URGENT Call for evidence GRA

[TalkingtoLangClegintheDark]

Note to self: the deadline for submissions to the Women and Equalities Committee is this FRIDAY.

I know there are other threads about this but I just want to remind myself and anyone else who hasn’t got round to doing it yet that time is fast running out.

I can’t say I’m looking forward to it because from the headings they’ve chosen, it doesn’t look like they’re really interested in hearing from women, or considering any of it from women’s perspective at all. There still isn’t a real acknowledgment of the impact all these decisions have on women’s and girls’ lives; they seem to be coming at it overwhelmingly from the perspective of exclusively trans people, and it looks to me like they are looking for a way to shoo in self ID regardless of Truss’s statement.

Even the (one) bit about single sex exemptions feels to me worrying like they’re looking for reasons to get rid of them.

But I do hope I’m being paranoid here.

Anyway.

To arms, sisters! I’m looking forward to it like I look forward to doing tax returns, with a side order of existential misery, but I’m girding my loins thinking of the greater good. And I’m going to try not to post on any other threads till I’ve actually done it.

Priorities.

Any encouragement gratefully received!

I completely forgot to discuss Jamie Shupe as evidence regarding the last question (regarding non-binary people). Jamie Shupe was the person who successfully managed to get 'non-binary' introduced as a category on documents in Oregon back in 2016 (I think that was the year). He has now stepped back from the whole thing, started to re-identify as male and has said non-binary doesn't exist.

If I remember rightly, the judge in his case who ruled that non-binary was an option had some kind of personal vested interest in the notion of non-binary (a transitioning relative or something).

I'm kicking myself because I forgot to do the research and include this info. Perhaps someone else can? I'll try to get links.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Shupe

www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2020/january/americas-first-non-binary-person-admits-big-mistake-legally-changes-back-to-male

These are links to the Wikipedia site and another site about James/Jamie Shupe. It seems the judge in his case had a transgender child.

James is also clear about the part that agp played in his decisions, which might be helpful too.

Thanks for the reminder, will do today.

I agree OP, it does look as though they're only looking to hear evidence from people who would want to get a GRA. However, I submitted mine yesterday and pointed out that any changes to the GRA would very likely affect women. Mine was a bit of a botched job but submitted nevertheless

@fastwigglylines

This is different to the GRA. It's not a consultation, it's a call for evidence.

It's not from the government as a whole, it's from one committee. They can make recommendations but they may not carry much weight. The evidence submitted will be made public, however, and it's important our voices are represented.

Evidence can mean linking to existing evidence online or it can mean your own testimony. So, not your opinion on an issue, but an account of your own personal or professional experience relating to the questions.

No need to attempt them all. Just do the ones you feel strongly about/ have relevant evidence for.

Thank you for this, that’s very helpful. I hadn’t grasped that distinction.

I'm still struggling with what it means to give "evidence" rather than "opinions", I must admit. I don't work in a relevant area and don't have any personal experience YET of negative impact due to the changes that have already happened (e.g. "Stonewall law" policy changes by organisations misinterpreting the EqA), even though I know they will be impacting/have impacted other people and could well affect me/my family in future, and it seems obvious to me that there IS negative impact! As for the proposed changes, it's hard to know how to give "evidence" to prove the impact of something that hasn't happened yet! So I'm finding it difficult to work out what counts as "evidence" and what might be dismissed as just an opinion...

Can it count as evidence that a lot of women are against the proposed changes?

Why are they asking for evidence again, when the changes have literally only just been made? I thought this was done with, at least for a while

Why just go round and round?

The government have consulted on and decided what they are going to do.

This is a consultation on the how they’re going to do it.

No I don't think this is a consultation on how the government will do it. It's the commons select Committee not the government. From what resisters say I understand the main bods on the committee are pro self id. It looked to me more like the committee trying to keep self id alive despite truss's decision. It's really important to get the view points seen on this forum into the evidence. Other committee members won't necessarily be clued up.
Jamie shupe is a good point. Our courts decided not to allow non binary on passports (ie ruled its not lawful).
There is also the yougov polling where all demographic groups said people should have a doctor's permission to change legal sex, compared with almost all groups agreeing that people should be able to self id their gender (worded vaguely). People like the inclusive kind principle but not the specifics in practice.

god these questions!!

I am alllowed to reply "oh FFS really?" to most of them. Im making a lot of use of the word no

Everyone has personal experience because we all use services where someone's legal sex is an issue, and rely on orgs applying the equality act properly (there is a q on that).

done - phew!! I've no idea what they'll make of it and probably chuck it in the bin but I've done my best.

Does anyone have any idea how the integrity of this sort of thing works? Are there are procedures put in place to prevent people with an agenda from just binning the stuff they don't like?

I still haven't had a response from the GEO to my enquiry on their GRA faqs where I wondered what they meant by 1) the EA 2010 allows for single sex exemptions and 2) transgender people can use the facilities suitable to their gender.

Slightly contradictory?? No answer from them.

Posted in the wrong thread, well done me

From what resisters say I understand the main bods on the committee are pro self id. It looked to me more like the committee trying to keep self id alive despite truss's decision.

That was my impression too from the way it’s worded, Manderleyagain.

@gardenbird48

I still haven't had a response from the GEO to my enquiry on their GRA faqs where I wondered what they meant by 1) the EA 2010 allows for single sex exemptions and 2) transgender people can use the facilities suitable to their gender.

Slightly contradictory?? No answer from them.

They’ll still be pulling the splinters out of their collective arse

Does anyone know what time the deadline is tomorrow? Ta x

Ah found it. It's midnight tomorrow.

Bumping!!

Closing date for submissions is tomorrow!!

No need to answer every question. We focussed on the question relating to the EA exceptions and prison policy and practice.

Well, this is interesting!

The WESC have started publishing the responses already.

There are 51. Most, but not all, are from TRAs. The standard is really poor, though. It looks like most of them haven't read the brief!

This is a call for evidence not a call for a load of opinionated waffle!

We can do better than this, come on women, let's get our submissions in!

A good idea to read the guidance before writing it though!

ReSisters guidance here:
www.resistersunited.org/wesc-gra-reform-inquiry-step-by-step-guide/

Government guidance here:
www.parliament.uk/get-involved/committees/how-do-i-submit-evidence/commons-witness-guide/

@fastwigglylines

Ah found it. It's midnight tomorrow.

Could you point me to the link where it says this please? I've been unable to find it.

I'm sorry it wasn't anywhere public: one of my women's group emailed WESC and they replied to say it's 2 minutes before midnight (apologies I should have made that clear!) She shared the email with us. One minute, I'll copy it here...

Here it is: deadline 23:58 tomorrow.

Brilliant. Thank you so much.