Scottish Government hiding GRA Consultation results

[MiladyBerserko]

The Scottish Government conducted a Consultation which finished in March 2020, where they asked for responses to proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act. They said these responses would be published. Now it seems, they are refusing to publish them and also, refuse to respond to FOI requests about it.

See this tweet which shows that the responses to another Consultation re. women's representation on public boards were largely concerned about the redefinition of the word 'women' and its impact on the legal rights of women and girls. This also appears not to have been published, although I need confirmation on this.

mobile.twitter.com/painteyhands/status/1413219892652875780

Questions:
Why is the Scottish Government backtracking on its promise to publish the GRA consultation?

How much did it cost to conduct a Consultation which they are now choosing to ignore?

Why are they permitted to ignore the results of a public consultation?

Am I naive to think they should be held to account?

Women and Girls in Scotland appear to be taking this forward. Good luck to them and I will be supporting them.

I suspect that like the first GRA,

www.gov.scot/publications/review-gender-recognition-act-2004-analysis-responses-public-consultation-exercise-report/

The majority of responses will be supportive of self-ID, but there will be arguments against that self ID would be wrong. And the arguments against are far more persuasive.

In the first consultation

"The majority of respondents, 60% of those answering the question, agreed with the proposal to introduce a self-declaratory system for legal gender recognition."

The arguments for those against self-ID were summarised as:

"The most frequently raised issue was that self-declaration may pose a risk to women’s safety in spaces including toilets, changing rooms, hospital wards and refuges. Often associated with this concern was that the proposed self-declaration system may be open to abuse, exploitation or false declarations. Where respondents explained their concerns, it was often to suggest that the proposal would allow ‘any man’, ‘predatory men’ or ‘biological men’ to gain access to women’s spaces where they could pose a potential threat to women’s safety. Particular concerns were raised for the victims of rape or domestic abuse and also with respect to the safety of women in the prison system.

1. There was also a concern that the proposals represent a general erosion of the identity or the rights of natal women. More specific concerns were raised that trans women would be eligible to take natal women’s places on all-women short lists, on the boards of public bodies, or for other employment, quotas or awards. Potential problems for the future of women’s sport were noted, including at both a professional and amateur level.

10. Other issues raised included that the consultation paper fails to distinguish between sex and gender. It was argued that, determined by an individual’s sex chromosomes, biological sex cannot be changed, irrespective of surgery or other medical treatments. In contrast, gender was suggested to be a social construct – comprising a set of characteristics or behaviours that society has come to view as masculine or feminine. Some respondents thought that, rather than reinforcing these concepts, effort should instead be put into eradicating gender stereotypes altogether.'"

@BlueberryCheezecake that's interesting - do you have any links to the results of the consultation? The only things I could find expressed concerns about the way the survey was conducted- www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53411965.amp and politicians rejected self ID changes.

I also managed to find the reason they had a second consultation, it was so they could persuade women they were wrong to worry.

www.gov.scot/publications/gender-recognition-reform-scotland-bill-consultation-scottish-government/

"I recognise that people have concerns and I hope this consultation will alleviate those by explaining exactly what the Scottish Government is proposing"

The SNP show an utter contempt for the public's feedback

Do you mean the constant whinging about a second referendum because they didn't like the results of the "once in a lifetime" referendum?

Or are the scales only now falling from your eyes?

Loathe as I am to indulge in tinfoil hattery, this is such batshit behaviour that I would guess money is involved somewhere

Maybe the missing money is in the same box as the consultation!!

It took them a very long time to find the education report so maybe the SNP are just really untidy?

I genuinely think it's part of the risk of being such a small country (see Malta). Determined individuals with large chequebooks can seriously influence public policy (yes I know it happens everywhere. but more where the impact is bigger I think)

There is a big fund awaiting decision at the moment. The Equalities and Human Rights Fund. Delivered by Inspiring Scotland for the Scottish Government £7million of funding I believe.

