Another Consultation- from WEC (somewhat biased against women) Possibly Targeting Liz Truss

[gardenbird48]

I have just seen a new call for evidence launched by the Women’s Equality Committee (who were so rude to Profs Kathleen Stock, Rosa Freedman and Alice Sullivan during the GRA evidence session and the chair wrote an anti women’s rights article beforehand).

This consultation has a surprisingly short timescale for responses - 3 weeks (I wonder if any lobby groups have already had a heads up??).

It appears to be looking at how well the GEO has ‘embedded equalities throughout’ but slightly concerningly they also talk about whether the the Women and Equalities Minister role should not be held as a dual role (ie Liz has two main roles).

There is a risk that they may use this to argue that the WE Minister role should be dedicated and taken by one person. Liz wouldn’t want to drop her International Trade Sec role (as it is more senior I think?) so would drop Women & Equalities and we get Crispin Blunt (or Sue Pascoe former MFH) in there.

committees.parliament.uk/committee/328/women-and-equalities-committee/news/138432/how-can-we-put-equalities-at-the-heart-of-government/

Okay, I have only just read the brief properly. What isn't clear is how anyone outside of a Government department can comment on this.

We may have disagreements with things Ministers say or even how Department works, but as most of this is behind closed doors, how can we comment.

Apart from saying everything you say or do seems to ignore the reality of women as a sex class!

Also, it is asking about Liz Truss' statement on equalities which on one level some of us might support, ie that some well placed groups capture the agenda, but the other part (from memory) that it isn't about discrimination but about creating equal opportunities. ie the notion that if we all had the same schooling and other employment opportunities there would be no racism or sexism or ... just our personal failure to not make the most of the opportunities.

The inquiry will focus on:

The structure and function of the GEO and its location in the Cabinet Office: how effectively does this enable it to support cross-departmental work on equalities, including the collection and analysis of equalities data?

The GEO’s role in supporting compliance with international obligations including the UN Conventions and Sustainable Development Goals

The role of Minister for Women and Equalities: what does it mean for this to be a dual departmental role? How robustly does it champion equalities across Government?

The GEO’s role in highlighting the numerous equalities issues which have been exacerbated by the pandemic

The inquiry will also consider the new approaches and initiatives which Minister for Women and Equalities Liz Truss announced in her speech on fighting for fairness at the Centre for Policy Studies on Dec 16 2020. This includes the implications of the GEO taking on sponsorship of the Social Mobility Commission.

The structure and function of the GEO and its location in the Cabinet Office: how effectively does this enable it to support cross-departmental work on equalities, including the collection and analysis of equalities data?

But didn't they look into all this before the move to the Cabinet Office only two years ago? Or are they just asking how successful the 'permanent' move has been?

www.civilserviceworld.com/professions/article/government-equalities-office-set-to-move-again

"When the GEO joins the Cabinet Office – under the machinery-of-government change outlined in parliament – it will be its fourth departmental home in barely more than a decade.

Mordaunt, who is also international development secretary, said the Cabinet Office would be a “permanent home” for the GEO and that the shift was in line with recommendations made by MPs on the Women and Equalities Select Committee earlier this year.

“It will enable the GEO to have even more influence and leverage within government, working with the Race Disparity Unit, and the Office of Disability Issues, and others, to drive meaningful progress on equalities,” she said.

“I think this will be a step-up in the work that the Government Equalities Office can do to reduce inequality in the UK.”

Marcus Shepheard, a researcher at the Institute for Government, said the think tank also viewed basing the GEO in the Cabinet Office as a positive step.

“All departments need the support of the Government Equalities Office,” he said. “Placing it in the Cabinet Office will help it to be more effective by being closer to the heart of government – closer to where decisions are made and where power is exercised."

The main problem seems to be that there is no longer a separate women's unit within the Equalities Office. Fixing this would be a positive move. The other units which have been merged into the equalities hub have continued to work as separate teams, so there is no reason to not separate women's and LGBT.

Ah, I didn't see this bit in the call for evidence:

"Women and Equalities and the place of GEO in government
In May 2018 the Women and Equalities Committee in the previous Parliament conducted a similar inquiry.

Read the report: The role of Minister for Women and Equalities and the place of GEO in government
It noted the instability caused both by the number of times the Minister for Women and Equalities has changed and the repeated relocation of the GEO.

It recommended that the GEO be given a permanent place in the Cabinet Office and that the Minister should become a full time role.

The GEO was subsequently located in the Equalities Hub in the Cabinet Office."

I think they are definitely looking at splitting the dual role now and it will happen fast, the rest is fluff.
Need to think about that but it's definitely an opportunity to point out that there needs to be a separate women's unit like there is for some other equality strands.

It recommended that the GEO be given a permanent place in the Cabinet Office and that the Minister should become a full time role.

And that Stonewall be given approval of the appointment

bump -

I've just completed this. There's another thread. I based my comments on the fact that women should have a separate minister because the GEO is failing women, I also pointed out the Race, religion etc, all have a high % of women, so they should be taken over by a woman's minister because they are even less heard than other women. I also talked about the mistrust because the GEO along with EHCR put out misinformation and therefore I wanted Liz Truss to remain because I trusted her. I also talked about bias and how Women and equalities committee appeared to be biased. Mentioned the GRA consultation and behaviour. Also a big lot about conflict that has arisen with women's rights and transwomen's rights and that should never have happened.

Also, impact on women as primary carers during lockdown and how GEO should have spotted that this would happen if they had been on top of their brief. Also issues with the argument that because women are 51% of society they don't need protection.

I was really scathing about the fact that equality has gone backwards. Stereotyping, hate against women, so are they fit for purpose. Three pages of the stuff.

