Sunday Times: PM to scrap plan to make gender change easier

[HeyBells]

Just seen this on Twitter. Anyone got a sharetoken please?

It does continue to be a point of amusement to you how the activist lobby insist that females have no reason to fear males and will never be assaulted, yet can't use male facilities because they fear males and will be assaulted.

As usual it's plain different standards for what's good enough for the likes of mere females but what must always be given to men. Whether or not they identify as men is irrelevant to the efficacy of that privilege.

to you??

To me. Sorry. Being toddlered.

@CantBloodyBelieveIt

Name change because this is totally outing. I've just had an email from my local Labour MP who has said she is 100% behind women-only spaces, backs WPUK and the announcement in the Times today.

But more than that. It's very clear from her email (I don't want to say too much for outing reasons) that she is actively reading these forums. Yes we can argue she should be going public with this, should have bought the Posie Parker t-shirt etc etc.

But this feels like a real win. And I know from her email (I'm being careful here) that her response to me was triggered by the discussion on this forum today. We are bloody doing this guys. We are the ones making this happen. Thank you to all of you.

Sorry, but I'm not going to start whooping and you are right MPs who don't and never did agree with this should have gone public a long time ago.

To quote BovaryX from another thread:

MPs who are petrified of challenging a Twitter mob are unfit to represent anyone. They are unfit to be in any position of power.

MPs are the legislature of this Country - fgs - they make the laws that we all have to abide by and yet they allow themselves to be cowed by an angry mob? They do not deserve their lauded position if they are so weak and craven. What else will they fail to stand up for?

and this:

Hopefully, hopefully JKR has given more female MPs the confidence to start speaking up.

All the MPs (male and female) who have stood silent whilst women have been met with a barrage of hate filled abuse, loss of employment, doxxing, endless harassment, attempts to shut down meetings, etc., etc., why is it acceptable for your constituents to be treated like this? Why are you who are in the positions of power that you are because of your constituents so pitiful?

I would bet my life savings that the overwhelming majority of those who are screaming abuse at women on twitter as evidenced by the vitriol JKR had flung at her fall into one of two categories:

a) Never vote anyway
b) Are not in the UK and therefore cannot vote in UK elections

and yet MPs who are tasked with running this Country are terrified . Pathetic.

Share token for Janice's article

Now GRA reform is dead, let this toxic debate end
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0fcc0fba-ae7e-11ea-86d3-bc5eef90654f?shareToken=6856e4c67e4048eeed17fbedb068a786

Hi, I'm behind on all this, I've only recently found out there was a public consultation! I can find reference to "Proposals for people to self-identify their gender will be abandoned" etc but I can't find any official reference to what exactly those proposals were. Would somebody be able to point me in the direction of them please as I am trying to draft an email to my MP.
Thank you

Here we are EyesOpening

www.gov.uk/government/consultations/reform-of-the-gender-recognition-act-2004

I'm glad you asked this because after reading about all the pro reformers insisting that the 70:30 split means reform must take place, I see there were a total of 53k responses. Yes, that's a lot for a consultation (but we know why replies were artificially inflated), but it's not a democratic mandate for a country of 60 odd million people.

I see our esteemed mayor (London) has spat dis dummy out over this. He really hates women. He has daughters (and a wife and a mum). We are bloody well stuck with him for an extra year because of Covid. And Rory Stewart withdrew from the race. My MP only ever tweets support for him and has her photo taken alongside him, cheering him on.

😭

the activist lobby insist that females have no reason to fear males and will never be assaulted, yet can't use male facilities because they fear males and will be assaulted.

How dangerous are men's toilets for male-born transgender people really? Some of them, like Fionne Orlander, have posted stuff on twitter saying they have no problem using men's toilets. If such people are really in danger from using them I would have thought that many other men would find them threatening places as well and there would be dozens of men attacked on a daily basis just for using a public toilet. Is this really the case? Are random attacks in men's toilets really that common?

Then I read this article in the Independent today:
www.independent.co.uk/voices/transgender-gender-recognition-act-transphobia-liz-truss-boris-johnson-a9565416.html

The author (who describes themself as transmasculine and nonbinary) says:
'As a non-binary person who is often read as a man, and a survivor of sexual assault by men, I have nowhere to go: I am not safe in men’s toilets, and I have been physically attacked in women’s toilets.'

I've never seen women attacking other women in toilets, and I'm struggling to think of the sort of situation where this might happen. If this person was read as male, the chances of that happening are even less likely again. OTOH if toilets were made unisex, I could imagine being nervous about going in on my own in certain circumstances, because I can envisage men going in there and waiting for lone women to attack.

