Is self ID finally off the table?

[TheFleegleHasLanded]

Sorry, no share token, hopefully one will be along soon:

www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/changing-gender-to-get-cheaper-but-self-identify-scheme-is-off-0twtdw5fr

[BatShite]

Fantastic.

Still much work to be done in this area though as unfortunately Stonewall and co have aready convinced a LOT of places that self ID is law and its illegal to have single sex areas at all. Where..the equality act makes it clear this is untrue.

I expect much wailing and gnashing of teeth from the MRAs in the coming days..

[DeRigueurMortis]

I will be very interested in watching the Labour Party's response to this.

There have been suggestions that Starmer has been quietly trying to steer them away from identity politics (or at the very least trying to dilute its prominence within the party).

I guess the response (and tbh I'm sadly expecting a full on "we support self ID and TWAW" statement) will provide the answer.

[BatShite]

Fair Cop tweeted a bit from the article that says 70% "backed self id", but officials are aware the results were skewed because of spamming from TRAs.

I wonder how much stonewall, mermaids and co's spammy idea hurt their cause actually. I know support for self ID is very very low in general, but also a lot did not fill in the consultation and..without the spam being rejected (which sounds like, and I agree with as a consultation is not just about how many clicks you can get, from underage people also, and those who do not live in the UK too..actively encouraged, stonewall ) it might have looked a bit better to the Government. Even if it was say..20% for selfID, but those 20% had actually given reasons and stuff..hmm. Would look a hell of a lot better than 10% original replies, and 90% copy pasted rainbow spam with no personal touches or anything. I am glad they realised (though it must have bee too obvious not to!) and took that into account seemingly.

[CivilCervix]

@DeRigueurMortis

I will be very interested in watching the Labour Party's response to this.

There have been suggestions that Starmer has been quietly trying to steer them away from identity politics (or at the very least trying to dilute its prominence within the party).

I guess the response (and tbh I'm sadly expecting a full on "we support self ID and TWAW" statement) will provide the answer.

It's an incendiary path for him. There are MOs, certainly in the most recent cohort, who are fully signed up to the gender woo woo. Their natural constituency are students, guardian readers etc & they won't easily budge on this. So much damage has been done by the toxic debate. They may find a way though by advocating for vulnerable women and allowing reasonable voices to express opinions a la JKR. God bless that woman.

[CivilCervix]

I mean MPs obvs

[unwashedanddazed]

More than 100,000 responses were received to the consultation. Insiders say 70% backed the idea that anyone should be allowed to self-identify. However, officials believe the results were skewed by responses generated by trans rights groups.”

Yes, I thought that was very strong and concise, language. I’m surprised they actually confirmed that the vote was basically fixed

It wasn't a vote, it was a consultation. The TRAs will call fix because of this leaked info, but this was not a referendum. The public were asked for views across a range of questions.

Answers providing well-informed and well-argued information will have carried clout. The balance for or against is irrelevant.

[DeliciouslyFemale]

Sorry, you’re right of course. I should have said consultation. The rest I still believe.

[BatShite]

Answers providing well-informed and well-argued information will have carried clout. The balance for or against is irrelevant.

Yeah, thats what I was trying to say, but you explained it much better. Even if the people supporting was extremely low, their opinions would be considered as its not a tick box yes/no thing at all. All the TRA pressure groups did, was..stop supporters actually giving their opinions, in favour of copy and pasted gender woo spam.

[Impatiens]

Ann Sinnot’s case should make them see we mean business. It isn’t just about self ID as we all know; we need to weed out every incorrect piece of ‘advice’ from thousands of policies across all sectors.
It’s Ann’s case that will really do the heavy lifting.

That's what I'm banking on. As pp have said, the misinformation has spread into virtually every corner and will need strong action, backed by the law, to root it out again.

[WichBitchHarpyTerfThatsMe]

If this is true then it's a great outcome. Combined with Ann Sinnott's case and the other pending legal challenges this is very positive.

Well done to every person who wrote to their MP, stuck a sticker, went to a meeting, talked to friends and family, contributed to a crowd funder.

[ChattyLion]

This is great! ^^ And what WichBitch said.

[motherofdxughters]

I hope this is true!

[tobee]

Hope it's true and that it stays off the table. Can't think how that can be achieved though. How can it be kept off the table? They aren't going to have a law saying you can't self ID. Or are they?