I know all of this lot looks a bit jumbled. It looks better as the whole thing. I don't think it will get published because I have done an attack. However, have sent a copy to Liz Truss and my MP and have told them I've done that.

If you can submit anything, submit it.

Thanks for directing my to this thread stumbled (I commented earlier but could t find in my 'I'm on' list...anyway)

What isn't clear is how anyone outside of a Government department can comment on this.

I think I really struggled with this one as it assumes knowledge of internal government/cabinet structure and even with explanatory notes in the inquiry it was hard going to really get why it matters if it sits in the Equality Hub or not.

Forgive my ignorance on this but structural matters for government departments aren't my concern, laws and how they impact me and mine are.

I've sent mine in now but wish I had spotted this earlier as it would have helped. Anyway, let's hope it doesn't get taken too seriously but those who have actual decision-making power.

Sent mine in too. But it was a bit of a rant, & I don't suppose that it will get published for a moment, they probably intercept off-topic stuff!! I wish I'd found this thread before I hit Send

Saw an article on Sue Pascoe from a few years ago, just after the SRS and the ending quote was, "'It's funny, I'm 55, I am very hormonal, I am going through puberty again which means that I am just getting to my teenage girl years - so watch out world.'"

A 55 yr old "girl". Hmm, where have I seen this before? 🙄

Crispin Blunt shouldn't be allowed an official role in anything with anything to do with women. After that disgraceful outing of his grubby misogyny in Parliament.

He is only suitable for a dedicated select trans activist committee.

The above was in relation to the mention that someone like CB could replace Liz Truss.

Yes, the middle aged characters are transitioning into teenage girls/women. Well, not in reality. In fantasy. The law (for reasons of who holds influence) recognises one part of that transition already.

Imagine if age transition was also a legal fiction. "What do you mean by saying I'm not a school child? I'm a lickle six year old boy, you hater. I'm going to call the police on you". That could be as you enter your primary school class; with all the 'other' six year olds.

It could actually be useful if the state would create a legal fiction for people identifying as a different age. You could get reduced or exempted fees on courses, train and bus fares etc. Mightn't be so good for the real youngsters, though. However, safeguarding is already being dismantled.

@Cailleach1

The above was in relation to the mention that someone like CB could replace Liz Truss.

Yes, the middle aged characters are transitioning into teenage girls/women. Well, not in reality. In fantasy. The law (for reasons of who holds influence) recognises one part of that transition already.

Imagine if age transition was also a legal fiction. "What do you mean by saying I'm not a school child? I'm a lickle six year old boy, you hater. I'm going to call the police on you". That could be as you enter your primary school class; with all the 'other' six year olds.

It could actually be useful if the state would create a legal fiction for people identifying as a different age. You could get reduced or exempted fees on courses, train and bus fares etc. Mightn't be so good for the real youngsters, though. However, safeguarding is already being dismantled.

"Convicted sex offender: I identify as an 8-year-old. Child porn is my constitutional right." LAW ENFORCEMENT TODAY Jan 12 2020

Michigan – A Grand Rapids, Michigan, man has recently been tried and convicted in court regarding pornographic images of children on his computer, but what makes this case so unique is the defense he attempted to establish while on trial.

While legislators in various states have been working to circumvent the constitution, the man on trial recently attempted to brazenly contort its meaning and purpose. When the now-convicted sex offender was on trial, he claimed that possessing pornographic images containing children was protected under the first amendment of the Constitution.

And that’s not all that the child predator stated in court either to justify his deviant tendencies.

45-year-old Joseph Gobrick was arrested back in 2018 when authorities had discovered a runaway minor was living inside the man’s home.

When police searched Gobrick’s home after the discovery of the missing 17-year-old girl, they discovered an array of disturbing images depicting children on his computer. Gobrick ignored his right to counsel and instead sought to defend himself during the bench trial proceedings at the Kent County Circuit Court.

The array of defenses proposed by the man during trial was mind boggling to say the least, citing everything from gender and age identity, bestiality, free speech, and even Nazi Germany.

The convicted sex offender’s first angle of the trial was that he identified as an 8-year-old girl, juxtaposed to the 45-year-old biological male that he actually is and thus absolving the material from being obscene for him to possess.

He solemnly expressed to the court:

“I’ve always been an 8-year-old girl and even in my drawings and fantasies, I am always an 8-year-old girl.”

While the initial defense was shot down relatively quickly by the judge, this probably isn’t going to be the last time it will be used as a defense in similar cases.

The notion may seem laughable, but identity politics have been at the center stage for years in the discourse of how someone feels versus what someone actually is.

While there’s been no case law yet to substantiate the defense brought by Gobrick, it could be validated at some point since we have psychologists like Brian Nosek at the University of Virginia.

“Subjective Age” may very well be a medical diagnosis recognized by the courts in coming years, as Nosek stated in a medical theory that:

“The extent to which older adults feel much younger than they are may determine important daily or life decisions for what they will do next.”

When Gobrick’s pretend age didn’t work while defending the possession of the child pornography, he then stated that the images were a form of free speech. However, prosecutors quickly responded to that defense explaining that video and photos of children being raped are not protected free speech.

Authorities were able to identify eight children that were abused in the porn contained on Gobrick’s devices as well.

Continued at: www.lawenforcementtoday.com/convicted-sex-offender-i-identify-as-an-8-year-old-child-porn-is-my-constitutional-right/

I suspect Andy Ngo is using she" in this tweet in order to highlight the absurdity. Or perhaps the court did recognise Gobrick as a female, whilst cruelly denying "her" existence as an 8 year old?

"Joseph Gobrick, who was born in 1974 & identifies as an 8-year-old female, was sentenced to 10 years in prison for possession of pornography that showed children as young as infants being sexually abused. She claimed content was protected by free speech."