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!

Most want to be seen as their transitioned sex.

But most of them aren't seen as the opposite sex because their sex is obvious. There's very little anyone can do about it. I don't think we should encourage the belief that you can actually change sex. So I agree with the pp that that's a reasonable compromise.

We are well able to answer questions, transparent about grassroots funding, and after all, you'd really have to be a 'bogus popup woman' to be a member of a 'bogus popup women's group'. Slightly smiling face

It was said in sympathy chatty, as in, he's friends with Rosie Duffield, is horrified about the abuse she has received.

He believes in gender identity, we had a long civil discussion, he agreed my position isn't hateful, just a difference of opinion.

But he is aware that he is free to express his opinions and I'm not.

I don't think he realises how truly shocking a statement that is. Never mind the actual discussion, to be content to push forward an ideology which attempts to stop women engaging publicly has got to be the height of misogyny.

[quote Escapeplanning]@TeaPoweredScientist

Have you noticed that you have changed the quoted name of the Spousal Exit Clause to Spousal Veto which is a phrase that a) means something completely different to the actual clause and is b) not the actual clause, and then you pontificated at length about the wrong word you switched it to?[/quote]
@Escapeplanning Actually I changed it to "spousal consent", which is the same term the government legislation uses for it. I then went on to mention "spousal veto" to cover a more general concept of people needing a permission slip from their partner before they can do certain things.

Never heard it called an "exit clause" before as every piece of media I've seen discussing this talks about either "consent" or "veto", but I was trying to understand Tinsel's point of view—while also sharing my own. Sorry if that constitutes "lengthy pontification"??

Ah well, I was half-expecting someone would accuse me of being a man (based on describing my partner as "she"), so at least I'm relieved that didn't happen. For the record: woman here, just not a straight one. Slightly concerned about how enforcing of single-sex spaces sometimes ends up throwing butch lesbians under the bus (since we're seen as not looking feminine enough to belong & are also challenged), and mostly lurking this thread and others to try & figure out how we address that concern while also protecting these spaces where they're needed.

I posted something similar on the other thread but it seems to have sunk: I'm a bit concerned about how to keep responses 'on track' when the terms of reference seem to be so narrow, with virtually no reference to women. I have a bad feeling - hopefully groundless - that submissions could be thrown out for not being within the scope of the inquiry. So I think I will wait and study the guidance from FPFW and c/o first.

Just answering some qns from yesterday -

Feel free to point to data to back up the points you make about personal experience. I just meant that they don’t need “amateur academics” - hope that’s not offensive to anyone.

@stumbledin As odd as it might sound, this inquiry is not part of the government consultation process or any potential legal change. The role of select committees is to scrutinise the work, policy and spending of the relevant government department. The committee will look at the issues of trans rights and make recommendations to the government. Usually committees will be critical of the government, but that could be because they think the government has gone too far, not far enough or the wrong way.

@Imnobody4
There is no minority report. All committee reports have to be agreed by all committee members (or those who show up to the report agreement meeting at least)

WRT scope, you should try to stick to the qns, but if you think something needs to be said on the issue, say it.

Don’t respond by explaining why the inquiry or the qns are wrong.

Thanks kistanbul!

Actually I changed it to "spousal consent", which is the same term the government legislation uses for it. I then went on to mention "spousal veto" to cover a more general concept of people needing a permission slip from their partner before they can do certain things.

Yes consent is generally considered a safe and civilised expectation. You have taken onboard the deliberate negative characterisation of the Spousal consent to their own marriage contract being changed as a veto on the other spouse. I suppose any person wanting to not have something done to them can be reframed as unreasonably withholding something instead can't they?

Actually I changed it to "spousal consent", which is the same term the government legislation uses for it. I then went on to mention "spousal veto" to cover a more general concept of people needing a permission slip from their partner before they can do certain things.

It's not a permission slip. The GRC enables the trans person to get an altered birth certificate. If the state has to be involved in this charade, it's only right that the spouse gets a chance to leave the marriage at this point. The trans spouse can carry on with the new birth certificate application after annulment.
It's about transparency, and it also means that lesbians won't have to find themselves married to someone who was 'born male', when they know they married a woman. That would be abusive, state-level gaslighting.

Ah butch lesbian bingo!

TeaPoweredScientist
Slightly concerned about how enforcing of single-sex spaces sometimes ends up throwing butch lesbians under the bus (since we're seen as not looking feminine enough to belong & are also challenged)

I am not a butch lesbian, but I have a deep voice and generally wear men's jeans and have been mistaken for one occasionally. I have also been challenged about using a women's lavatory.

I don't see a problem here. As far as I was concerned the onus was on me to say that I'm not a man, not on all women to be compelled trustingly to assume I am not a male however I may present. The trick is probably not taking offence where none is intended.

(It didn't do me anything like as much harm as being sexually assaulted by a male did.)

Again, there's definitely an agenda to reframe the legitimate exclusion of males who are presenting as women as a negative for women who are not especially feminine in appearance. There's no link at all. It's just a desperate attempt to deflect as ever.

