Boris Johnson comments on GRA - Q&A with Pink News

[stumbledin]

Hardly worth noticing, but for info PN asked:

Why weren’t reforms to the Gender Recognition Act included in the Conservative manifesto?

We are carefully considering all responses to our consultation and the next steps. These will be announced in due course. It is vital that the next steps on any potential reform of the Gender Recognition Act are carefully planned and have the right backing, so they can have a positive impact on the trans community in the UK.

We had more than 100,000 responses to our consultation and have met with 140 organisations to ensure that we have taken into account views and concerns from all sides of the debate.

www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/12/10/general-election-stonewall-lgbt-foundation-consortium-letter-unite-government/

Well most of them didn't bother turning up to vote. Compared to 289 labour MPs, only 58 Tories were invested enough in the issue to turn up and vote at all

That’s interesting. The only conclusion I can come to is none of them could foresee the implications of the GRA and its radical deconstruction of the relationship between sex/gender. John Bercow. That’s a name that keeps recurring. Odious.

In the words of Butch Cassidy, 'Who are those guys?

Floisme I don’t know. I just can’t decipher it. Because one would have thought that the numbers are so small, how can this lobby have achieved such extensive regulatory and institutional capture so quickly? It’s the reverse of a social justice movement like the suffragettes. Its proponents have had immediate access to the upper echelons of power without public support or media scrutiny. I can’t think of any comparitive movement. It’s unprecedented.

I guess weaponised oppression is a relatively modern phenomenon. Through most of history it has not been advantageous to appear weak or part of a minority.

Hmm I think possibly I was getting a little paranoid last night. Let's put it down to election fever But I still the new government should be pushed to publish the consultation results, and that any politician who talks about changing the law without even reading what the people said is deeply untrustworthy.

Through most of history it has not been advantageous to appear weak or part of a minority

This lobby is not weak. It has managed to colonise private and public institutions to force through policies that have no public support. It has unlimited access to influential individuals and wields this influence with no media scrutiny. It has an internet wing which trawls cyber space targeting gender critical women to silence them.

Its imperial expansionism has seen most Western countries capitulate to its agenda. The Denton report makes explicit its tactics, which include avoiding media scrutiny and public debate, whilst targeting youth groups and piggybacking radical policies onto uncontroversial legislation. These underhand machinations are an acknowledgment of the unpopularity of its agenda. Yet everywhere you look, its policies are enacted. It is an existential threat to freedom of speech. And democracy.

My take is that Stonewall was/is hugely influencial in persuading the decision makers, whether in politics or business, that self ID is a harmless and minor piece of legislation to help the vulnerable. What's not to like? As a policy, it's a cheap decision which wins you woke points. Tick, tick.

Why would they have questioned that? Stonewall's reputation prior to Ruth Hunt was exemplary and hardly anybody else was putting forward a counter argument.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_(charity)

Following the passage of equal marriage laws, Stonewall sought a new focus. On 16 February 2015 Stonewall announced their plan to campaign for trans equality in a report generated from consultation with over 700 trans people,[46] despite previously maintaining a "a strict distinction between sexual orientation and gender identity", with Stonewall chief Ruth Hunt saying that "historically, we thought it was the right thing to do" but that she has now changed her mind, saying that: "We recognise the impact of mistakes we have made in the past. We are aware that we have missed opportunities to open up this conversation far sooner. We apologise to trans people for the harm that we have caused"

The Women & Equalities Select Committee was formed in July that same year and by September they were getting stuck in to their trans enquiry. It was the independent Committee which recommended the consultation and the Government had little choice but to agree

The who-started-this trail inevitably leads to back to Ruth Hunt and that initial Stonewall report.

Bovary - I don’t disagree with you at all. Maybe I needed quote marks around ‘weak’. I think it’s unprecedented and very worrying, but at the same time, socio-political movements don’t come from nowhere.

IMO it’s a combination of the relatively recent window of history where belonging to a perceived to be oppressed group carries political clout, and male reaction against female success. Probably hyper-individualism too.

I wonder if it’ll be studied in years to come as a case study of how a bad idea got nearly everywhere very quickly - right idea, right conditions.

in persuading the decision makers, whether in politics or business, that self ID is a harmless and minor piece of legislation to help the vulnerable. What's not to like? As a policy, it's a cheap decision which wins you woke points. Tick, tick

I agree. I don’t think any critical thinking/ worst case scenario was applied. As many have said, the GRA was intended to be utilized by a tiny minority who had demonstrated significant commitment to living as the other gender. Also, Cameron was a Blairite, so freedom of speech and thought were sidelined instead of being the philosophical foundation on which policies are built....

It’s the same as the way they’ve delayed the Russia report, and “stopped” fracking. The tories are saving the tough news until after you’ve voted for them.

Stonewall presented the newly formed select committee with an 'oven-ready' deal, which they accepted with trusting hands. Maria Miller rightly gets a lot of the blame, but let's not forget Jess Phillips was on that Committee right at the start, and she's no shrinking violet

www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/women-and-equalities-committee/news-parliament-2015/membership-2015-parliament/

I wonder if it’ll be studied in years to come as a case study of how a bad idea got nearly everywhere very quickly - right idea, right conditions

I don’t know. But the alternative future is that Newspeak triumphs and objections are silenced. The insanity of allowing children to be placed on a medical pathway for showing individuality and gender nonconformity will lead to lawsuits. But that could take decades.