[EdgeOfACoin]

I imagine it will be off the table for the current parliament. However, Parliament cannot bind its successors.

The TRAs are not going to stop. Labour and LibDems are going to be under a lot of pressure to include the introduction of self-ID in their manifestoes.

The fight is not over. If this story is true, every woman who is concerned about self-ID must write to their MPs making it clear they support upholding the current checks and balances system. It is also important to make sure that self-ID doesn't come in through the back door by companies who have been Stonewalled.

[Galvantula]

Edgeofacoin yes, self id is essentially being introduced in many workplaces and organisations every week. It's going to be very hard to undo it, unless there's a way to show what exactly has been done.

Really pleased that all the efforts we made filling in that consultation in detail and leafleting with FPFW etc. have helped though! :)

Need to keep showing them what is being asked for.

[AnyOldPrion]

That’s brilliant in theory, but let’s be honest, far too many organisations are accepting male bodied (in particular) people self identifying trans into areas that are supposed to be for females only. This is great, but we still have a long way to go, before women and girls regain their rights to their feelings of dignity, privacy and safety, to be respected. This is the first step and hopefully can be as evidence that these organisations are completely wrong.

Agree that this is the case, but those changes had been brought in “ahead of the law”. Changes to the GRA were meant to go through silently to back up their position. Their position would have then been almost unassailable.

Obviously there will still be a massive amount of work to reverse those activities, but if the article is correct, it’s a game-changer.

Also, the wailing and gnashing of teeth will probably be very public. They wanted concessions and the only one given (if the article is correct) is the one that I’ll wager they didn’t much care about, but added in because they wanted everything their way. The reaction (and the reactions of the wider public to it) will be interesting to see.

[DryHeave]

Does the current charge actually cover the cost of all the admin? £140 seems on the cheap side when you consider how much visas cost or basically any legal work!

[PearPickingPorky]

@DryHeave

Does the current charge actually cover the cost of all the admin? £140 seems on the cheap side when you consider how much visas cost or basically any legal work!

There's no way £140 covers all the admin costs, given the medical reports required and the panel's time to review it all.

All the millions the trans lobby have spent on trying to destroy women's rights, they could easily have just coughed up the £140 for each trans person who wanted to apply for a GRC.

[Winesalot]

It is potentially good news. The comments about how the 70% were problematic due to the spamming nature are great.

Because, not only did they do it once, they did it AGAIN after the first leak indicated it took credibility away from their submissions. So it seems these types of activists don’t have the presence of mind to sit and compile their own letters using templates as guides (ie. Don’t just copy and paste 100%).

Not a surprise though, their action plan seems to be to remove critical thinking and free speech. If their activists cannot do anything but push buttons (literally and figuratively) that is how they have evolved in that climate.

Roll on Wednesday!

[Badbanana]

Labours response to this will be the sole factor that decides if they get my vote next time around.

Shower if pure shite that the Tory’s are, I’ll keep voting for them if Labour insists on trying to claw this Self-ID crap back,

[movingmuddle]

Brilliant news!

Great idea to write to our MPs to say we support it. Anyone fancy writing a template?

[OneEpisode]

The production of the medical reports is up to the applicant, so not part of the £140. But that £140 seems low?
Just getting a copy of a death certificate is £11 (so that’s a death that is already recorded, all that is requested is an extract). Probate (only (needed of estate is more than £5k) is £215.
Passports the cheapest is £75:50 (online). If witnesses are professionals they may charge - GPSs seem to charge £10.
Marriage costs from £120 at registry offices (more if either spouse is non-UK because of the “notice fee”). again from £11 for a cert, (£35 for a next working day one, extra if you don’t have the reference number).

[MsMarvellous]

This is excellent if true. This, combined with the cases in the pipeline should bring all this to a head.

We have Allison, Keira, Ann and others, all well along in bringing their cases to push the issues around mid representation of the law and misuse of the medical protocol.

Fingers crossed for weds.

[DaisiesandButtercups]

It is really the only way forward, I hope that it is true. Gender reassignment is supposed to be a protected characteristic. Self ID removes that protection, it is as bad for GRC holders as it is for women. The protected characteristics lose all meaning without some gate keeping and basis in reality.

[IrenetheQuaint]

The government generally has a policy that fees like this are based on the admin cost to the government (I guess the approximate admin cost when GRCs came in 15 years ago), but as I understand it they are going to break this link for GRCs and make them cheaper as a sop to the trans lobby.