Women & Equalities Commitee live today at 2.30

[ArabellaScott]

'The Women & Equalities Committee will hear from witnesses tomorrow 9/12 on Reform of The GRA at 2.30 pm. Witnesses include @Docstockk
@ProfAliceS
@GoonerProf
& Prof. Stephen Whittle, Alex Sharpe.'

(from Allison Bailey's twitter feed)

www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/dfc9f53e-2ac4-4c30-8712-e3df47938fd7

Wouldn't it be wonderful if a journalist exposed the bias and pomposity revealed by the behaviour of these sadly inadequate MPs?

I am so proud of these women. What perfect replies

Prof Whittle’s submission has been published above the Stonewall one. It’s rather long and at one point tells us about his carpal tunnel problems

It’s the only one added today, or at least it was when I looked this afternoon.

@persistentwoman

Wouldn't it be wonderful if a journalist exposed the bias and pomposity revealed by the behaviour of these sadly inadequate MPs?

It would be nice if such obvious partiality was held to account, reassure us that the fourth estate were doing their job properly.

Excellent @PlantMam , thank you.

twitter.com/cforwomenuk/status/1338501336476897283?s=21

Fooking hell, Fleegle.

That couldn't possibly have been a deliberate attempt to undermine them, could it?

Does anyone know where we can send a complaint to? I'm not in the constituencies of any of those MPs.

I thought there was a clear bias in the way they treated members of the two panels and it seems only right that they should be held to account for this.

The committee have an email address [email protected], I think the main port of call to complain about MPs is the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner, but I don't think they would be in breach of the code of conduct. Could be wrong - TLDR. You can contact the House of Commons enquiry service to find out if there are any other avenues www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/offices/commons/house-of-commons-enquiries-service/contact-us/

It might be worth listing the Conservative MPs as they were all pretty biased, recording what they had to say and contacting CCHQ, the committee members are putting themselves somewhat at odds with the minister Liz Truss. You might also argue that a lack of objectivity puts them in breach of the Conservative code of conduct:

www.conservatives.com/code-of-conduct

Contact details here: www.conservatives.com/contact

Thanks Hecates

Thanks, Hecate's Cats. I'll write a letter of complaint to the Conservatives citing lack of objectivity and reminding them that they are required to be objective and make decisions impartially, fairly and based on merit. Copy to Liz Truss. The bias was so blindingly obvious that it brings into question the committee's ability to do its job properly. Any GC member of the committee would have taken note of what they could expect if they stuck their head over the parapet.

New evidence session took place this afternoon. I'm sure many MNetters will find it enlightening.

parliamentlive.tv/event/index/fb12feef-6d41-457a-a102-ea59813bb583

Witness(es): Karon Monaghan QC, Barrister, Matrix Chambers; Robin White, Barrister, Old Square Chambers; Naomi Cunningham, Barrister, Outer Temple Chambers; Sally Brett, Head of Diversity and Inclusion, The Law Society

This is fascinating-a picture tells a thousand words.

What stood out to me, was that men can benefit from earlier pensions when they transition. Women however do not benefit from inheritance rights available to males.

Regarding maternity leave-again, males who transition can benefit from maternity leave (even though this is meant to be of benefit to the WOMAN who gave birth.) A woman who transitions may have to make do with paternity leave....(the law is very unclear in this area.)

The issue of living in the acquired gender for 2 years is unworkable-as how does one define 'living as a woman.' Also its not fair to young people who might not have ID in their new name....

It is not illegal to disclose that someone is a transexual, unless you find out that information in a professional capacity (ie in HR or if yr a DR.)

There is no real benefit to having a GRC as trans people protected under the characteristic 'gender reassignment.'

Basically single sex spaces are a figment of our imagination, as if a male wishes to use them, and is wearing a dress & considering gender reassignment, then that is not unreasonable (according to Robin who sounds like a male and many people would read as male.)

We are in trouble here, I'm not sure how we navigate a path out of this mess

Basically single sex spaces are a figment of our imagination, as if a male wishes to use them, and is wearing a dress & considering gender reassignment, then that is not unreasonable

Robin would say it was unreasonable because it's something that Robin wants to take from women without their consent. Women saying no is always unreasonable when it gets in the way of male wants.

lots of good input re. single sex spaces and the protection of those.

Also clarification of the exceptions where discrimination is allowed from Naomi (I wasn't impressed with Karon's assertion that the exceptions are very rare and rarely used, a complete lie but she later backtracked a bit).

I didn't understand the Scottish lady's question where she started talking about (I think) the EA 2010 and then went straight into something about transphobia - Naomi didn't understand her either and it was very garbled.

It was interesting to see the point about self-id being viewed as less of an issue in the fact that it doesn't make much difference to the single sex exceptions and that the priority should be to improve the clarity of the EA 2010 enormously and exceptions enforced (so there would be no negative impact on women's single sex spaces because exclusions would apply regardless of GRC) but ultimately I don't agree that on that basis self-id isn't an issue because:

a) I don't believe they will strengthen the guidance and fix all the policies all of the captured organisations who will just assume that a GRC means guaranteed access and

b) it is likely to be used as a gateway ie. the GRC doesn't do much now so it is fine for more people to be able to get one on a self-id basis but then 2 years down the line they will be pushing for better treatment for GRC holders - more access to single sex spaces etc.

(like the supermarkets do - they get planning for their store on the basis that the hours of operation and deliveries will be limited so as not to disturb in a residential area, then the store gets built, then they apply to extend the hours of operation because it is essential for the business - an incremental effect which means they get what they want eventually)

I missed a fair bit of the beginning of the session but what it clear is the GRA and the EA2010 and how they interact is a mess. Clarification and guidance it needed to help people apply the laws in practise.

It was good to see the finger pointed at Stonewall for deliberately misconstruing the law and making organisations think they’re going to get sued if they don’t allow male people into women’s spaces.

It was also interesting to hear Robin White talk in person. I believe they have been known to frequent these boards occasionally.

I expect we may receive a visit soon.

Good to hear Karon Monaghan finally put to bed the myth that having a GRC is necessary for trans people to benefit from Equality Act protections. Interesting as well that not one of the panelists seemed to think the legal comparator would be a man in the case of a trans women claiming discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment. Hopefully those pushing these false interpretations of the law will take heed, because bad legal advice doesn't help anyone, least of all providers of single sex services.

Thanks, Ova. Bookmarking to watch later.

I think what was made very clear is that the heavy lifting has already been done, in terms of government recognising in certain situations women & girls need single sex provision....so by offering mixed sex AND single sex, everyone is catered for. JJ Yr missing the point that women also benefit from EA protections on the basis of their sex. Gender reassignment is a totally different protected characteristic.

Good to hear Karon Monaghan finally put to bed the myth that having a GRC is necessary for trans people to benefit from Equality Act protections.

Indeed - we all applaud that - I have never seen it written on these boards that a GRC is needed. Glad you recognise, unlike many who pretend otherwise, that transpeople have rights.

It’s just that males - however they identify - don’t have women’s rights.

Thanks Ova. Bookmarking.

Thread from Maya

twitter.com/MForstater/status/1359580204746887171