Chair of LGBT APPG complains that deals worked out behind the scenes not adhered too

[Kit19]

“In privately agreeing a way forward with the wider LGBT+ lobby both in parliament & outside”

Nice to have it confirmed that this was all being sewn up behind closed doors

@CharlieParley

Just wanted to note that an APPG is not an outside lobby group unduly influencing politicians. It's an inside one, made out of politicians seeking to influence government policy.

All Party Parliamentary Groups have, as the name suggests, members made up of (mostly) elected politicians from all parties, from the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

None of that takes away from the justfied criticism in this thread, of course, especially since there is no APPG specifically for women's rights.

Here is the most up-to-date register of APPGs. It's 1006 pages long, and there are various APPGs related to women's issues, like Endometriosis or Ovarian cancer, like Women in the Penal System, Women's Health or Women's Football, Domestic Abuse and Domestic Violence and Abuse^ (although the latter two do not mention women in what are admittedly very brief descriptions).

However, these are not official parliamentary bodies, nor are they Select Committees. These are just informal groups for like-minded people. Who, at leadt in this case, nonetheless expect to be ablw to do backroom deals with the government.

Does the Parliamentary Forum on Gender Identity (previously Transsexualism) still exist? Is that on outside body, or inside?

The main problem with all of this is that nobody has agree what words mean.

The only people whose gender is legally recognised are people with a GRC. Everyone else just has a sex. Nobody has ever clarified what gender is or what the relation is between sex and gender, or why and when sex should be on official documents or noted in data.

The GRA was created to protect privacy, but somehow it has morphed into a way to affirm and classify gender, and nobody has explained when or why this became the government's job or why/whether/when gender and sex should be treated as interchangeable.

If I could come up with a way to sort the genuinely troubled (dysphoric)...then I would happily move over to help the former group

It's possible to sympathise with this group and still refuse to sacrifice clear language.

You need quite a lot of privilege to be able to move over, and without clear sex based rights, women have very little privilege.

Does anyone know where the stats on attempted suicide come from? In a discussion with my woke daughter, she said something similar (half of TW attempt suicide - no mention of TM of course) - and I wondered where those figures came from.

@ListeningQuietly

The parents of SEN children could probably educate the TRAs about what a real battle for recognition, support, funding, healthcare etc looks like

5 years is an average wait for a funded EHCP after all.

Yep. Four year wait for dyspraxia diagnosis, which was first suspected by a clinician at initial meeting, at 4 years old. 3 years for an OT assessment, for a child who, it turned out, would get a Sensory Processing Disorder dx in countries that do that separately to the autism - my child had PTSD from efforts to manage mainstream in KS1, and shockingly it's not even that rare. The autism DX was only arrived at aged 5 because we paid for an NHS doctor's private clinic, in desperation. And every single NHS appointment took fighting to get - every single one too advocacy and pleading and presenting the case as to why it was essential, too. It really is a special needs jungle. Parents who don't do that have kids who fall through the cracks completely.

It takes a year to appeal an EHCP to a tribunal, from start of assessment request to the hearing itself, it seems. In many cases that child has to be educated at home at the parents' expense, meanwhile, because all the LAs know that if they offer only grossly unsuitable provision, parents who care enough to go to tribunal are very likely to keep them at home to spare harm - so it's a year of saved fees for the LA. No SLT, OT, ed psych, counselling. In limbo. And yet 94% of parents win their tribunals because the LA are denying the child what the law says they should have - and most parents don't go to tribunal at all, from lack of knowledge, money, or energy. The Parliamentary Select Committee hearing called it a scandal in real time, and yet nothing's been done.

Personally, I think there could well be a link between the outrageously poor care for neurodevelopmentally disabled kids, and their later huge over-representation at adolescent and child GID clinics. If you don't get proper support as a youngster, the dysphoria and disconnect will spiral. Which isn't to say that some kids won't benefit from transition. Just that detransitioners themselves talk about the sense of isolation, despair and rootlessness that leads them to think they must be trans.

Absolutely, it's not right that an adult has to wait 18 months. But funding is appalling, and we all know that. Why are adults seen as a priority, when early interventions can alter a child's trajectory? Why is the awful state of trans healthcare (which I agree it does sound, absolutely) more of a crisis than the shitshow for disabled children? Because the adult segment largely constitutes white male people, who are backed by powerful lobby groups, perchance?

