WESC oral evidence from Stonewall 17th March

[Imnobody4]

Women and Equalities CommitteeWEDNESDAY17 MARCH 20212:30pm
Witness(es): Nancy Kelley, Chief Executive Officer, Stonewall; Lui Asquith, Director of Legal and Policy, Mermaids; Cat Burton, Chair, Gender Identity Research and Education Society; Dr Jane Hamlin, President, Beaumont Society

Not sure I can face this. Sincerely hope Ben Bradley is there.

nope! there will not be enough alcohol in the world to get through the gentle sympathetic "gosh isnt everyone just meeeeeannn??" questioning

I've just found some more consultation responses have been published but they're still only up to 681. I recognise a few GC names. Out of interest has anyone had their submission published yet?

Why - discredited nonsense?

I haven't checked for ages. Please could you provide the link?

committees.parliament.uk/event/4042/formal-meeting-oral-evidence-session/

SexMatters evidence submission on Gender Recognition Act Reform
(to the Women and Equality Select Committee , 27 Nov 2020)
sex-matters.org/evidence-submissions/

Oral evidence transcripts
committees.parliament.uk/work/658/reform-of-the-gender-recognition-act/publications/

All written evidence
committees.parliament.uk/work/658/reform-of-the-gender-recognition-act/publications/written-evidence/

That's odd; the two previous sessions they have had have both had balanced panels. The first had the two groups separately but back to back - Whittle/Sharpe/Pearce and then Freedman/Stock/Sullivan - and the second, the lawyers, had all four together but still aimed for balance. Why have they decided not to do this next one the same way?

We all know why - institutional misogyny.

Stonewall response
committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/17743/pdf/

Mermaids response
committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/16879/pdf/

Gender Identity Research & Education Society (GIRES) response
committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/17624/pdf/

Beaumont Society response
committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/16969/pdf/

I presume these organisations refused to share the platform with any critical groups. Stonewall was the initiator of 'no debate' after all, and Green refused to speak when Julia Long was eating pizza in the audience. Security had to forcibly chuck out Long from an event 'open to everyone'

Whilst it might take a stiff drink to get through this, I do think it’s important to get the views and desires of these organisations out in the open and into the open.
For years they’ve had the privilege of dealing with politicians without public scrutiny, we’ll now we’re all watching. Let’s get it all out there.

Yes they refuse to share a platform

why haven't the WESC scheduled a second session with experts who disagree with Stonewall, Mermaids and GIRES, to get a balance?

For years they’ve had the privilege of dealing with politicians without public scrutiny, we’ll now we’re all watching. Let’s get it all out there

transparency is so important, especially in this area.

government still has a lot of work to do to ensure that all voices are heard and not just one side, especially when the gender lobby claim to represent LGBT people who fundamentally disagree with them.

@TheMostBeautifulDogInTheWorld

That's odd; the two previous sessions they have had have both had balanced panels. The first had the two groups separately but back to back - Whittle/Sharpe/Pearce and then Freedman/Stock/Sullivan - and the second, the lawyers, had all four together but still aimed for balance. Why have they decided not to do this next one the same way?

I can’t remember where I read it but I was under the impression that Professor’s Stock, Freedman and Sullivan had to demand to be included in that session. It could explain why Caroline introduced them without using their proper titles (where she fawned over the others) and got Alice’s name wrong altogether.

I wonder is Sex Matters will be asked for evidence. And if not, why not?
I hope our friends in the Lords are keeping an eye on this piece of evidence as it will be very very interesting.

I hope Ben Bradley chooses his questions for maximum impact (gosh where would he start?) as I doubt he will be allowed much opportunity to speak.

So we have any idea why this session is being run? Is it looking for extra evidence to confirm self id or looking to determine if there is any actual substance to Stonewall’s claims in light of submissions from feminist groups?

Might Caroline Nokes have had a productive conversation with the Baroness (and Lord Lucas etc) and realised that maybe all is not how it initially seemed and this session will actually do its job and end up discovering that Stonewall’s claims are based on lies and incompatible with safety for women?

I can live in hope (until Mar 17th at least).

[quote FindTheTruth]All written evidence
committees.parliament.uk/work/658/reform-of-the-gender-recognition-act/publications/written-evidence/[/quote]

Thanks. That was what I was looking for.

Mine’s on there Imnobody

Part of Sarah Vine's response:

If the requirement for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria is removed, the State is left with a choice; either it treats gender identity as a fact, or it treats it as a belief, and therefore a choice. The former is a wholly unacceptable approach to me; I have not, at any point in my life, had a gender identity. There is no essence to my being female that extends beyond the physical fact of my body. My behaviour is socialised on the basis of my sexed body. The world responds to me in the way it does because of my sexed body. No argument, however carefully crafted, has ever persuaded me otherwise. Females are not disproportionately victim to male violence because of their gender identity. Females are not subject to FGM, sexual violence, forced marriage, unequal pay, dangerous working conditions, honour killing, corrective rape, military rape, forced pregnancy, selective abortion, sexual harassment, prostitution, sex trafficking, maternity discrimination, domestic violence, financial exploitation and control, political underrepresentation, inadequate healthcare, limited control of their own bodies and reproductive choices, systemic barriers to occupational progress and promotion, silencing, belittling or any of the other ways in which sexism, misogyny and patriarchy are enforced because of their gender identity. We are subject to these things because of our sex.

Sarah Vine's response.

committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/17640/pdf/

Sarah Vine nails it.