Fairplay for Women to address Women & Equalities Select Committee hearing on GRA Reform on 21st April

[Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g]

Good.

@oldwomanwhoruns

It's finished now... I only heard the later part. Yup the committee did not come across as sympathetic, especially the young lady who kept demanding stats? Surely it is the responsibility of gvmt to get stats, not an impoverished women's organisation??

Racquel (spelling?sorry) was fantastic. Clear concise and we'll argued.

It's probably a reaction for having been roasted when talking to trans rights groups in the previous round and never once asking for any evidence to back up the things they were saying!

The women today really hamstrung themsleves - they chose to tell the truth and not to make any spurious claims. Unlike some of the things that were claimed last month! There's a thread somewhere!

Thanks highame. That's jogged a memory - I actually used to know a bit about Hansard back in the day.

I'm not sure if there are any more hearings, but I've made an enquiry with someone who should know.

The government don't have to do anything about it. Previous reports have ended up being forgotten about and given the government's change of direction on equalities and Liz Truss's lack of interest in reforming the GRA I think there's a good chance this is what will happen to this one. And Caroline Noakes is unpopular in the Conservative party and her career is going backwards.

Having such good showings from all the women and organisations over all the sessions has been very strong I think. The Committee despite the unwarranted whiff of moral superiority some of them give off has been taken aback by them. I think they thought we could be dismissed as a load of uninformed old bigots - little did they know!

This committee have almost to a woman/man been captured by Stonewall. They will not make a recommendation that doesn't favour trans women rights over women's rights, they just want to be seen to be listening so they can say that they did. They are a shoddy shower. BUT as highame says this is all on record now. It also bolsters the credibility of those who gave evidence (which is important when it comes to the wider public). That's why it pisses the activists off so much.

@Sophoclesthefox

having seen all of the wailing and teeth gnashing on Twitter about how “why aren’t they asking trans people?!?”, I’ve just spent half an hour reading through the testimony given last month by representatives from Stonewall, GIRES, Mermaids and the Beaumont society.

Very interesting it was, too

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

At one point, it appears that the GIRES representative fails to mute themselves and swears at a member of the committee. The question the committee member was asking that caused the outburst was around the interplay with the EA 2010 and the issue of single sex exemptions.

What an interesting reaction to that particular topic.

Anyway, while some of the stories were reasonably articulated, I thought that overall the evidence was a bit short on...evidence.

I wonder how it will compare to this afternoon’s evidence?

Is the swear recorded in the transcript?!

Two more evidence hearings are planned, I don't have any more details at the moment, but will see what I can find out/we might just need to keep an eye on the website.

It’s not, arabella, only the later apology for the “outburst”. The actual outburst itself is not in the transcript.

Cat Burton: First, sorry for my little expletive against you a little earlier on.
Ben Bradley: No problem.
Cat Burton: I had not muted myself in time. It was because this is obviously not within the scope of this discussion

It was because this is obviously not within the scope of this discussion

Why wouldn't the topic be within the scope of the discussion?

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

15:20:03 for Cat's reaction, apparently in response to Ben Bradley's 'Do you see the argument and conflict, if you think there is one, around doing that and the rights of women based on sex under the Equality Act?'

(This was after BB talked about Stonewall wanting the EA to replace Gender Reassignment with Gender Identity and removing things like the single sex exemptions, which he said he thought was at the heart iof the conflict - Q103 in the transcript)

It’s not, arabella, only the later apology for the “outburst”. The actual outburst itself is not in the transcript

Ah, shame. Was the session recorded?

@ArabellaScott

It’s not, arabella, only the later apology for the “outburst”. The actual outburst itself is not in the transcript

Ah, shame. Was the session recorded?

See my post above!

Thanks, Nancy, sorry I'm reading all out of order!

So Cat didn't want the impact of the GRA to be considered? 'it is just a bit od paper that doesn't mean anything' approach?

I was a bit perplexed as to why the committee responsible for changing the spousal consent had no idea about how many people had used it and had to ask outsiders to tell them how to find out.

Perhaps they might then not say 87,000 people on whom it has no bearing want it removed.

It's all a bit mediocre on their part. They seem to know very little.

I had not muted myself in time. It was because this is obviously not within the scope of this discussion

Excellent. I’ll try this one next time I forget not to swear at someone

@oldwomanwhoruns

It's finished now... I only heard the later part. Yup the committee did not come across as sympathetic, especially the young lady who kept demanding stats? Surely it is the responsibility of gvmt to get stats, not an impoverished women's organisation??

Racquel (spelling?sorry) was fantastic. Clear concise and we'll argued.

The younger woman asking for stats was Nicola Richards, I believe. It would be easy to give her the stats she wanted, were it not transphobic to collect them. Or a battle by which activists have to take public institutions to court to insist they collect rate sex-disaggregated data cough ONS. I was really impressed by Nicola Williams’ oral evidence.

*they collect accurate sex-disaggregated data. Apols for typo.

@Scepticaltank

I was a bit perplexed as to why the committee responsible for changing the spousal consent had no idea about how many people had used it and had to ask outsiders to tell them how to find out.

Perhaps they might then not say 87,000 people on whom it has no bearing want it removed.

It's all a bit mediocre on their part. They seem to know very little.

They were the same last time when speaking to Dr Rosa Freedman, Prof Kathleen Stock & Prof Alice Sullivan, didn't seem to know their titles for a start and then the same MP was demanding stats for things she should have had some understanding of in order to be able to engage properly.

So Nicola Richards seems happy to demonstrate her cluelessness to try and make other people seem ill informed? Very poor.

Has she never heard of Chesterton's Fence?

fs.blog/2020/03/chestertons-fence/

I'll admit I hadn't heard of Chesterton's Fence, but I'm glad you shared that. Perfect:

Do not remove a fence until you know why it was put up in the first place.

I've seen no evidence of second order thinking from members of the Women & Equalities Committee.

Thanks Sceptical

Can anyone help me? Why is the committee still gathering evidence? I thought the government had made their decisions on the gra?

Good question.

I won't link to Penis News, but their reporting of it was that the committee are investigating whether the government's proposed changes to the gender recognition process go far enough (for trans people):

"According to the committee: “The government has published its proposals for changes to the gender recognition process and set out how it plans to move forward. The Women and Equalities Committee will examine these proposals, gathering evidence on whether the government’s proposed changes are the right ones and whether they go far enough.
“This inquiry will explore what changes, if any, should be made to the existing legislation, in order for current legislation to improve transgender equality.”"

One might suspect that it came about because of lobbying pressure from certain organisations that were unhappy with the government position. As mentioned the committee appears to be almost entirely captured.

I found the names. I wonder if we are going to get the aggressive Peter Gibson on again

One of the panel is my MP Kim Johnson. When she first took on the role after the eviction of Louise Ellman, i wrote to her on this issue, and received a full 'party line' response, which i further queried and then invited her to a meeting with some of her constituents, which i would arrange. No further response.

She is pretty much embedded in her Toxteth patch of the constituency, and apart from turning up at Westminster does not seem to leave much. She is full on intersectionalism and identity politics. Her job depends on it.