CALL FOR ACTION Women&Equalities committee calling for evidence on GRA reform - again?!?

[Cwenthryth]

committees.parliament.uk/call-for-evidence/291/reform-of-the-gender-recognition-act?fbclid=IwAR2OBw5dDqd0oWBzQrZOjcxb7N0S34f_rEWw7QVnOuzeQfI55co_w0CvFsc
Not quite sure why they’re asking all these same questions again, but looks like we all have more homework to do!

Make a clear distinction between sex and gender

The root of the trouble is that the language and terms are not defined. We can craft careful essays about women and the govt can agree on it, but if they define 'female' or 'woman' as inclusive of males it's all for naught. 'transgender' isn't defined. How can we make any kind of clear debate until the terms are clearly laid out and explained?

How many members of the public understand what 'trans' means? Or 'transwoman'? Most know very well what 'woman' means, but may not be aware that the govt are [sometimes] using it to include males.

[quote gardenbird48]Does anyone have a share token for that article?

Hi Charlie does that work for you?
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/it-is-time-to-end-the-delays-over-trans-equality-cx2zsh0tw[/quote]
Sadly not. But thank you for trying!

The GRA was a compromise and look where that's got us.

This ^

This has to be faced.

Women have already compromised, and it's led to women assaulted by convicted rapists (can you imagine, considering that less than 1% of reported rapes ends in a conviction, what a male would have had to have done, to what extreme and to how many people, to have a prison sentence for it?) and women sleeping rough because of no refuges they can use, and on and on.

Any thing viewed now as a 'compromise' might be more comfortable for the committee, but in fact involves reducing sex based rights from females. It's just deciding the degree of how much. And that degree of loss will be sustained by women on the understanding that the lobby involved will immediately focus on forcing the boundary to the next step, because the goal is elimination of sex based rights.

What other class of people is being required to defend the retention of their rights? How many rights should disabled people be prepared to surrender as a compromise to the able bodied? It all sounds so nice and civilised, but it's skirting round the biggest and dirtiest issue of the lot. Do female people have equality and identity of their own in this country, or do they just get what male people will let them have?

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/785da0d0-187c-11eb-a714-6e13d8ca860f?shareToken=287f17ebcac09525daf5989145ac1b82

Oops sorry - that’s it.

Burnt my onions now 😂

@gardenbird48

Burnt my onions now 😂

Oh no, I'm sorry! I do that a lot coz I keep forgetting to turn down the heat (I like them brown, not black).

@gardenbird48

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/785da0d0-187c-11eb-a714-6e13d8ca860f?shareToken=287f17ebcac09525daf5989145ac1b82

Oops sorry - that’s it.

Thank you, that worked!

Unfortunately I'm less delighted with the article. How is it after years of well researched, considered and detailed contributions from women about the necessity of consulting women when planning to change a law that will affect women's rights, there isn't even one question here as to how women might be affected by these reform plans.

Sigh...

Charlie - you’re welcome - glad I got there eventually. That article is awful - I hope there are some strong people with integrity on that committee to stand up to her preconceptions! Lord Lucas sounds like he could be helpful even if it is just for advice.

I have rebranded my burnt onions as ‘caramelised’ -covers a multitude of sins :-)) I think they’ll be ok.

Gender identity respected but not confused/conflated with sex would be my compromise.

Transsexual people are dysphoric about their sex. They change their secondary and in some cases primary sex characteristics. Most want to be seen as their transitioned sex.

Your compromise would solve absolutely nothing for them.

Gender identity respected

I think the government needs to explain what gender identity is before they start recording it.

Whether you agree or disagree with the current law it was written to protect privacy. Endorsing the idea of gender identity rather than protecting the privacy of people who suffer from gender dysphoria would be a huge ideological change.

Transsexual people are dysphoric about their sex... most want to be seen as their transitioned sex....your compromise would solve absolutely nothing for them

And yet 'being trans is not an illness' therefore what is there to be 'solved'?

A compromise of a third, mixed sex space would be best for everyone, surely? SIngle sex male, single sex female and mixed sex for those who do not wish to use the correct facilities for their sex and for those who say they are not bothered about keeping single sex facilities. I might even be tempted to use the third space myself, if the queue was shorter

@Typesofcatalogue

Gender identity respected but not confused/conflated with sex would be my compromise.

Transsexual people are dysphoric about their sex. They change their secondary and in some cases primary sex characteristics. Most want to be seen as their transitioned sex.

Your compromise would solve absolutely nothing for them.

I agree. I don't think everyone is going to get what they want from this and think that transexual people (who the GRA was originally created for) have been thrown under a bus by the transgender lobby.

One of the things that concerns me is the interaction between self ID and medical treatment.

Thinking about Keira Bell, what path is there apart from affirmation if somebody has already obtained a GRC?