The NHS is on its knees, and that's appalling for everyone, but the waits are not in fact as awful as they seem to believe they are, in areas that require specialist mental health care particularly. If they think this is unique to trans healthcare - sadly, no, it's not.

As for their anger that the government didn't "meet women's concerns head on". As if we aren't even stakeholders in the very definition of our sex, and access to our single sex spaces and provision. No, we deserved a head on collision, in which we lost, it seems. Well, no, actually. Women are human and we used our voices to advocate for ourselves. That's what is meant to happen, in a democracy.

@HollowTalk

Does anyone know where the stats on attempted suicide come from? In a discussion with my woke daughter, she said something similar (half of TW attempt suicide - no mention of TM of course) - and I wondered where those figures came from.

fairplayforwomen.com/suicide/

Have a look at this ^^ @HollowTalk

Nice to have it confirmed that this was all being sewn up behind closed doors

The absolute disregard for 51% of voters, and the democratic process, is breathtaking. Raging misogyny for all to see.

Fuck off Crispin, you're not taking away my daughter's rights without a fight.

I agree with pp who say we need a proper enquiry, we absolutely do. However, in the meantime I intend to complain about this MP as his behaviour is far short of what we should expect from an elected representative. MPs are supposed to abide by the Nolan Principles as a bare minimum. He has clearly admitted trying to subvert a consultation by doing backroom deals. Men agreeing in private to remove the rights of women, and remove boundaries from girls, isn't going to wash any more.

If you want to do the same, keep it short and cite from 'Code of conduct' if you can
Email to [email protected] and let them know we are not putting up with this.

Code of conduct here:
publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmcode/1882/1882.pdf

Or write to:
Kathryn Stone OBE
Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards
Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards Office
House of Commons
London SW1A 0AA

All details available from
www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/standards-and-financial-interests/parliamentary-commissioner-for-standards/parliamentary-commissioner-for-standards/contact-us/
if you want to double check addresses etc.

@CharlieParley

Just wanted to note that an APPG is not an outside lobby group unduly influencing politicians. It's an inside one, made out of politicians seeking to influence government policy.

All Party Parliamentary Groups have, as the name suggests, members made up of (mostly) elected politicians from all parties, from the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

None of that takes away from the justfied criticism in this thread, of course, especially since there is no APPG specifically for women's rights.

Here is the most up-to-date register of APPGs. It's 1006 pages long, and there are various APPGs related to women's issues, like Endometriosis or Ovarian cancer, like Women in the Penal System, Women's Health or Women's Football, Domestic Abuse and Domestic Violence and Abuse^ (although the latter two do not mention women in what are admittedly very brief descriptions).

However, these are not official parliamentary bodies, nor are they Select Committees. These are just informal groups for like-minded people. Who, at leadt in this case, nonetheless expect to be ablw to do backroom deals with the government.

Crispin Blunt’s post, from the OP, also includes this:

“However, trans people should take satisfaction that the strong lobby deployed in their support by both all mainstream LGBT+ groups and by a substantial level of representation from UK commerce, has protected them from potentially unwelcome developments that appear to have been trailed previously by the Secretary of State.

Since when is it not a faux pas to admit to allowing commerce to affect policy?

@CharlieParley

Just wanted to note that an APPG is not an outside lobby group unduly influencing politicians. It's an inside one, made out of politicians seeking to influence government policy.

All Party Parliamentary Groups have, as the name suggests, members made up of (mostly) elected politicians from all parties, from the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

None of that takes away from the justfied criticism in this thread, of course, especially since there is no APPG specifically for women's rights.

Here is the most up-to-date register of APPGs. It's 1006 pages long, and there are various APPGs related to women's issues, like Endometriosis or Ovarian cancer, like Women in the Penal System, Women's Health or Women's Football, Domestic Abuse and Domestic Violence and Abuse^ (although the latter two do not mention women in what are admittedly very brief descriptions).

However, these are not official parliamentary bodies, nor are they Select Committees. These are just informal groups for like-minded people. Who, at leadt in this case, nonetheless expect to be ablw to do backroom deals with the government.

While agreeing with you that these are unofficial self-selecting special interest groups comprising members from either or both Houses of Parliament, and therefore internal, they can and do work very closely with outside bodies even to the point where I remember that the secretariat for one was provided by an outside body. I don't know whether that is the case for any others as I haven't looked into it.