But I still the new government should be pushed to publish the consultation results, and that any politician who talks about changing the law without even reading what the people said is deeply untrustworthy.

Be careful what you wish for. The consultation may not say what you think it will. At the time of the consultation, awareness of trans ideology and the reality of many transwomen (late-transitioning after ‘successful’ lives as men, retention of male genitalia in many, probably, most cases) was low. The consultation was targeted at the trans community and it was only in the late stages that GC women got hold of it.

I don’t think the consultation results will reflect the feelings of those affected by the proposed changes because most (women) were in the dark about it and its potential impact, and that was a deliberate strategy.

You may be right charles and I may end up egg on my face but I think that if the result had been pro self ID, it would have been published. That was the result the government had expected, what the TWAW lobby had expected. I can't remember names but I'm pretty sure I've read TRA sources admitting it didn't go to plan.

And in any case, whatever it says, I think it's pretty shabby to canvass opinions, get 100,000 replies and not publish them.

The Tory candidate I emailed, along with Labour and Lib Dem, responded about the “importance of getting the balance right”. And indicated that should she get in (new candidate after existing mp stood down in safe Tory seat) I should come and talk to her about it. She was on the Women & Equalities Select Committee apparently.

Didn’t Bercow refuse an urgent question in the HOC from David Davies, about the potential harms to women of self ID? He is closely linked to Stonewall as well. Dodgy little man.

If you look at it through the anti-feminist lens, then it makes sense that anything that negatively impacts women is likely to gain significant traction quite quickly. Acceptance of the trans agenda in the highest echelons is a way of attacking women's rights while seeming to be socially liberal, aware and supportive of minorities.
I'm amazed to see Ken Clarke on that list.

Bercow? Vaz's bestie? Odious man.

I'm amazed to see Ken Clarke on that list

I’m not. Par for the course. I would be amazed to see Ken Clarke articulate a single Conservative principle. He’s been on the wrong side of the aisle for decades.

I wonder if ensuring 'a positive impact on the female community' is considered equally as important.

My sister went for a job in the equalities department dealing with, among other things, the GRA. Her interview was with a senior civil servant involved in the consultation who was apparently very candid about the state of the field. My sister is very pro "trans rights" and would not tell me much as she knows my thoughts on the matter. Anyway, from what she said I gather that:

• Civil servants do have substantial influence on these things. She would expect to be able to influence (to a certain extent) the minister responsible
• The consultation is not a victory for women's rights. As I said, she wouldn't say much to me but she was not unhappy with what the director told her about the results of the consultation

I've already started taking up the cudgels with my Conservative MP and yes, I'm only one woman. Still. Self ID is not in the manifesto. I believe that the manifesto was silent on the matter for a reason.

If it's not on the manifesto, it won't be in the Queen's Speech. If it's not in the Queen's Speech, it won't be allocated a place on the HoC timetable for debate.

The days of civil servants leading ministers round by the nose may well be over. Like him or loathe him, Dominic Cummings has already laid down clear demarcation lines, the ones that Margaret Thatcher defined. "Ministers decide".

I would be amazed, quite frankly, if Liz Truss - who currently holds the Equalities Minister brief (although this might change) - has the same woke views as Maria Miller or Penny Mordaunt. I think the brief was given to Liz Truss for a reason.

I would also be amazed if this government decided to push forward with a non-manifesto decision that is divisive nationally and flies in the face of what so many Conservative MPs (and the vast bulk of Conservative Party members) believe. The last time that happened, the party split and nearly didn't survive.

I'm not taking the chance, of course, so I'm going to be a thorn in the side of the Conservative hierarchy till I'm sure that Self ID has been buried. Anyone who now has a Conservative MP - whether they voted that way or not - should be getting their say in now, before the TRAs do.

Didn’t Bercow refuse an urgent question in the HOC from David Davies, about the potential harms to women of self ID? He is closely linked to Stonewall as well. Dodgy little man.

Yes. That question related to Karen White too.

Bercow also made some hideous comment at a Stonewall summer party.
He's also pals with Edward Lord and there was a thread once which talked of his membership to an old boys club and had something to do with trans.

Couple of threads here:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3365319-new-kirkup-article-about-bercow-s-refusal-to-let-mps-discuss-karen-white?pg=5

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3396169-John-Bercow-sex-pest-ridicules-GC-Women-friend-of-Pink-News-Edward-Lord-who-refused-UQ-about-prison-policy-following-Karen-White-Case-Unconnected

I don't think we should underestimate the power of the civil service.

Quite. See: www.agender.org.uk/

Bercow hosted a conference about self ID and girl guides. Pips Bunce the alternate days female banker was there. Odious little man.

One of Boris' advisors is Andrew Gilligan, the former Times journalist who has written some very good GC articles. One good thing about Boris is that he is lazy and not a details man. (A friend worked for him years ago.).As long as he has good people around him we are ok.