Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Scottish Government hiding GRA Consultation results

145 replies

MiladyBerserko · 11/07/2021 09:10

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.

OP posts:
Rhannion · 12/07/2021 06:43

Thank you Glinner, for everything you do.

Rhannion · 12/07/2021 06:48

Can individuals ask for FOI and if so how to go about it.?
The Scottish Government is on their holidays just now, how convenient. Lying cheating bastards

AnyOldPrion · 12/07/2021 06:51

Seems unlikely given the overwhelming number of responses to the England & Wales consultation were in favour of self-id. It's unlikely Scotland is significantly out of step with the rest of the UK; if anything they're likely to lean more progressive

Perhaps Stonewall and all the other transactivist organisations that encouraged transactivists from around the world to submit copy-paste responses to flood the England and Wales consultation didn’t think Scotland’s consultation was worthy of their efforts.

I don’t think there’s much doubt that the population of the UK are strongly against self-ID and an increasing number are able to explain exactly why. They did so in such clear terms that even with the doctoring of the result you mention, the UK government chose not to go ahead with it.

Anycrispsleft · 12/07/2021 07:12

Not that this would have helped in this case, because it was clear that this was going to be controversial, but it often pays not to mention the FoI rules when you make a request for information. The FoI rules still apply even if you don't mention them, but in some government departments (don't ask me how I know) any information request that quotes FoI will automatically be passed up the food chain to check if it's going to be controversial. The best chance of getting information is to get in contact with whoever is directly responsible for the data collection and have an innocuous reason for asking for it.

Igneococcus · 12/07/2021 07:16

It's unlikely Scotland is significantly out of step with the rest of the UK; if anything they're likely to lean more progressive

If this is the case, why not just publish it since it supports the SG's position?

Datun · 12/07/2021 09:27

@Igneococcus

It's unlikely Scotland is significantly out of step with the rest of the UK; if anything they're likely to lean more progressive

If this is the case, why not just publish it since it supports the SG's position?

Placemarking. But also noting that with gender ideology, logic doesn't exist.
AnyOldPrion · 12/07/2021 09:46

The central belt in Scotland might well be progressive, but huge swathes of rural Scotland are very conservative (with a small c). I suspect anyone who thinks Scotland is more progressive than England would be in for a shock if they moved there from (for example) London.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 12/07/2021 10:05

I've sent it to both of them along with this comment from someone on my blog. It may be useful to all of you when writing to your MSPs too.

Thanks Glinner, that was actually my comment here on this thread. I hope it is useful.

RadicalFern · 12/07/2021 11:01

One of the things I find so distressing about this situation (and others) is that there is currently no meaningful scrutiny of the Scottish government in the Scottish press.

CharlieParley · 12/07/2021 11:05

Although public consultations are an exercise in democracy, just how many agree or disagree with the proposal consulted on is not the decisive factor.

You can have 9999 out of 10,000 responses saying yeah, brilliant, but if that one dissenting response points out a fatal flaw in the proposal, the consulting body should amend its proposal accordingly.

Consultations are not referenda, neither majority approval nor disapproval are what's important. The objections themselves are what matters.

And it's here where the Scottish Government has repeatedly failed to act in accordance with the consultation principles quoted above. So determined were they to implement their proposals on the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018, they refused not only to consider the majority view, but more importantly they also completely refused to take into account the legal objections made in a number of submissions. Which is why For Women Scotland was able to bring a Judicial Review against the Scottish Government in the first place.

Had these objections been listened to, and the law amended accordingly, that could have been avoided.

But its overarching desire is to implement self-id, everywhere, so none of the objections, legal or otherwise, registered with them.

SchadenfreudePersonified · 12/07/2021 11:11

They obviously didn't get the response they expected.

Can they be legally compelled to publish?

SchadenfreudePersonified · 12/07/2021 11:13

@Anycrispsleft

Not that this would have helped in this case, because it was clear that this was going to be controversial, but it often pays not to mention the FoI rules when you make a request for information. The FoI rules still apply even if you don't mention them, but in some government departments (don't ask me how I know) any information request that quotes FoI will automatically be passed up the food chain to check if it's going to be controversial. The best chance of getting information is to get in contact with whoever is directly responsible for the data collection and have an innocuous reason for asking for it.
Interesting. Thank you.
Tibtom · 12/07/2021 11:15

@CharlieParley

Although public consultations are an exercise in democracy, just how many agree or disagree with the proposal consulted on is not the decisive factor.