In the case of the Crispin Blunt one, they do list, I think three, outside organisations (not as a secretariat). And that is no surprise. Anyone here could probably guess at least one of them. Interests and aims in common, to some extent at least so who wouldn't suppose they work closely with and through them?

Yes, so inside groups seeking to influence but also an almost tailored close and dedicated route for outside lobbies to gain audience and influence, I would suggest.

@HollowTalk

Does anyone know where the stats on attempted suicide come from? In a discussion with my woke daughter, she said something similar (half of TW attempt suicide - no mention of TM of course) - and I wondered where those figures came from.

Here's the Fair Play For Women on where that figure came from, here.

A Tavistock FOI showed the following (you can find this on their own FOI log page)

Details of enquiry
How many patients who have been referred to the Tavistock Gender Identity Development Service have committed suicide while in the care of the Service? Please provide the number of suicides (if any), by year, for every year since 2003.

Response Sent
Patients on waiting list:
2016 / 2017 / 2018
Completed suicide: 1 / 1 / 0
Attempted suicide: 0 / 2 / 0
GIDS Patients:
Completed suicide: 0 / 1 / 0
Attempted suicide: 0 / 1 / 1
We do not hold this data prior to 2016.

So the very worst year seems to have been 2017, where three attempted and horribly, two actually died. But that's from well over 2500 kids being referred to the waiting list, on top of the kids actually in their care at the time, so we're looking at between 3 thousand kids at an absolute minimum. That's a really sat stat, obviously - some children and young people have died, or been unhappy enough to try to die. But it's not a rate that differs from the usual CAMHS rate - a point GIDS make themselves. (10% of anorexics die of the illness, for example.) Clearly it's still horrendous for that unique individual child, and for all those who loved that child, whose lives will never be the same, and whose pain is unimaginably great. It's light years away from the claims lobby groups make in seeking to force back women's rights, however.

It's also worth noting that the Samaritans, and in fact GIDS, deplore the framing of suicide of young people as down to one factor - it harms the resilience and mental health of the others who share it, and increases their own suicide risk.

50% of GIDS patients are showing autistic traits, when assessed, sufficiently strongly for staff to conclude that they would meet an ASD dx, with 35% actually diagnosed. Others are already diagnosed as anorexic (another, and very dangerous form of body dysmorphia), or with complex trauma in their pasts. Many are gay, and dealing with homophobia. All of these have a far higher rate of depressive and anxiety disorders, and sadly, suicide. It's simply not possible to say why some gender questioning kids are this desperately unhappy, just that they need skilled and compassionate support - and a cessation of the lie that half of their peers are actively trying to kill themselves, which is harmful in itself.

As to the TW stat - there are estimated to be between 200,000 and 500,000 trans people in the UK. We have roughly 6500 suicides a year in total in the UK across all demographics. All heartbreaking; if TW really were committing suicide at the rates claimed, we'd have massively more deaths recorded - which thankfully we don't, so they can't be.

It's like the trans murder rate stat that gets flung around. Trans people have half the average murder rate in this country. They're an extraordinarily safe demographic. The concerns I have from the data is that they're low income, and if GIDS is any guide, suffer from mental health problems at a high rate - but then, 75% of ASD young people do, and if 50% of GIDS patients are ASD, with more ASD etc, others with trauma (deaths of those close to them, abuse, and so on) and others with other difficulities - then attributing distress to any one source is impossible. It's very clearly multi-factorial: we know absolutely nothing about the children who took their lives, or sought to. Yet the gender questioning element is leapt upon as the reason, and used to make capital. Pretty grim.

Do gender questioning kids, and for that matter adults, need and deserve excellent care and support? Yes. And that would include the cessation of harmful lies about loads of them killing themselves, or being murdered. That sort of bullshit would make anyone feel vulnerable.

Does the Parliamentary Forum on Gender Identity (previously Transsexualism) still exist? Is that on outside body, or inside?

Inside body, chaired by politicians but including outside people. When it was first founded in 1994, the forum's members were drawn from the UK's leading experts in transsexualism (cannot recall right now if that was campaigners and medical professionals or just one of the two).

I believe it still exists,under the new name you mention, as certain public statements, articles, reports refer to people as members of or chair of in present tense. Not that prevalent since 2011, when they published that report that eventually led to the GRA reform proposals, but I think I saw it refered to as recently as 2019.

