging on these responses. I'm politically adrift at the moment for the first time in my life.
I've no confidence in my usual left/green (if Khan ran for PM that'd be an easy choice for me) choices and am moving closer to the right every time I hear the left belittle the minority (in this case, women). Fgs - Trump said (about the recent trans re-assignment case of the 3 yr old in the States) "enough is enough".

I think we have an opportunity to politely make suggestions to the Greens to their policies. Pissed off at what has happened with M&S today but maybe, given we've had a reasonable voice from the Greens (they are actually acknowledging us!) we may have a voice to influence?
The Woke tend to listen to the Greens.

It's no good them hiding behind the GRC process when virtually everywhere including refuges is accepting the word of any man who says he is a woman regardless of legalities or presentation.

Ova - doesn't the GRC mean that the person has medically and fully transitioned?

Correct me if I'm wrong.

The GP still though refused to provide answers on what to do without having that certification, which is in fact condoning it by default.

I'm at a loss. Could anyone @LangCleg @littlebrowndog @datum help?

Sorry for tagging you, I'd just like some help

doesn't the GRC mean that the person has medically and fully transitioned?
No, you don't have to have any medical intervention to change your legal sex.

Ok.

Would anyone like to help me to write out a decent response to this? I'm not educated enough. Not trolling, just completely disenchanfrised.

No, as Inebriati said there is no medical criteria. So it relies more on whether someone has changed their name on official records and dresses stereotypically.

Most people identifying as trans don't bother with a GRC and why would they when most places already operate on an (illegal) Self ID basis?

We believe that a person with a gender recognition certificate should be recognised as the gender it states on that certificate. As such I believe, as my Party does, that trans women are women, trans men are men and that non-binary identities exist and are valid

What is gender? In what circumstances is it relevant, and why does it need to be legally recognised?

The thing that concerns me here is the whole hearted acceptance of the the idea that everyone needs to be shoved into a gender box.

I am very suspicious of the ‘only those with a GRC’. If they agree with self-I’d then GRCs will be given out to anyone who asks for them with no transition required.

not through assigning malicious motive to the tiny minority of people, often the subject of abuse themselves, who transition to a female identity.

1). You are not assigning malicious motive to trans people, you are assigning malicious motive to the larger number of men who abuse women. This isn't just about access. It's about using legislation to control speech and to remove the ability to talk about sex based rights.

2). "Sadly however, we live in a society where abusive men do not need to go through the (extensive) gender recognition process in order to abuse women". In situations where women are vulnerable - e.g where they are sleeping, in hospital or incarcerated - sex separation is a line of defence that protects women from abuse by men. Arguing that abusive men will abuse women anyway is a bit like arguing that you shouldn't lock your car door because a thief will just smash your window.

As I understand it nobody can legally ask to see another person’s Gender recognition certificate. So basically GRA being available to some people means that you can’t challenge anyone. I would like politicians to explain given the obvious problems that can create, why we still need to have a GRA. What problem is it fixing?

Aren't the Greens, along with all the other major parties, agreeing that the process should be less extensive? Serious question - I thought they did, but their email implies the opposite.

No drugs or surgery are necessary for a certificate of gender recognition. The rather ambiguous "living as a woman" is a requirement.
www.gov.uk/apply-gender-recognition-certificate

Don't be fooled by the Greens' 'empathic' response.

1. they were the first pro self-id party and remain that way as far as I know.

2)Within the party there's no need for a GRC before TWAW is upheld. People have been expelled for questioning the agenda and not reinstated afaik.

3. so the 'i am whatever i say i am, or else' still stands. Bringing up other forms of misogyny is neither here nor there. It's them pointing and going "yeah but look at that other guy!" while they support the erosion of female rights.

Don't fall for it.

And that's without even mentioning who wrote their trans policy.

Making misogyny a hate crime across the UK

How is that possible if nobody can explain what a woman is?

'(We) believe that a person with a gender recognition certificate should be recognised as the gender it states on that certificate.'

' As such I believe, as my Party does, that trans women are women, trans men are men and that non-binary identities exist and are valid.'

These 2 statements are unrelated. Sounds good but they try to throw you off scent with first part, second part is self I'd.

Then they say making everything mixed sex (in practice) is fine aka chucking away safeguarding, because they will get more money to support women and girls after shit has gone bad.

Nope from me.

The existing Equality Act 2010 is even more woolly:

'This section defines the protected characteristic of gender reassignment for the purposes of the Act as where a person has proposed, started or completed a process to change his or her sex.'

A follow up might refer especially to your question with regard to sport since it is possible to see issues with transwomen in sport without assigning malicious intent to anyone at all.

Also, you might allude to the “rights are not pie” analogy and ask why it seems trans rights are over writing sex-based rights instead of living beside them as other rights have all managed. If rights are not pie - why are sex-based rights being removed in order to provide gender-based rights?

Thanks all for your responses so far. Lots to think about. I think I've said before here I am new to all of this, not as clever as most of you so I'm trying to get things right.
Boom can you help out a bit more on the pie analogy? I also want to push the sports point (esp close to home).

Bit of a bait and switch when they went from saying they agree with the law in one sentence then the switch to the party has extralegal beliefs in self ID.

I'd ask them if they want to ban facial recognition software.

So one of the responses to GC feminists and others who object to any of the assertions by TRAs about what their rights should be is: “Equal rights for others does not mean less rights for you. It’s not pie.” (I.e. giving other people equal rights doesn’t lessen the rights you have).

Yet it’s TRAs who are trying to shut down sex-based rights being asserted or even talked about. So I would ask whether they support women organizing and fighting for equal rights along sex-based lines as well as gender-based lines.