You can have 9999 out of 10,000 responses saying yeah, brilliant, but if that one dissenting response points out a fatal flaw in the proposal, the consulting body should amend its proposal accordingly.

Consultations are not referenda, neither majority approval nor disapproval are what's important. The objections themselves are what matters.

And it's here where the Scottish Government has repeatedly failed to act in accordance with the consultation principles quoted above. So determined were they to implement their proposals on the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018, they refused not only to consider the majority view, but more importantly they also completely refused to take into account the legal objections made in a number of submissions. Which is why For Women Scotland was able to bring a Judicial Review against the Scottish Government in the first place.

Had these objections been listened to, and the law amended accordingly, that could have been avoided.

But its overarching desire is to implement self-id, everywhere, so none of the objections, legal or otherwise, registered with them.

Quite, they could have said women or transwomen on public boards but that would have been too obvious.
MiladyBerserko · 12/07/2021 11:31

There is an article in The Herald today entitled, 'SNP Government held hundreds of secret lobbying meetings in 2020'. Do share tokens exist for this publication, or can someone summarise it post archive please?

OP posts:
funeralq · 12/07/2021 11:33

theferret.scot/lobbying-loophole-scottish-government/

You can read it all on the ferret.

MiladyBerserko · 12/07/2021 11:33

mobile.twitter.com/ChrisMcEleny/status/1414497331127504900

OP posts:
MiladyBerserko · 12/07/2021 11:34

Many thanks funeralq

OP posts:
Matzeeo · 12/07/2021 12:14

Have they announced they're definitely going ahead with the GRA reform or given a timetable? I've lost track but wasn't the last official word that it was delayed, has something changed?

CharlieParley · 12/07/2021 13:53

@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 wish that we're facing this because it's what the SNP and only the SNP wants. Then we could simply vote for someone else, problem solved.

The Gender Recognition Act 2004 is a law written by the Labour Party.

GRA Reform efforts were instigated by the Conservative Party in 2016, who accepted wholesale only the arguments of the pro-self-id side made during its Transgender Equality Inquiry in 2015.

It took Theresa May to (inadvertently) save women's sex-based rights in 2017 when she dissolved parliament. Because in 2016, as a result of that Transgender Equality Inquiry, Maria Miller (CON) as sponsor and supported by Jess Phillips (LAB) brought a Private Members Bill named the

Gender Identity (Protected Characteristic) Bill

A Bill to make gender identity a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 in place of gender reassignment and to make associated provision for transgender and other persons; and for connected purposes.

Amongst other things, connected purposes included abolishing the sex-based exemptions for all purposes for all those who had a GRC under the GRA 2004, and there is now no way to discern whether this would have then also applied to all those who gained a GRC under the reformed GRA as proposed. (Various statements made at the time and since made by the Bill's supporters leads me to believe that they intended to disapply the sex-based exceptions from all those who self-identified as the opposite sex, which for all intents and purposes means abolishing them.)

The Bill passed its first stage reading in December 2016, but thanks to Ms May it fell when she dissolved parliament in April 2017.

Which gave those who even back then understood the implications of this reform just enough time to marshall women's rights campaigners and concerned women and men from all over the UK. So when the GRA reform plans were revisited under the new parliament in 2017, which occasioned a public consultation that closed in 2018, it resulted in a large number of feminist submissions opposing the plans. Since then, the movement to defend and uphold women's sex-based rights under the Equality Act 2010 has grown too large to be ignored. Even for the SNP, who had to hold another public consultation because it admitted that it had not properly carried out the first. (Obviously nothing has changed the SNP's aims regarding self-id, but this second consultation was most definitely not in its interest.)

And just in case you're in any doubt, the Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru, the Green Party all committed to introduce self-id at the same time as the SNP did.

As for the claim that SNP voters knew that they were voting to abolish women's rights if they voted SNP, that's laughable. A large proportion of the public continues to be unaware that these reform proposals exist and even if they know of their existence, few understand their implications for society in general and the rights of women in particular.

