Scottish GRA consultation

[SidJS]

Ends 17th March

Does anyone have the link / email address to submit responses to? All can and need to respond - not just the Scots!

I think it's already out Thin here you go

forwomen.scot/

forwomen.scot/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Bin-the-Bill-Guidance-A4.pdf

This is from Women & Girls in Scotland on the GRA draft bill consultation just FYI off anyone interested -

“A reminder that our GRA consultation guidance will be published in February, & will help respondents make clear how & why Self ID, as proposed, would infringe women's rights & protections, as well as helping with what to include re the impact of losing female provisions. Our guidance is designed to help ensure we can generate an evidence base re the need for female-only provision (not least as the govt currently takes the position there is no evidence base re this) & will pay for independent analysis of responses to pull this (& much else) out. Using our guidance will not mean that respondents cannot also use other forms of guidance available, & we highly recommend that respondents wait until around the start of March before responding anyway, so as to have access to the best available/up to date evidence.”

And “The point is the govt is consulting re the content of its Bill and EQIAs, & thus will only adapt its proposals & impact assessments based on how responses address this content”

Adding to this - you can open/start your response online, save it & return to it at various points to add to what you want to say. Any responses that have already been sent online, you can ask to withdraw & resubmit before the deadline, to add or change what you want to say.

It's really important to respond, but it’s also important to understand that it’s the responses/challenge to the EQIA and the bill itself that this consultation covers & it’s important to say why you object, not just that you object.

Further guidance to help with that will be out soon, giving people plenty of time to respond before 17th March

Thanks both! Will submit a response

It's incomprehensible how they can equate a woman who has had a mastectomy with a male bodied person.

Its just vile, it really is. Offensive as hell.

The Scottish Government state that there is no evidence - as far as they can see - that self ID will be exploited, will remove safeguards and lead to abuse of women and girls

This is utter utter bullshit. There would not be proof for something that has not happened yet really, would there?

Mind, there is much proof of males abusing this already, before its happened. SO..yeah, bullshit to claim abusive men would not see this as jackpot tbh

On the news just now they said there would be a special report on the GRA on BBC Scotland at 9 pm

A friend has commented that it might be worthwhile contacting the centrist press about the Scottish GRA and asking them to consider running with a story on it.

Ooo Igne thanks for that. BBC..

Re the posted advice from Women and Girls in Scotland:

This was written following a meeting with Shirley-Ann Somerville and I'm afraid what she is reported to have said is the minister at her disingenuous best.

I refer to this sentence in particular: "The point is the govt is consulting re the content of its Bill and EQIAs, & thus will only adapt its proposals & impact assessments based on how responses address this content " and here's my view on why this is disingenuous:

1. The Scottish Government has no intention of adapting its proposals. The government is decided upon its course of action and this bill can only be stopped by convincing MSPs to vote against it.

1. The Scottish Government has no intention of adapting its impact assessments. If it did, it would have produced proper impact assessments to begin with. The government didn't even follow the advice it gives other organisations on how to produce impact assessments. If it did proper impact assessments, it would have to withdraw its draft bill.

1. The Scottish Government received countless submissions providing evidence addressing the negative impact of self-id on women in the original consultation as well as during the Census Bill debate and hearings. It chose to ignore ALL of the evidence that ran counter to its aims and did not incorporate any of it into the bill. There is no reason to expect this Scottish Government to pay any more attention to our evidence this time round.

--

I would - just generally speaking - advise anyone to consider for themselves how much weight to give to any comments made by the minister who is fully committed to pushing through this reform and who has repeatedly rejected women's concerns as unfounded, no matter what evidence is provided. Especially when that minister had a consultation document published that claimed there had been meetings with women's groups to consult them about the government's GRA reform proposals, something which those groups were reportedly quite surprised by.

Because the Scottish Government has already decided what it wants to do, women's rights campaigners across Scotland and the wider UK decided on a two-pronged approach in addressing the consultation:

I) get the wider population involved by encouraging everyone who disagrees with self-id to register their disagreement by responding to the five questions with short answers opposing the proposals. Various groups have or will provide brief guides for this purpose.