Previously Stonewall and Engender and similar orgs funded directly by the Scot Gov. now they have to bid via this pot. It will be interesting to see who gets funding and how much.

Indeed. And I'm sure there are feminists on here who enthusiastically voted for the SNP. Tough luck.

You're a trenchant lassie, aren't you?!

Even if some women here are pro-independence and you're not, surely you wouldn't wish harm or disadvantage to come to them through genderist policies? Assuming you're a woman yourself (apols if not), this would seem like an exercise in nose-cutting and concomitant face-spiting?

Trenchant lassie? Patronising, much.

Pro independence women (and men) who voted for the SNP are responsible for this - it’s not up to the rest of us to feel any level of nose cutting sympathy towards them. They are adults, they knew what they were voting for, they must now accept that their vote may very well bring about harm and disadvantage to other women.

@MaMelon

Trenchant lassie? Patronising, much.

Pro independence women (and men) who voted for the SNP are responsible for this - it’s not up to the rest of us to feel any level of nose cutting sympathy towards them. They are adults, they knew what they were voting for, they must now accept that their vote may very well bring about harm and disadvantage to other women.

I don't feel the slightest sympathy for anyone, male or female, complaining about this particular aspect of SNP policy.

If you voted SNP you brought this on yourselves. Out of all the idiocies promoted by the SNP this particular one barely gets a look in as far as I'm concerned.

Absolutely agree - anyone who voted SNP bears a level of collective responsibility for this shambles.

Lol. I have no objections to robust criticism of the SNP.

However, clearly the case against the SNP is not being made well otherwise well, you know....But maybe it's easier to scorn any efforts to properly oppose them.

This is all a bit familiar though. Shall we now talk about banning skirts?

But maybe it's easier to scorn any efforts to properly oppose them

Been doing that most of my adult life.

Well done.

The Ruth Wishart thread is interesting. She keeps swinging back and forth generally. Perhaps she will be inclined to write an article.

I think it might be time to start FOI requesting again.

I recognise that people have concerns and I hope this consultation will alleviate those by explaining exactly what the Scottish Government is proposing"

There is something not quite right about to have a consultation with a purpose of anything other than consulting the relevant people.

“Let me explain to all of you why I am right, and then we can say I consulted with you”. FFS.

It's not the first time by any means the Scottish Government has had a second go at consultations on the same topic.

It's not the first time the Scottish Government has decided what it's preferred direction of travel is long before it issued a consultation.

It's not the first time Scottish Government has ignored consultation responses and carried on regardless.

I don't know if they have ever refused to publish consultations before. I'm not aware of any but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine

The arguments for those against self-ID were summarised as:

"The most frequently raised issue was that self-declaration may pose a risk to women’s safety in spaces including toilets, changing rooms, hospital wards and refuges. Often associated with this concern was that the proposed self-declaration system may be open to abuse, exploitation or false declarations. Where respondents explained their concerns, it was often to suggest that the proposal would allow ‘any man’, ‘predatory men’ or ‘biological men’ to gain access to women’s spaces where they could pose a potential threat to women’s safety. Particular concerns were raised for the victims of rape or domestic abuse and also with respect to the safety of women in the prison system.

The scary thing is, these horrible predictions have all come true! But apparently, we're overreacting when we warn about this.

I'm wondering what we should do. FOI's will be ignored. Should be get Glinner on the case?

I don't suppose the Baroness has any authority in Scotland? Might be useful to get it onto her radar to raise concerns that public consultations are being ridden roughshod over.

Someone has mentioned that Joanna Cherry is already on the case. I'm not sure about the Baroness' authority here and presumably this is a devolved matter.

I'm going to tag @glinner in this anyway

Would it be worth us all writing to MSPs about this?

Would it be worth us all writing to MSPs about this?

Sadly I doubt it.

Because it doesn’t fit in with the stonewall narrative perhaps?

Was there some pushback from the public becoming more gender critical?

It stinks to high hell. There’s a nefarious reason why they aren’t releasing this information. It must be illegal to hide this from the public