I've had a reply to my email to my MP. It's not dismissive.
He does say "the Minister for Women and Equalities has recently said that any reforms will ensure the protection of single-sex spaces, which I recognise is extremely important."

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/culture-warriors-want-control-not-equality-56knrgklh

Trevor Philips in the Times:

"the Stonewall rioters did not rise up against the New York Police Department’s harassment of gay men more than 50 years ago to allow people with penises to use women’s changing rooms or assault women in prison"

I see there were a total of 53k responses. Yes, that's a lot for a consultation (but we know why replies were artificially inflated)

By comparison the consultation re Surrogacy law which ended last October had about 750 responses.
The law Commission have put back the timetable for their proposals to set a bill before Parliament by a year, partly due to the high number of responses.

"In light of the extent of stakeholder interest and the evolving case law, we anticipate that the project will run longer than previously planned, until early 2022."

So analysing the 53k responses is a huge task. Though as far as I can remember there were far fewer questions than the surrogacy one with 118 questions.

The Surrogacy one was a very hard slog for those of us unused to the ways of consultations.

It was a massive slog and big pat on the back to everyone who waded through it. I do think they got significantly more negative responses than they expected, not sure that will make them make many changes to their proposals but I'm sure it means they've got a lot more work in their hands than they anticipated!

I see there were a total of 53k responses.

The figure of 53,000 was responses already received before they extended the deadline for a few days. The final figure was over 100,000.

@OldCrone

I see there were a total of 53k responses.

The figure of 53,000 was responses already received before they extended the deadline for a few days. The final figure was over 100,000.

I just went by the info on the consultation website OldCrone so it's interesting to see how many more responses came after the deadline was extended. I do remember how both sides were urging people to use their templates and respond. It's a huge contrast with the surrogacy responses.

Most of these consultations are slipped out without anyone but "stakeholders" knowing about them. That was the plan for the GRC, and although the surrogacy one attracted far less interest, it was also the plan there.
The very language - as soon as you start reading they talk about "stakeholders" and ask for the opinions of "stakeholders", and it's off putting as one thinks one isn't invited or included as a person with a valid view.
When of course women are "stakeholders" both as people who might have a view on who might count as a woman, and as the people who are expected to provide the service of supplying eggs and gestating babies for the "stakeholders" who are privileged with being the subjects of interest.

By the way, I just noticed over the weekend, the Law Commission have another consultation due to come out later this summer regarding hate crime. They are considering adding misogyny, so I suppose us women might be "stakeholders" here?
I have no idea whether there plans will serve to protect JK Rowling from the abuse she has been receiving or criminalise her for asking questions in a few well measured tweets.

Those with a legal eye definitely need to keep watch for it and perhaps advise how to respond?

www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/hate-crime/

@SerenityNowwwww

I see our esteemed mayor (London) has spat dis dummy out over this. He really hates women. He has daughters (and a wife and a mum). We are bloody well stuck with him for an extra year because of Covid. And Rory Stewart withdrew from the race. My MP only ever tweets support for him and has her photo taken alongside him, cheering him on.

😭

Gotta say i think Sean Bailey the tory candidate for london mayor seems hugely impressive to me. Heard him on the radio a few times now and he seems considered and intelligent. I think he is from an African british background, possiblt nigerian but i am not 100% sure. Also young, maybe late 30's? Anyway i'll be keeping an eye on his progress. Hopefully he gets more tv/ air time

spinster.xyz/@AnneBevan/posts/104349036893424520

Sorry. I don't think that link works. Here's a screen grab.

Apologies - there's a random "there" which should read "their" in my first post.

Oh dear! They are still slipping in that amorphous phrase "sex or gender".

When a woman is subjected to the particularly misogynistic abuse that has been levelled at JKR for daring to state biological fact and if that abuse comes from a transperson who feels they have suffered 'literal violence' as a result (truth being so damned hurtful), how is the Law Commission going to work out which is the hate crime?

Especially when they feel the need to announce their pronouns.

announce your pronouns? Unless your parents decided to call you Fred and as a woman you needed to make it clear in a particular instance that you are really a woman then just don’t (you look foolish).

@FannyCann

Sorry. I don't think that link works. Here's a screen grab.

Are they going to consider sex as a category?

I've no idea SerenityNowwwww

We will have to wait and see what they come out with and for me, at least, hope someone with a bit of legal understanding comes along to advise how to respond.

I wonder who the "stakeholders" will be this time.