@merrymouse

Gender identity respected

I think the government needs to explain what gender identity is before they start recording it.

Whether you agree or disagree with the current law it was written to protect privacy. Endorsing the idea of gender identity rather than protecting the privacy of people who suffer from gender dysphoria would be a huge ideological change.

Yes, gender and gender identity need to be clearly defined.

And yes, the committee needs to clarify WHO the GRA is for. Is it for those with gender dsyphoria or to validate people's gender identities?

@ArabellaScott

Make a clear distinction between sex and gender

The root of the trouble is that the language and terms are not defined. We can craft careful essays about women and the govt can agree on it, but if they define 'female' or 'woman' as inclusive of males it's all for naught. 'transgender' isn't defined. How can we make any kind of clear debate until the terms are clearly laid out and explained?

How many members of the public understand what 'trans' means? Or 'transwoman'? Most know very well what 'woman' means, but may not be aware that the govt are [sometimes] using it to include males.

Yes, I think this definition of terms is absolutely key. How can you make/change laws if you aren't clear what you are talking about?

Just out of interest why would the Committee say that if you need help or support to contact Citizen's Advice???

committees.parliament.uk/work/658/

I don't suppose there is any point in asking Caroline Nokes or the W&E office exactly why on earth they are re-doing this consultation weeks after the last one was finished with?

Transsexual people are dysphoric about their sex... most want to be seen as their transitioned sex....your compromise would solve absolutely nothing for them

Well, pretending men can become women is not just upsetting women. It is costing them their safety from dangerous men in prison, they are losing or being excluded from sports, they are losing places on all women shortlists. I could go on.

What you are saying is that it is their way or no deal. Where's the compromise in that?

I'm suspicious of the timing when you consider that JR for trans prisoners in the female estate was just postponed due to MOJ's failure to produce documents in a timely manner. How different would the submissions look if press coverage of women being raped in prison was front and center?

ArabellaScott - as was said up thread. This is usual parliamentary procedure. The relevant Committee always scrutinises the report of a Government Department.

Read the web page. They explain it. committees.parliament.uk/work/658/

The text below is from A Womans Place facebook feed:

'The Women & Equalities Committee is calling for evidence on how to implement government proposals on the GRA. The deadline for submissions is 27th November.

It is not unusual for a committee to establish such an inquiry to response to government recommendations.

We will be looking at the information and guidance on this call for evidence and will share our thinking with you.

In the meantime, we will need as many women as possible to respond so please have a look at this guidance from the Committee and start thinking about what you want to say.

Edited: The Committee can be in no doubt that these proposals do not simply impact a small number of people and that for any changes to be effective they must take into account the views and concerns of the whole population but in particular women and those with other protected characteristics.

The Committee will also have new members who will not have been involved in previous considerations so it will be important to make sure they understand the issues and hear women’s voices.

Sex matters. Women matter. Let's make sure the government is working for us too.

This thread from Lord Lucas provides good insights into how best to respond to the a Committee's call for evidence
twitter.com/LordLucasCD/status/1321380352976408578?s=20'

Suggests this is seen as another step in the process, maybe, rather than a repeat of earlier consultation? How to implement gov recs. Maybe more bureaucratic than anything?

Thanks, stumbled, cross posted.

@Typesofcatalogue

Gender identity respected but not confused/conflated with sex would be my compromise.

Transsexual people are dysphoric about their sex. They change their secondary and in some cases primary sex characteristics. Most want to be seen as their transitioned sex.

Your compromise would solve absolutely nothing for them.

One of the questions on this call for evidence is "Should the requirement for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria be removed?"

So your answer to this question would presumably be "no", if the only people who want a GRC are suffering from gender dysphoria.

But I do wonder why they are even considering removing the requirement of a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. Why would anyone want to obtain a GRC when they don't suffer from gender dysphoria?

Really helpful post Arabella thank you.

Thank you for raising this - I’m grateful to those of you who keep your eyes open and alert us to what we need to do.

I’ve had two glasses of very nice wine so probably incapable of composing an argument tonight but I’m keen to emphasise that I am not filled with hatred, that I simply wish to protect women and their sex-based rights.

I am a teacher and I want to talk about my concern that girls are sometimes seeing transitioning as an escape from unlooked for male attention and unhelpful gender stereotypes. I am of course completely opposed to the use of drugs and surgery upon healthy children.

I’m keen to talk about women’s refuges, hospitals and prisons, how Ministers have a duty to protect the physically vulnerable women there.

I want to focus on the way biological sex is a reality. Gender is a word we’ve made up to try to pigeonhole males and females into narrower prescribed roles which I reject.

I wouldn’t feel comfortable changing in the gym changing rooms next to someone with a penis.

Are these the sorts of issues I need to mention?