As soon as we allow obvious men in, I'm thinking of most transwomen I have met, (not even the most manly butch women I know actually come across as men once they move or speak) we lose the ability to raise the alert when a man is in the women's spaces.

That's the problem. Not that occasionally women will be asked if they're in the wrong space.

I wonder if the potential of just removing GRCs alltogether is possible here. It seems to be coming to the attention of the higherups (and not just in this country) how unworkable it all is in practise. And afterall, it was only ever a stopgap to get around legalising equal marriage, and the equalise pension ages, its original inteition is totally moot now, so whats it for really? Of course, people who already have them will keep them, I think its called being 'grandfathered'? But no more issued. It would be quite delicious if stonewall and such actually indirectly caused some sense to be injected into the topic.

The 'spousal consent' thing is not how trans groups make it out to be. AT ALL. Its simply about giving spouses a way to end the marriage before it would become a 'same sex marriage'. Partners cannot delay a transition, nor block it entirely as TRAs will wail. Thats not and never has been what it is.

I cannot understand why anyone would want to remove this option for the spouses of people who decide they are actually the opposite sex. Its a little barbaric to me, that you would want spouses kept in a marriage they no longer want to be in, and where terms have changed considerably. Of course the option of getting out of it all should be there.

I was trying to understand Tinsel's point of view—while also sharing my own.

My point of view, and more importantly the law, is explained at length in the linked article below, which I wrote.

I would imagine that after heterosexual women married to male transitioners, the group of people most likely to be affected are lesbians in same sex marriages, this is not my specific focus (as I can't do everything!), but I do mention that in this earlier article

makemorenoisemanc.wixsite.com/mysite/post/trans-widows-and-the-spousal-veto-a-modern-fable-of-male-entitlement

Apologies tinsel, didn't realise you were still on the thread..and obviously its better coming from someone whos actually been through it and would definitely understand it all a lot better than me.

No it's fine @NRatched please go ahead! I've very limited time or patience to keep making these same arguments over and over again, so I'm more than happy for other mumsnetters to make them

No bother, just felt a bit weird having my say when someone (many someones, but you seem the most prominent!) is here who knows this topic inside and out, feels a bit like trying to explain sciencey stuff when bowlofbabelfish was on a thread! I genuinely have no idea how you manage to remain so calm in the face of relentless bullshit. I couldn't do it.

@NRatched

No bother, just felt a bit weird having my say when someone (many someones, but you seem the most prominent!) is here who knows this topic inside and out, feels a bit like trying to explain sciencey stuff when bowlofbabelfish was on a thread! I genuinely have no idea how you manage to remain so calm in the face of relentless bullshit. I couldn't do it.

I take the fact that other women can now make the argument as a measure of success.

Again, there's definitely an agenda to reframe the legitimate exclusion of males who are presenting as women as a negative for women who are not especially feminine in appearance.

Rather like claiming the word 'woman' on sanpro is distressing for women who can't or have ceased to menstruate as a means to bolster and legitimise an agenda that has nothing to do with interest in the feelings or realities of 'menstruators'. Women don't give a damn what's written on sanpro, they never have. It's bizarre how female issues are only ever of interest when they actually support an argument that benefits the ideology. The rest of the time females can feel as upset and traumatised and excluded as they like and no one cares.

Testing sounds like you had a proper conversation with your MP. But like you said if they can acknowledge women being silenced and not do anything- that’s an anti-democratic red flag that they should all be massively concerned about, regardless of their personal views on the actual issue.

I can’t find the thread on the Committee on Standards on public life now.. wierd. I hope I didn’t imagine it!

I keep spotting other things to add to the list to send them, like the EHRC, like the Law commission, sad to say, there’s too many examples..

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/a4043925-Law-Commission-consultation-on-including-women-in-hate-crime-legislation-but-they-talk-about-gender?msgid=100636821#100636821

I cannot understand why anyone would want to remove this option for the spouses of people who decide they are actually the opposite sex. Its a little barbaric to me, that you would want spouses kept in a marriage they no longer want to be in, and where terms have changed considerably.

It's everything that is wrong with trans activism in a nutshell.
I don't think I'll ever get my head around the fact that some people are ok with a system that allows middle-aged married fathers to apply for a document that says they were born female, and yet these same people want to deny women who are married to such men an easier exit from the marriage.

They have been lied to. The Chair of the Women and Equality Committee said that most people responding to the consultation wanted to remove the Spousal Consent. There were a 105,000 people and only 7,000 of them ticked trans that responded. So most of the people saying they don't believe women should be allowed to consent or exit a contract with a man before he fundamentally changes it are not the women affected. The people saying that they want it removed are asking for the non existent Veto to be removed.

Even Ruth Hunt had to be picked up for lying about the nature of this in the House of Lords.

This is indicative of the nature of most of the trans rights PR going on. People think they are pro the the rights that is not actually what they're told at all.

Fundamentally dishonest. And that's based on those figures unless we are supposed to believe that most of 105,000 people haven't read Stonewalls lies and actually voting against women having consent. This is not a sweeping generalisation.

Fuckers.