II) encourage all organisations/grassroots groups/individual campaigners able to do so to submit detailed responses addressing the non-existent evidence base of the bill.

Shirley-Ann Somerville's comments seem designed to discourage the first approach of the two. And with good reason - the headline news after the consultation report analyses the responses won't be the sophisticated counter-evidence received from clever people, but how many agreed or disagreed with the proposals.

That's because in order to pass this bill and turn it into law, a simple majority of MSPs have to vote yes. And in order to defeat it, the same principle applies. If the majority of respondents reject these proposals and women's rights campaigners make enough noise, we stand a good chance to make our MSPs think twice about voting yes.

And that can only be achieved by first motivating as many as possible to submit the short responses saying no to self-id.

So, please remember, our target audience for our submissions made through this consultation is not the Scottish Government but the MSPs serving in the Scottish Parliament.

The government are decided already.

Which is why whatever Shirley-Ann Somerville advises is of course in aid of the government's objectives AND irrelevant to our strategy. The Scottish MSPs however, can be convinced to stop the bill from going forward and to send it back to be completely overhauled again.

This is why the For Women Scotland campaign slogan is Bin the Bill.

That's useful, thanks Charlie

And just to explain the legislative context which has informed the strategy adopted by women's rights campaigners. (I've put in italics how it works.)

The Scottish Parliament makes laws in a highly regulated manner, which proceeds as follows:

a) A pre-legislative consultation

Every bill should commence by giving stakeholders a chance to consult on the proposals. It's not unusual to find that this is not highly publicised, so only the few people interested in the subject matter will know or respond.

The previous public consultation which closed on 1 March 2018 was designed to serve the purpose of this pre-legislative consultation for the GRA Reform Bill.

However, although practically no one knew about the consultation, 40% of respondents disagreed with introducing self-id. Additionally, women's rights campaigners made enough noise that the government was forced to acknowledge that there are widespread concerns in a public statement in parliament, that it hadn't consulted widely enough and that it was now offering to listen to those who had concerns.

That it didn't make good on this promise is of course a major criticism of the government, however this does not take away from the success achieved by women's rights campaigners:

The Scottish Government started another pre-legislative consultation, albeit in a different format, to allow those opposed to self-id another chance to express their concerns. AFAIK this is unprecedented.

b) Stage 1

The written responses are compiled into a report by the committee responsible for the bill in question. Witnesses may be called upon to present evidence for the consideration of the committee. Their statements will also be incorporated into the report, which must be attached to the draft bill from then onwards, so that all MSPs can consider all of the relevant information.

(At this point, the committee in question typically calls some of those who submitted evidence for or against the bill to present this in person in a hearing in the parliament. These witnesses may be experts in the subject, or particularly affected by the issue of the bill. This is what happened with the Census Bill for instance and this is when it got very very interesting.)

After this, the Committee then considers both the draft bill and the written and oral submissions received during the consultation and produces a report making recommendations to parliament.

Then the parliament will have a session focusing on the bill, hearing first from the committee and the minister/MSP responsible and then there will be a debate. After that, MSPs decide whether they want the bill to proceed to the next stage or not. They may also send the bill back to the committee to produce another report.

c) Stage 2

This is where the bill is usually scrutinised in every major and minor detail. Changes might be suggested and incorporated. This work may be done in committee, in parliament or in both. Witnesses may once again be called to give evidence.

During the Stage 1 Census Bill debate, I was quite bemused to hear MSP after MSP sharing their bewilderment that this simple 1 A4 page law change had grown into such a massive thing, even at Stage 1. (That comes from not thinking that maybe, just maybe making the sex question a self-id one might be a touch controversial.) Stage 2 of that bill was actually tame in comparison.

d) Stage 3

However Stage 2 was carried out, at this stage, it is the whole parliament again that considers the bill as well as any new amendments introduced at this point. If parliamentarians are not happy, they may send parts of the bill back to Stage 2 to be scrutinised again.

