Call For Evidence - Aiming for a Gender Sensitive Parliament (I'm not sure what they mean by that)

[gardenbird48]

Deadline Wed 31st March.

committees.parliament.uk/call-for-evidence/418/gender-sensitive-parliament/

I can't see a recent thread about this but the WESC are conducting an enquiry into creating a more 'gender sensitive parliament'.

Apparently there are some basic guidelines but the Women and Equalities Select Committee would like to move this along further.

Since then, the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) has published Guidelines for the elimination of sexism, harassment and violence against women in parliament and the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians has published the Gender Sensitising Parliaments Guidelines: Standards and a checklist for Parliamentary Change.

The Committee is inviting written evidence. Key questions for the inquiry are:

• How successfully have changes proposed in the past been implemented to make the House of Commons more gender sensitive?
• What additional procedures and working arrangements should be changed. Suggestions can include, but need not be limited to: leave for Members who are parents and carers, proxy voting and virtual attendance?
• How should our Buildings and facilities be changed to support a gender sensitive House of Commons and the opportunities presented by the Restoration & Renewal Programme?
• How can a more inclusive culture be adopted in the House of Commons • Which individuals or bodies are responsible for taking action?
• What and who should drive change on this issue?

Obviously more aimed at people with direct experience of being in parliament but I like to think that some of our girls will be the MPs of the future.

Apart from the fact that I have no idea of what they mean by 'gender sensitive' it might be a good opportunity to remind of the law re. single sex facilities and provisions (HSE Regulations for workplaces specify single sex toilet provision and obviously the EA 2010 supports that too).

Also to mention that they may like to ask women to speak for themselves when looking at getting more women into politics via the 5050 Campaign, rather than inviting people who are not born women to take up those spaces.

touchy?

sorry, that is the worst phrase I've heard in a while.

I suppose they mean a parliament that is sensitive to the sex based needs of mothers but can't say that

good points re toilets and provisions, and the 50 50 campaign

ta gardenbird

your welcome Arabella - obvs everyone has got loads to be doing other than completing more blooming evidence as to why we should have protections and provisions based on our sex but hey ho, thanks Caroline Nokes.

I'm thinking it might be something to do with those little ferny plants that close up when you stroke the leaves - maybe they are planning on a bulk buy of those to help while away those boring debates.... ? Maybe you can get man plants and lady plants?

It is only a baby call for evidence though - it took me about 10 mins.

I find these things scary. I always feel as though if it's Women and Equalities or the GEO whatever they're doing, there'll be a hidden agenda and it will rise to the surface when everything is complete. They will ignore women and only concentrate on 'included women'. I would suggest they take care because there are a lot of angry women around at the moment and only a small % are going to be TWAW

Might be worth highlighting their own differences in attitude during the recent hearings on proposed changes to the GRA.

1. Gushing over and tip-toeing around the TW or advocates for self id, no asking them hard questions or to provide evidence to back up their claims, using professional titles when introducing the participants all very sycophantic. The fawning was vomit worthy.

1. Generally aggressive and dismissive towards the women who are against self id and highlighted the impact this would have on women's rights, hard questions, insisting on evidence to support their view, no courtesy of professional titles when introducing them, very biased against the women and their view.

They don't need to be more sensitive they need to fair and impartial.

They don't need to be more sensitive they need to fair and impartial. I submitted evidence for the GEO and I pointed this out and the repercussions will be that women lose confidence as the latest craze takes over

The best simple actions will not happen- getting rid of Boris Johnson as Prime Minister and Jacob Rees-Mogg as Leader of the House of Commons.

Generally aggressive and dismissive towards the women who are against self id and highlighted the impact this would have on women's rights, hard questions, insisting on evidence to support their view, no courtesy of professional titles when introducing them, very biased against the women and their view.

Good point Red. Even the Women & Equalities Committee fails to treat women with respect (MPs not using women's professional titles when addressing those giving evidence to select committees is worth a mention). They need to sort themselves out as well as the HoC.

Oh ffs. Page one of written evidence obviously time taken up demanding to know what the actual fuck is a gender sensitive parliament to a normal person not soaked in all this wanky elitist linguistics?

It used to be considered unprofessional and evidence of very poor competence and poor practice to be unable to communicate local and national government information in clear, basic and accessible English.

Thanks for the reminder OP.

Points I will be making:

Gender being a BS word
The MOMA bill - Language and how mat leave was previously overlooked - referencing maternity action
Childcare/The HoP Creche
The mixed sexed toilets

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/c187f3a6-7087-11eb-811f-f64a7b4cb430?shareToken=8f82201e5fc1d36cd3f3d756056349d3

It used to be considered unprofessional and evidence of very poor competence and poor practice to be unable to communicate local and national government information in clear, basic and accessible English.

It still is, by anyone with any sense and intelligence.

Done, but not very coherently written I think.
I included the Civil Service training being incorrect (mixing up sex & gender, EA act misrepresented) & given by unsuitable organisations. I went on a bit about vetting of these organisations as well - in the light of Glinner's research into this area.

so you have to write an essay , not fill in boxes this time?

Yes Cat this time it's written evidence submitted as a word doc/pdf etc.
There are questions but it's not a survey monkey type thing.

Gender sensitivity is the worst term ever.

Sensitively is so wishy v washy. Reminds me of be kind, be nice to others, careful not to cause offence .

Linking stuff for women (it's gender so who knows) with words like this is unhelpful. Delicate flowers who need careful looking after

FFS the blurb talks about leave after babies and stuff.

Not fainting couches.

I found this. I hope it's helpful. I scanned it briefly, and there's sensible stuff there. I couldn't find a clear distinction between or definition of sex and gender. Have a look, anyway.

Ooops!

issuu.com/theparliamentarian/docs/cwp_gender_sensitizing_guidelines/s/11218343