Women's and Equalities - inquiry into the Reform of the Gender Recognition Act

[Leafstamp]

Live now for anyone interested:

www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/6436ad0d-508d-4208-97da-a39a913a254c

[WeeTorag]

This has been a really tough listen. I'm watching it on delay so reading your post as I watch is great. I really struggle to listen to Nancy and her constant upward inflection, it's like a faux sincerity so we all see her as "oh so amiable and genuine and truthful". I don't trust any of them, they have all made me feel very uncomfortable and worried.

[Ereshkigalangcleg]

The two most dangerous female prisoners I can think of are Joanne Dennehy and Rose West. Neither of them are in the male estate. So who are these super dangerous female prisoners?

Exactly. It's so dishonest.

[Ereshkigalangcleg]

Or ideally that things stay as they are!

Yes. The government rejected self ID, why are they going over it again now?

[Signalbox]

I really struggle to listen to Nancy and her constant upward inflection

Yes it's like everything is a question?

[Leafstamp]

The next evidence session is on 21st April and women’s groups etc will be heard then.

Phew! That should be a much less enraging listen for us all.

Save the date!

[Tibtom]

I just hope a sensible compromise is made

A sensible compromise would be to repeal the GRA

[Thecatonthemat]

Yes Tibtom that would certainly make things a whole lot clearer.

[Thecatonthemat]

does anyone know which feminist groups/ individuals have been invited next time? Given how good in the face of the interrogation that the wonderful women last time were, I hope that they will get the arguments across as well.

[LangClegsInSpace]

My eyebrows aren't never coming down.

[ChattyLion]

I bet the women’s groups will be 1000x more professional with command of their brief/relevant facts/legal knowledge and not just constantly say things are brilliant or rubbish without citing any evidence to back it up and call that giving evidence.

However I bet the committee will be 1000x less kid gloved and soft soapy- honestly they behaved like school teachers trying to cope with particularly oversensitive young kids- so much ‘oh sorry I surprised you there, shall I ask someone else first so you can have a think about your answer?’ All chummy first names and giving people notice of when they’d be asked questions.

You can buy training on how to cope with Commons select committee grilling, whole books have been written on it. This was not like the normal. That doesn’t actually help anyone when you think about it.

[ChattyLion]

That doesn’t actually help anyone when you think about it

By ‘that’ I meant the MPs not being very probing for a Select Committee. The MPs are going to have to write a report with recommendations for action based on the evidence they get. It shouldn’t be just their re-hash of a set of unevidenced assertions.

So for example when witnesses say:
‘it’s a scandal that people are waiting years and years and years for trans health care’

Why don’t the MPs say:
‘OK sorry to hear about that, could you cite some evidence of how many people are affected and typically for how long they are waiting?
How does this break down by age, sex, geographical area?
Could you elaborate on what you mean by ‘trans health care’?
What are the specific services that trans people are waiting for and unable to access?
Is there sufficient mental and physical health support for people while waiting to access these services?
How are your groups helping to support and dissuade people from self medicating unsafely (off the internet) in this waiting stage or at any other time?
Does the availability (or not) of a GRC to trans individuals in the community affect their use of health care or other relevant services?
What research is your group undertaking to find out more about the physical and mental health and the social inclusion needs of the people that your group represents?
The balance of sexes of people seeking help for gender dysphoria and presenting to NHS services seems to be predominantly female at younger ages and male at older ages- how have you reflected this disparity in your lobbying for changes in policy?
How do the policies and availability treatments that you lobby for, reflect the difference in impact of these treatments on the female and male body over time, and reflect the potential difference in their impact on future social roles that are inextricably linked to biological sex?
(such as the probably loss of female-bodied potential to conceive and sustain a pregnancy or to even to safely retain internal female reproductive organs long term if the person takes takes cross-sex hormones over a long period of time.. but also possibly increased risks of cancers for both sexes.. and so on)
How do the policies that you lobby for take account of detransitioned people?
In your view how should the GRA reflect detransitioned people’s needs?
What is the evidence that the local non-specialist GP led service model that you are lobbying for, is better for patient care and outcomes than an specialised expert multidisciplinary team GIDS approach?
What level, for example, of research participation can we expect to see via a non specialist GP-led service vs the GIDS model?
Remind me, how long is the average GP appointment? (Answer: 9 minutes.
pharmaceutical-journal.com/article/news/uk-has-shortest-gp-consultations-in-europe-study-finds)
How does this compare to the GIDs model?

And so on....

What a missed opportunity to actually get to the detail of what could improve things for children, young people and adults who are distressed about gender issues - arguably a vulnerable group.

Some really important points could have been made to MPs, for example particularly about young people’s mental health needs. Absolutely objectively - whether in relation to gender distress or anything else- children and young people are sorely underserved. That is already well documented and could have informed a really strong future recommendation by the committee if it were backed up by evidence from witnesses. Gender critical witnesses will hopefully make that point but it would be stronger if all the professional groups with an interest in this had done so.

[gardenbird48]

@Thecatonthemat

does anyone know which feminist groups/ individuals have been invited next time? Given how good in the face of the interrogation that the wonderful women last time were, I hope that they will get the arguments across as well.

I hope they mean actual women's groups rather than the Fawcett Society and 5050 etc....

Our good women's groups are amazing.

[gardenbird48]

Why don’t the MPs say:
‘OK sorry to hear about that, could you cite some evidence of how many people are affected and typically for how long they are waiting?
How does this break down by age, sex, geographical area?
Could you elaborate on what you mean by ‘trans health care’?
What are the specific services that trans people are waiting for and unable to access?
there sufficient mental and physical health support for people while waiting to access these services?