Then the parliament votes on the bill again. If MSPs vote yes, there is a mandatory waiting period (when it may be legally challenged or recalled by parliament) and then the queen signs the bill into law.

If MSPs vote no, the bill falls.

And this process is the one that women's rights campaigners are now focusing on. Convincing MSPs to reject the bill is the best chance we have of stopping this madness. Which is why we're also contacting our politicians to share our concerns, and why everyone should contact theirs even if you're not in Scotland.

P.S. Once self-id is law in Scotland, it will effectively exist in the rest of the UK, too. That's because there is no way to stop a GRC being legally valid once its bearer crosses the border into England. So, please, even if you're not in Scotland try and see your MP to share your concerns.

It is also worth noting that committees are made up of a mix of parties and beliefs. It is incredibly unlikely that everyone on the commitee will be for the changes.

Important to give the committee the tools to ask really good questions and get them thinking. With the census bill, things raised in committee AFAIK also got raised in parliament.

The Scottish government is very divided on this, and thankfully it is not just the woke wing of the SNP who will be voting.

This can be stopped. It has to be. But people need to give their MSPs the knowledge to realise stopping it is the right thing to do. If you can speak to them face to face it means they will have to engage with the issue rather than blindly voting.

And send letters to councillors too. Their role and insight into practicalities of implementing policies is important.

The written responses are compiled into a report by the committee responsible for the bill in question. Witnesses may be called upon to present evidence for the consideration of the committee. Their statements will also be incorporated into the report, which must be attached to the draft bill from then onwards, so that all MSPs can consider all of the relevant information.

The above explains why it’s important that responses challenge the claims made in the EQIA. It’s not about ‘clever people’ but as many ordinary women of all backgrounds expressing why they need female only provision.

This is from tweets earlier posted by MBM on twitter:

Link to tweets

“In response to an FoI request, the SG has published the literature search undertaken to back up the statements in the Equality Impact Assessment that reform of the GRA will have no impact on women... The second document notes "There appears to be a lack of primary research on the actual experienced impacts of trans inclusion in services”. These documents are useful because they tell us what the SG officially "knows" - what evidence it is aware of that is relevant to the impact of its proposals on women - and what it is not aware of. Anyone who is aware of relevant evidence that is not listed here can submit that as part of their consultation response. Anyone who is concerned that any of the evidence which is listed here has been misunderstood can also use their response to make that point_. “

It's not just Women & Girls in Scotland saying this.

Quick response suit some people. That’s fine. But it’s clear that the evidence of the need for female only provision is important & those who want to make more detailed or personal responses (not ‘clever’ responses - no one has said that’s needed) there’s further guidance due v soon that will help with that.

The deadline is 17th March. Submissions can be done online, can be started & saves and gone back to, to add more, before finally submitting your response. And if anyone has already submitted a response online but wants to change the content, you can request your response is withdrawn to re-submit before the deadline.

FYIonly There will be responses which challenge the bill's claims, from a lot of organisations and individuals.

The For Women Scotland campaign, which is designed to encourage everyone to respond, even those who normally wouldn't, has no bearing on that. Because it doesn't target those who would respond anyway, but tries to convince as many people as possible to respond, however briefly.

And if we can motivate those people to respond to the consultation at all, most will not do it if they are asked to submit detailed responses. We know that the kind of short, brief answers For Women Scotland have suggested work very well in encouraging people to fill in these consultations.

And we need the numbers - the other side is encouraging the wider public to respond with equally brief answers.

And yes, I'm aware of the tweets by MBM. But they ARE NOT INSISTING that people provide evidence for why they are rejecting the bill and they are certainly not telling people that unless they do provide evidence it won't count. They were party to discussions between several groups about the strategy to address the bill after all and understand the need to get as many responses as possible.