No coincidence btw that report was published one year after the Equality Act was signed into law, because that did, arguably, remove rights from people who identify as trans (rights they only got by parliamentarians overriding women's rights in writing the GRA).

APPGs are interesting.
I deal with several.

Josef Stalin always said that the person who write the minutes determines the history

In an APPG, look at who is providing the Secretariat
as they will determine which speakers the APPG hear from
they will determine which documents the APPG sees
and they will write up the reports

and despite any interested party being able to register to attend APPG meetings (they are technically in the public domain)
Secretariats are astoundingly good at forgetting to contact those who might challenge their orthodoxy
in all areas of interest, not just sex and gender

Sorry, that wasn't clear. The forum had politicians as well as outside experts as members.

Since when is it not a faux pas to admit to allowing commerce to affect policy?

Yes, so inside groups seeking to influence but also an almost tailored close and dedicated route for outside lobbies to gain audience and influence, I would suggest.

I agree with both of you. My comment was aimed at explaining what APPGs are, without judgement. They can, and do, good things. Lobbying is not in and of itself bad - at least as far as non-commercial lobbying is concerned. Unfortunately, APPGs can, and do, also operate in unethical ways that lead to highly unethical practices.

This APPG is not in and of itself bad. But Blunt's statement betrays something most of us have long suspected - that there are forces in play seeking to push self-id through despite knowing what this means for women's rights. Who were determined to do this by lobbying behind closed doors because they know the public, or more accurately women, would object.

The problem is the failure to recognise that this affects women.

'Cis gender women' aren't involved in the discussion, they just need their 'anxieties' to be met 'square on'.

It's one thing to lobby, but their assumption seems to be that no other voices should be heard.

In an APPG, look at who is providing the Secretariat
as they will determine which speakers the APPG hear from
they will determine which documents the APPG sees
and they will write up the reports

Very interesting observation, @ListeningQuietly

I just find the arrogance so unbelievable.

I hope Mr Blunt is feeling the heat 💥

@CharlieParley

Since when is it not a faux pas to admit to allowing commerce to affect policy?

Yes, so inside groups seeking to influence but also an almost tailored close and dedicated route for outside lobbies to gain audience and influence, I would suggest.

I agree with both of you. My comment was aimed at explaining what APPGs are, without judgement. They can, and do, good things. Lobbying is not in and of itself bad - at least as far as non-commercial lobbying is concerned. Unfortunately, APPGs can, and do, also operate in unethical ways that lead to highly unethical practices.

This APPG is not in and of itself bad. But Blunt's statement betrays something most of us have long suspected - that there are forces in play seeking to push self-id through despite knowing what this means for women's rights. Who were determined to do this by lobbying behind closed doors because they know the public, or more accurately women, would object.

Just wanted to note that an APPG is not an outside lobby group unduly influencing politicians. It's an inside one, made out of politicians seeking to influence government policy.

You brought judgement in with the above, unduly, where I was merely describing how outside influence, no duly or unduly mentioned, can and does feature in the workings of these parliamentary groups. And since the thread is discussing a particular one in which there has been a stitch up of some kind with who knows what groups internal or external or both, I am not ...um...unduly concerned if people wish to judge it for what has gone on.

Blunt, as a parliamentarian also knows that a consultation is not a referendum. So his very long list of majorities supporting various aspect of GRA reform is pure propaganda. For two reasons:

1. A consultation that receives 1000 responses could result in a proposal being scrapped if just one submission makes a point demonstrating an insurmountable flaw.

The percentage of submissions which agree are mostly irrelevant. The real questions are: Did any submissions point to any serious flaws with our proposals? What are the repercussions if we go ahead without changes? Can we rectify the problems?

2. The question of how may dissenting opinions did we get, how many supportive is, of course, interesting, but any claim to these percentages being meaningful is false. For percentages to matter, we'd have needed a different consultation.

This consultation was deliberately presented as of no interest outside of the trans community. At most, it was publicised to and known by the LGBT community.

It was also written in a way that presupposed everyone responding believes in transgender ideology. The language was deliberately dense, the questions obtuse.

None of the implications for women's rights were even mentioned, let alone explained or explored in any detail.

And when women did, finally, take notice and tried to meet to discuss the proposals we were met with unprecedented resistance to a stakeholder group seeking to participate in a democratic law reform process that would impact on their legal rights.

