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!

Well done to all who managed to get something in.

I found it very challenging myself, and it left me wiped out afterwards, but at least we did our best to make sure our voices were in there, hostile environment though it seemed to be.

🍷🍷🍷

I'm assuming lots more to be posted as they just have up until 17th. Lots of last minute submissions I'm guessing

I submitted right before the deadline. I just concentrated on answering one of the questions.

Just noticed this scheduled for next week 9th Dec. Might be a date for the diary if you want to listen to the oral evidence featuring:
Professor Stephen Whittle OBE
Dr Ruth Pearce
Professor Alex Sharpe
Professor Rosa Freedman
Dr Kathleen Stock
Professor Alice Sullivan

committees.parliament.uk/event/2998/formal-meeting-oral-evidence-session/

There's another couple of pages of published submissions too

That got me thinking about what gender euphoria actually is and then I went down an online rabbit hole. Again, it boiled down (for TW) to shaving body hair, wearing feminine clothes, getting wolf whistled etc., you know, the usual stereotypical tropes. I'm glad that these things make TW euphoric but it still doesn't mean TWAW.

I've gone down that rabbit hole myself and can confirm that "gender euphoria" definitely doesn't mean TWAW, in fact it's mostly a euphemism for the single least womanly thing you can think of. Don't want to get deleted, but it's the thing that first, uh, springs to mind. You'll occasionally get someone on these forums wondering if their reaction to putting on lacy knickers is really indicative that they have a womany gendered soul, and they will be reassured that "gender euphoria" is a perfectly normal part of the trans experience.

@Deltoids1

There's another couple of pages of published submissions too

Just read Nic Turner's submitted evidence. I think she's the lead for a LBGTI+ support network people who were in prisons, but I am not sure.

Anyway, from page 5-7 she goes into full attack mode on WPUK, FPfW, LGB Alliance etc, how these groups have aligned themselves with conservatives such as the Baronness, Liz Truss and the anti-trans media. She also questions why there is a question about the EA2010 when the submissions are about GRA. So much packed in there.

Nic also mentions this:

The proposals completely overlooked intersex individuals, the creation of a third sex/gender category should have been included to remove a binary system which forces parents into registering an intersex child at birth as either male or female.

*who work in prisons

(sorry for not previewing and editing above post)

I could be wrong, but I would have thought many intersex/people with DSDs would be quite unhappy to be called a 'third sex'.

I wish they would include a representative of a support forum for Intersex people so it can be made extremely clear that they have no wish whatsoever to be included in this and certainly not referred to as a third sex, also to state clearly and publicly that people with DSDs are most certainly NOT a third sex.

Anyway, from page 5-7 she goes into full attack mode on WPUK, FPfW, LGB Alliance etc, how these groups have aligned themselves with conservatives such as the Baronness, Liz Truss and the anti-trans media.

Why would someone think it helps their cause to tell a parliamentary committee that some groups aligned with the governing party of that parliament?

Anyone have any idea on time lag between submission and publication?

Why would someone think it helps their cause to tell a parliamentary committee that some groups aligned with the governing party of that parliament?

To be fair, there will be/are members of the committee who will be delighted to find ammunition ot hurl at the governing party, but yes, it's a bit of a dim tactic.

Anyone know what's happening with the inquiry into reform of the GRA?

I've just written to [email protected] about the
evidence I submitted last November. It hasn't yet been published and I have received no further communication. I didn't ask for it to be anonymous or confidential.

Only 105 submissions have been published, most recently on 15 December, at committees.parliament.uk/work/658/reform-of-the-gender-recognition-act/publications/written-evidence/?page=1.

I've just had a very prompt reply from the Women and Equalities Committee to my email this morning:

"Unfortunately, due to receiving over 2000 submissions, we cannot say exactly when evidence will be published. It will likely be over the next few months. It’s also important to note that, whilst most evidence is published, it is at the Committee’s discretion to publish evidence."

“whilst most evidence is published, it is at the Committee’s discretion to publish evidence.”

Based on what criteria, I wonder? Will they notify those whose submissions were not published and give them a reason? Beyond, “We decided not to publish your submission.” Or, “Your submission echoed similar concerns to many others so we did not feel it was necessary to publish it.”

If they publish a load of bunkum spreading disinformation about OTT suicide stats then I won’t think much of their criteria for exclusion.

We need to know more about why they think they will withhold some of our submissions...

Have you read the ones already published? They go from extremely high quality to absolute garbage. They are all on topic though.

I would expect submissions to be rejected if they had no relevance whatsoever to the questions or if they were highly abusive/offensive. But that's just me guessing.

A lot more submissions have now been published mainly from organisations. Have just read one from Nottingham's Womens Centre. I really despair.
There are now submissions from WPUk and other GC groups.
committees.parliament.uk/work/658/reform-of-the-gender-recognition-act/publications/written-evidence/?page=3

There’s some stunning submission in there. Sally Hines reckons there’s no such thing as male violence and Huddersfield University reckon trans people can not afford to pay for a GRC because they have to spend a lot on clothes.

@Deltoids1

There’s some stunning submission in there. Sally Hines reckons there’s no such thing as male violence and Huddersfield University reckon trans people can not afford to pay for a GRC because they have to spend a lot on clothes.

my gob has never been so smacked - they also had a rape shelter (the only one in its area) claiming that women will get raped anyway so letting transwomen in won't make any difference

(I missed the Huddersfield clothes one - I'll gather myself and go back and look tomorrow)

It's not just clothes. Don't forget the electrolysis.

I can't get my mojo up for reading the TRA ones. But I've read some brilliant, well-argued, well-evidenced ones from 'our' side - WPUK, of course, and Labour Women's Declaration and Fair Play for Women are stand-outs.

Here's a great one! committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/16197/pdf/