On a side note, that FOI shows us the Scottish Government wasn't acting in good faith here by explicitly searching for research showing the effect of males who identify as trans within single-sex services. We do actually have plenty of evidence of what happens when women are not provided with a single-sex service, but that research would not show up under those parameters.

Regarding the lowering of the age to 16, is it clear in the draft whether time living in the new gender before 16 will be counted or not?
Moreover, as many of that cohort will be on puberty blockers, is there any scientific research on the cognitive development of such children. Does puberty affect cognitive development or is it just physical development that is affected? If it does can children who have not gone through puberty be truly competent to take such decisions ? Does anybody know?

I'd like to keep on bumping this thread as much as possible.

forwomen.scot/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Bin-the-Bill-Guidance-A4.pdfh including references to this thread, and can people reach far and wide as possible across the world.

You've got an extra 'h' on your link midclegs. It's:
forwomen.scot/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Bin-the-Bill-Guidance-A4.pdf

Good for printing out!

And I think time before the age of 16 will count as the proposed law says anyone 16 and above can apply for a GRC, not anyone 16 and a quarter.

Bump - for any newbies

Please read thread and submit your response!

Whoops. Thanks BetsyM00.

I have written to Liz Truss about this, I am sure most of you have but her details are;

MINISTER FOR WOMEN AND EQUALITIES
If your email is regarding my role as Minister for Women and Equalities please email [email protected]k or call 03000 200 2299.

I think the text in that pdf is clear and concise, and in plain language but I've heard it's best to use your own words.

completed today.

I have completed it, but I fear our responses will make little difference. I live in Scotland, and have not seen or heard anything else pointing me to this consultation except here on MN.

We also need to write/speak to all our MSPs

Useful links for reference if you still need to send your response in:

Guidance from For Women Scotland
forwomen.scot/

MBM assessment of the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill
murrayblackburnmackenzie.org/2020/01/27/mbm-assessment-of-the-gender-recognition-reform-scotland-bill/

Fair Play for Women - What have transgender rights got to do with women?
fairplayforwomen.com/fws_speech/

Fair Play for Women - GRA reform: Is the legal gender recognition process really too intrusive, too costly and too difficult?
fairplayforwomen.com/grcprocess/

If you are able to provide detailed evidence in your submission, this will be really useful. Most submissions by the general public will be fairly simple and short.
It would be really useful if those of us here could send in fairly detailed objections with lost of supporting evidence so the Scottish Government cannot claim that there is no evidence available to prove them wrong as they are currently doing so.

Submissions are accepted from anywhere, so it doesn't matter if you live in Scotland, the rest of the UK or internationally.

Those in Scotland also need to get in touch with MSPs on this as it will be the next stage after the consultation ends - the bill will need to be debated in parliament.

Some additional guidance for those who have not yet submitted their response from Dr Jane Harris:

mobile.twitter.com/blablafishcakes/status/1230461779802828802

Remember to reference this as evidence in your submission to the Scottish government's proposal of GRA reform.

www.scottishsentencingcouncil.org.uk/media/2044/20200219-ssc-cognitive-maturity-literature-review.pdf

The conclusion is worth reading.

1. Conclusion

This report has synthesised recent neurological and neuropsychological evidence pertaining to the age at which adolescents achieve cognitive maturity. In doing so it has outlined the development of neurocognitive functions and the stages at which they occur, discussed factors that have the potential to temporarily or permanently disrupt the typical developmental trajectory, and examined
the links between cognitive and emotional maturity. In doing so we have endeavoured to answer the following aims:

To identify evidence that emotional maturity is linked to maturation of the brain, and of the age at which the brain is fully developed.

The advancement of neuroimaging methods has played a key role in our understanding of adolescent cognitive development. MRI studies in particular have demonstrated that the brain remains in an active state of development until between approximately 25 and 30 years of age.
During this developmental period, an immature prefrontal cortex, and consequent dysfunctional cognitive control over phylogenically older emotion and reward-related regions, are suggested to be
responsible for the normative risk-taking behaviour characteristic of the adolescent period; and to contribute to difficulties in self-regulation (5,8). In short, immaturity of cognitive regions along with overactivation of emotion and reward-related regions contributes to adolescents finding it difficult to think rationally and critically before making complex decisions (9). Pubertal onset is reported to trigger this increased behavioural responsiveness to emotionally salient stimuli, again reflected in aberrant fronto-limbic functional connectivity (5,8).