I found the complete lack of probing questions very strange. When the women's groups come along and make their opposing case, what information does the WESC then have to determine who they should be listening to? If they assume both sides are telling the truth, then which side is correct?

This evidence session was so packed full of lies (mind bogglingly unprofessional), many of which would have been exposed quickly if any corroborating evidence was requested. It reminds me of the playground bully who hits someone and then runs to the teacher and gets their 'side' of the story in first.

I would be interested to see what the WESC does with the information gained at these sessions and how they start to analyse and quantify in order to start recommending changes to the law.

Yet again I am underwhelmed with the apparent intellectual capacity and professional standards of the people in charge. I used to think you had to be quite good to get to the top - stupid me.

[Thecatonthemat]

Chattylion I really hope that you will be presenting evidence! This session was appallingly lacking in any evidence or knowledge and the questioning was incompetent . I can’t see how any legislation could be improved on the back of what these orgs said.

[highame]

I submitted evidence to the GEO and used it to cover so many things. One of them was the bias when women were giving evidence and that the GEO had become unfit for purpose as far as women and equality were concerned. I think it was a three page rant but because I knew it would never be published I sent a copy to my MP and also to Lizz Truss. Sent these snail mail in the hope that I would get a response. Not so far

[2021Vision]

I think these session are just 'evidence' sessions (or lack of) hence no questions. I can only hope that the members asking the questions had their own information/notes so could immediately see the lies and efforts to deny there is any problem especially in areas of young people, prisons, sport.

I'm expecting the next sesssion to take the same format.

There have already been 2 oral hearings, the notes can be read here.

One group was Prof Stephen Whittle, Professor Alex Sharpe and Dr Ruth Pearce.

The other group was Professor Rosa Freedman, Professor Alice Sullivan and Dr Kathleen Stock

[ChattyLion]

Highame they’ve got an inquiry coming up on the GEO which looks like an opportunity to point out some of the effects of organisational capture on women: committees.parliament.uk/work/947/the-role-of-the-geo-embedding-equalities-across-government/

Cat if they ever call for mothers to come in off the street to tell them their thoughts, I’ll be right there I agree with you about the good women’s groups, they will ace it; just hope they get fair and informed questions and keep some useful points/stats ready to offer anyway, even if the committee questioning is under par.

[Leafstamp]

@Thecatonthemat

does anyone know which feminist groups/ individuals have been invited next time? Given how good in the face of the interrogation that the wonderful women last time were, I hope that they will get the arguments across as well.

Not confirmed yet but it will be published on 13th April here:

committees.parliament.uk/committee/328/women-and-equalities-committee/publications/reports/

[WeeTorag]

The way Cat talks makes me really uncomfortable.

Plus Lui says at some point "WE as policy makers". How revealing.

I think the lot of them would very dangerous to women and children if they were given any more power and influence than they already have.

I'm genuinely worried what will come of this consultation.

[Ereshkigalangcleg]

Mermaids shouldn't be considered policy makers. They are an LGBT charity, and there are other groups to consider and balance the rights of. Policymaking should be impartial.

[RedDogsBeg]

However I bet the committee will be 1000x less kid gloved and soft soapy- honestly they behaved like school teachers trying to cope with particularly oversensitive young kids- so much ‘oh sorry I surprised you there, shall I ask someone else first so you can have a think about your answer?’ All chummy first names and giving people notice of when they’d be asked questions.

The difference in attitude was blatantly obvious in the one Rosa Freeman attended, all gushy over Stephen Whittle and then brusque and aggressive towards Rosa Freedman. If they do this again with the Women's Organisations I hope one of the attendees will point out the difference in the way they are being treated clearly and unequivocally, it's appropriate given recent events and the light being shone on the appalling treatment women and girls get everywhere.

[Socrates11]

Well it'll be interesting to see who gets called up as a 'women's group' to give evidence. I think Chatty Lion should be actually on the Women & Equalities committee with their great aptitude for critical questioning. Sadly something that the current members seem unable to do.

[gardenbird48]

@Ereshkigalangcleg

Mermaids shouldn't be considered policy makers. They are an LGBT charity, and there are other groups to consider and balance the rights of. Policymaking should be impartial.

I'm still a bit confused as to why Mermaids was even in that discussion - are they campaigning for a drop in age for the GRC? Otherwise, they have zero relevance to the GRA reform as far as I can see.

Presumably that would be tricky to drop the age to 16 because a child could not prove that they 'lived in the acquired gender' for two years before age 16, apart from the fact that we know that allowing a child to obtain a GRC would be reckless..

Lui seems to really hate some women.

[RedDogsBeg]

are they campaigning for a drop in age for the GRC?

I think they are, if they can't get self id they want the age lowered to 16. That and their dodgy ideas around surgery et al.

[ChattyLion]

Mermaids do want legal gender recognition for kids: mermaidsuk.org.uk/mermaids-manifesto-for-gra-reform/

I think the consent issues are potentially extremely concerning in what they are calling for here:

System of recognition for Children and Young People
‘A self-determination model should be available to anyone 16 years and over. A system should also be in place so that children and young people have access to legal gender recognition. Mermaids sees this as a system of consent from those with parental responsibility, as well as a process in place for children and young people without supportive households.’

Note: the new parlance for ‘self-ID’ is ‘self-determination’