By all means despise independence supporters and their party of choice. It's a free country and you have every right to do so. But don't pretend that people voted SNP in the full knowledge of what their plans are for women's rights.

jellypopmummy · 12/07/2021 20:36

I've voted SNP in the past, didn't at the last election (May) and yes want independence (SNP are not about indy anymore), but Labour, LibDems, Plaid Cymru, the Green Party all committed to introduce self-id at the just like the SNP did. All fully paid up Stonewall members believing TWAW. Tories play the sides in my opinion and ebb and flow depending on public opinion, I am under no illusion BJ would chuck women under the bus for a flat makeover.

To echo CharlieParley, dislike independence supporters and their party of choice (even though more fool them as Nicola has no plans to bring independence) but to say all people voted SNP in the full knowledge of what their plans are about GRA/Women's rights is not on. My family and friends had NO IDEA about this, they followed the Denton's advice to the letter, do it in the shadows, keep it quiet and out of the headlines. Even now, I have friends who are like "Are they actually doing this?" and all you can say is that you tried to tell them. Like I said, Nicola knows the SNP in it's current state is done if we get independence, the political landscape will fundamentally change if Scotland ever voted to leave the UK, so push through as many horrible pieces of legislation before you are found out by the indy voters for not having a ref, or actually holding one and it all changing after it (win or lose).

Marion Miller's case, Jo Cherry's case and the outcry over the Olympics farce is bringing it to the public's attention. The blinkers are getting removed and that is why ScotGov want to push this as quickly as possible.

Lifeinthelastlane · 12/07/2021 20:39

The only party I could vote for that didn't support self id was the conservatives, and I couldn't go that far.
It's not only the SNP who don't know what a woman is.

Waitwhat23 · 12/07/2021 21:07

Have just written to all my MSP's. A useful website for doing this is www.writetothem.com in case anyone wants to do the same.

SchadenfreudePersonified · 13/07/2021 12:57

@Waitwhat23

Have just written to all my MSP's. A useful website for doing this is www.writetothem.com in case anyone wants to do the same.
Thank you Wait - much appreciated.
Ereshkigalangcleg · 13/07/2021 15:41

(My bold)

The Gender Recognition Act 2004 is a law written by the Labour Party.

GRA Reform efforts were instigated by the Conservative Party in 2016, who accepted wholesale only the arguments of the pro-self-id side made during its Transgender Equality Inquiry in 2015.

It took Theresa May to (inadvertently) save women's sex-based rights in 2017 when she dissolved parliament. Because in 2016, as a result of that Transgender Equality Inquiry, Maria Miller (CON) as sponsor and supported by Jess Phillips (LAB) brought a Private Members Bill named the Gender Identity (Protected Characteristic) Bill

A Bill to make gender identity a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 in place of gender reassignment and to make associated provision for transgender and other persons; and for connected purposes.

Amongst other things, connected purposes included abolishing the sex-based exemptions for all purposes for all those who had a GRC under the GRA 2004, and there is now no way to discern whether this would have then also applied to all those who gained a GRC under the reformed GRA as proposed. (Various statements made at the time and since made by the Bill's supporters leads me to believe that they intended to disapply the sex-based exceptions from all those who self-identified as the opposite sex, which for all intents and purposes means abolishing them.)

The Bill passed its first stage reading in December 2016, but thanks to Ms May it fell when she dissolved parliament in April 2017.

Which gave those who even back then understood the implications of this reform just enough time to marshall women's rights campaigners and concerned women and men from all over the UK. So when the GRA reform plans were revisited under the new parliament in 2017, which occasioned a public consultation that closed in 2018, it resulted in a large number of feminist submissions opposing the plans. Since then, the movement to defend and uphold women's sex-based rights under the Equality Act 2010 has grown too large to be ignored.

Important history lesson for all of us in Scotland and other U.K. nations, great post Charlie.

OllyBJolly · 14/07/2021 00:18

@Glinner

I'll send to both. Speaking of which, Wings told me that the order to ban both of us from Twitter came from the London offices. I really want more people to know that.
@Glinner - London offices of who? SNP MPs? Twitter HQ?
Swipe left for the next trending thread