Politicians refused to engage. Councils refused to allow meetings in their own buildings. We received death threats, bomb threats, rape threats for daring to organise, publicise or attend such meetings. Women lost their jobs, self-employed women their livelihoods for discussing their objections to these proposals. Women were attacked for even wanting to attend.

I walked through a group of aggressive young men in balaclavas attending my first ever women's rights meeting on Valentine's Day 2018 in Edinburgh. (A few of those protesters are in a photo I've attached.)

Those protesters blocked our exit. The police told us they wouldn't protect us or clear the way; they recommended we leave in groups for our own safety. When we did, the protesters walked right up to us until they stood nose to nose and screamed insults in our faces and banged pots right next to our ears.

Lest this be forgotten in all this self-righteous indignation and bitter disappointment expressed by Blunt and Co.

The consultation delivered these results only because an extreme fringe of trans rights activists across the country terrorised women into silence. Threatened venues and organisers of meetings. Stopped ordinary women from daring to attend meetings. Voicing their opinions online. But we are 51% of the population. And for too many of us being a woman means we are all too familiar with male violence and aggression. And with pushing through despite our fears. Enough of us took tiny steps or bigger ones to oppose this reform. That's how we got here.

You tried. You failed. And now you complain that the government didn't put us in our place.

Because we are women willing to defend our rights.

That is the United Kingdom in 2020.

Had a look at the Blunt group this morning and noted that the officers for the group are five male and one female. Chair and three Vice-Chairs and Treasurer, male and one Vice-Chair, female - Elizabeth Barker. It also has a large membership. One member name that caught my attention was Featherstone, which will be familiar to some readers here.

Well said Charley

@CharlieParley

Blunt, as a parliamentarian also knows that a consultation is not a referendum. So his very long list of majorities supporting various aspect of GRA reform is pure propaganda. For two reasons:

1. A consultation that receives 1000 responses could result in a proposal being scrapped if just one submission makes a point demonstrating an insurmountable flaw.

The percentage of submissions which agree are mostly irrelevant. The real questions are: Did any submissions point to any serious flaws with our proposals? What are the repercussions if we go ahead without changes? Can we rectify the problems?

2. The question of how may dissenting opinions did we get, how many supportive is, of course, interesting, but any claim to these percentages being meaningful is false. For percentages to matter, we'd have needed a different consultation.

This consultation was deliberately presented as of no interest outside of the trans community. At most, it was publicised to and known by the LGBT community.

It was also written in a way that presupposed everyone responding believes in transgender ideology. The language was deliberately dense, the questions obtuse.

None of the implications for women's rights were even mentioned, let alone explained or explored in any detail.

And when women did, finally, take notice and tried to meet to discuss the proposals we were met with unprecedented resistance to a stakeholder group seeking to participate in a democratic law reform process that would impact on their legal rights.

Politicians refused to engage. Councils refused to allow meetings in their own buildings. We received death threats, bomb threats, rape threats for daring to organise, publicise or attend such meetings. Women lost their jobs, self-employed women their livelihoods for discussing their objections to these proposals. Women were attacked for even wanting to attend.

I walked through a group of aggressive young men in balaclavas attending my first ever women's rights meeting on Valentine's Day 2018 in Edinburgh. (A few of those protesters are in a photo I've attached.)

Those protesters blocked our exit. The police told us they wouldn't protect us or clear the way; they recommended we leave in groups for our own safety. When we did, the protesters walked right up to us until they stood nose to nose and screamed insults in our faces and banged pots right next to our ears.

Lest this be forgotten in all this self-righteous indignation and bitter disappointment expressed by Blunt and Co.

The consultation delivered these results only because an extreme fringe of trans rights activists across the country terrorised women into silence. Threatened venues and organisers of meetings. Stopped ordinary women from daring to attend meetings. Voicing their opinions online. But we are 51% of the population. And for too many of us being a woman means we are all too familiar with male violence and aggression. And with pushing through despite our fears. Enough of us took tiny steps or bigger ones to oppose this reform. That's how we got here.

You tried. You failed. And now you complain that the government didn't put us in our place.

Because we are women willing to defend our rights.

That is the United Kingdom in 2020.

CharlieParley your post gave me goosebumps

Threatened venues and organisers of meetings.

Let it never be forgotten that the TRAs bullied Milwall football club into cancelling a meeting. Milwall, FFS! As in "We are Milwall. Everyone hates us. We don't care."

Posie Parker - more balls than Milwall!

Charley that post needs to go into a national newspaper!