To identify evidence that continuing development of the brain during adolescence and young adulthood means that young people have less impulse control, ability to plan and make rational decisions, and greater susceptibility to negative influences and peer pressure.

The brain’s continued maturation during adolescence and into early adulthood limits the functional abilities of young people, impacting their capacity to control their behaviour. Most affected are those skills that form the executive functions (including the ability to plan, control impulses and pay attention), which are located in the last region of the brain to achieve maturity, the prefrontal cortex, meaning that adolescents are unable to call upon them reliably. Concurrently, a rise in dopamine is associated with an increased sensitivity to incentives and rewards, particularly those associated with short term gain, peaking between the ages of 14 and 16 years of age. Brain regions associated with emotional responses become more active and sensation-seeking is observed to increase. Occurring together as they do, it is the immaturity of the executive functions, coupled with their emotional context, that impairs decision-making in the presence of rewards, making it difficult for adolescents to ‘override’ their drive towards short term gratification. This is particularly the case in males, where, in comparison to females, higher levels of sensation-seeking and lower levels of impulse control are observed (262). The presence of peers has also been observed to exert an influence on decision making, although the mechanism for this remains unclear.

To identify evidence around any factors which inhibit, either temporarily or permanently, cognitive maturation including, but not limited to, adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and traumatic head injuries.

The ongoing development of the brain during adolescence increases its vulnerability to factors that may slow, or permanently disrupt cognitive maturation. Findings have evidenced that factors including traumatic brain injury, alcohol and substance use, psychological and neurodevelopmental disorders, and adverse childhood experiences, contribute to abnormal cognitive maturation and functioning. Adverse experiences are a particularly potent and significant risk factor as these also compound and increase the risk and vulnerability to develop significant mental health problems, accumulate further stressors and adverse experiences, and affect key factors of resilience and cooping, such as the abilities to mentalise, emotion regulate and utilise support.

.....
.....
7.2 Application in Judicial Contexts

The neurobiological and cognitive developmental trajectories associated with cognitive maturation are non-linear, and differ between individuals, limiting our ability to definitively pinpoint the beginning and end of cognitive maturation. There is however converging evidence that this process continues into the mid to late twenties, an age range typically considered adult rather than adolescent and that we should consider biological, rather than chronological age. Most striking is that the last region to develop is that which provides the foundation for those functions most likely to be relevant in a judicial context, the executive functions. Significantly, evidence supports theoretical models that position poor decision-making and increased risk-taking in adolescence as the result of typical maturational processes rather than solely reflective of preference or personality.
It would appear therefore that the consideration of culpability, and by extension sentencing, in both adolescents and young adults should include due regard to their cognitive maturity. More difficult will be attempts to support such deliberations with assessments of cognitive maturity on an individual level. Currently, the widespread use of imaging is both impractical and unlikely to be helpful given the variability between individuals but, as the number of epidemiological studies mapping normal brain development increase, it may in the future be possible to develop growth curves similar to those used routinely for height and weight. The comparison of offenders’ performance on psychometric measures where normative data exists to illustrate typical functioning
in both adolescents and adults is perhaps feasible in a minority of more serious cases but the measurement of many aspects of cognitive maturity may prove elusive.
It follows therefore that consideration of adolescent cognitive development is highly relevant to the judicial system given the necessity to:
i. Ensure an adolescent’s ability to engage with the court process and their fitness to
plead (15)
ii. Consider an adolescent’s culpability, relative to their cognitive maturity and linked ability, during sentencing
iii. Consider sentencing decisions with reference to their potential to expose an
individual to additional contextual and behavioural factors which may inhibit or
disrupt typical cognitive development.