Scottish GRA consultation 2 : Analysis published (finally!)

[ItsAllGoingToBeFine]

www.gov.scot/publications/gender-recognition-reform-scotland-bill-analysis-responses-public-consultation-exercise/

However, many of those broadly supporting a statutory declaration-based system rejected the idea that the move would be harmful to women, with some of those making this point noting that they were women and feminists

I've very quickly scanned, but the only place I could see a mention of statistics in terms of for and against was in the section about reducing the age to get a GRC to 16 where they highlighted up front that a majority had been for the change.

That suggests to me, unless I've missed a breakdown of responses somewhere, that they may well be trying to hide that the majority were opposed to the other proposals.

@ItsAllGoingToBeFine

However, many of those broadly supporting a statutory declaration-based system rejected the idea that the move would be harmful to women, with some of those making this point noting that they were women and feminists

What the actual fuck?

Depends how you define ‘women’ I suppose….

@ditalini

I've very quickly scanned, but the only place I could see a mention of statistics in terms of for and against was in the section about reducing the age to get a GRC to 16 where they highlighted up front that a majority had been for the change.

That suggests to me, unless I've missed a breakdown of responses somewhere, that they may well be trying to hide that the majority were opposed to the other proposals.

An analysis of comments made suggests that a small majority of organisations broadly supported changing to a statutory declaration-based system. Around 4 in 10 organisations did not support changing to a statutory declaration-based system and around 1 in 10 either did not take a view or their view was not clear.

So 5/10 orgs in favour, 4/10 against, 1/10 neutral. They have apparently not applied the same analysis to the responses of individuals ?though there was over 16,000 of them!)

Is it foi-able

Respondents often raised questions as to what is meant by 'gender', by 'acquired gender' and, in particular, to 'living in an acquired gender'. Both those broadly in support of and those broadly opposed to a statutory declaration-based system raised these issues.

It was seen as implying a common and clear understanding of what it means to be a man or a woman, including that living as a man or women comes with an agreed and commonly understood set of lifestyle choices and behaviours. This was seen as an outmoded outlook which re-enforces the unhelpful and harmful gender stereotypes which many people now reject.

So om what basis would an individual identity as the opposite sex?

@SuperLoudPoppingAction

Is it foi-able

I'd guess the work hasn't actually been done (and it was a consultation, not a referendum).

The analysis seems to have been a skim read of responses and picking out main themes, there are very few statistics (no x% of respondents were concerned about y).

They do seem to have processed the data for individuals because it allowed them to produce a table for the question on age and state:

"Overall, a majority of respondents who answered the question - 56% - thought that the age at which a person can apply for legal gender recognition should be reduced from 18 to 16, while 42% thought it should not, and 2% did not know. Among organisations who answered the question, 54% agreed, 42% disagreed and 5% did not know."

But I can't see a similar table for the other questions? Maybe I'm missing them.

“All the organisations dependent on ScotGov for funding agreed with ScotGov’s proposals”

@ditalini

They do seem to have processed the data for individuals because it allowed them to produce a table for the question on age and state:

"Overall, a majority of respondents who answered the question - 56% - thought that the age at which a person can apply for legal gender recognition should be reduced from 18 to 16, while 42% thought it should not, and 2% did not know. Among organisations who answered the question, 54% agreed, 42% disagreed and 5% did not know."

But I can't see a similar table for the other questions? Maybe I'm missing them.

I had a quick look back at the actual consultation questions, and that was the only question that was "do you agree with x? Y or N".

The other questions were just asking for comments on statements. I'd guess that is why, that question was very simple to pull out the statistics on.

Seems to be a fairly basic analysis TBH.

Yes, maybe I'm being too cynical. It just seemed odd that the only two places that they made a statement on whether the feedback was positive or negative was where it was positive. (the feedback from the orgs overall and the feedback from all respondents on age limit).

Maybe it was as you say just doing what was easiest with the data, although when they've already divided it into "broadly positive" and "broadly negative" I'm surprised they didn't give any indication of the number of responses that fell into each camp.

I agree. It seems like a very hastily thrown together "analysis" and they could have (and should have!) done some analysis of responses other than many people said this, and other people said that. You would think it would be fairly vital - surely if (as an extreme example) 95% of people in support are male then that is important in itself.

Would also have like to seem some fact checking of claims.made, but that could be out of scope I guess.

@ditalini

They do seem to have processed the data for individuals because it allowed them to produce a table for the question on age and state:

"Overall, a majority of respondents who answered the question - 56% - thought that the age at which a person can apply for legal gender recognition should be reduced from 18 to 16, while 42% thought it should not, and 2% did not know. Among organisations who answered the question, 54% agreed, 42% disagreed and 5% did not know."

But I can't see a similar table for the other questions? Maybe I'm missing them.

Yes, seemed odd to only give nubers for that one specific question.

The whole things stinks of manipulation, to be perfectly honest.

That's not good news for the Scottish Government. Last time opposition was around a third, now opposition is close to half.

@ditalini

They do seem to have processed the data for individuals because it allowed them to produce a table for the question on age and state:

"Overall, a majority of respondents who answered the question - 56% - thought that the age at which a person can apply for legal gender recognition should be reduced from 18 to 16, while 42% thought it should not, and 2% did not know. Among organisations who answered the question, 54% agreed, 42% disagreed and 5% did not know."

But I can't see a similar table for the other questions? Maybe I'm missing them.

Was this a question you would only answer if you agreed with people having a GRC at all?

They are pushing it through despite knowing that the public do not want it.

Who is benefiting here?

My assumption is that someone who has something that Nicola Sturgeon needs is trans and insisting that this bad legislation goes through.

From the Executive Summary:

Those broadly opposed to a statutory declaration-based system

These respondents generally thought a convincing case for change has not been made, and that the current system is broadly fit for purpose. This was often connected to a view that the draft Bill should simply be scrapped and to specific concerns about the removal of the need for a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria before receiving a GRC. These respondents were often very concerned about the potential impact of the proposed changes on society in general, but on the safety and wellbeing of women and girls in particular. They generally disagreed with reducing the age at which a person can apply for legal gender recognition to 16.

This was the perspective of many individual respondents and the considerable majority of the Women's Groups and Religious or Belief Bodies that responded.

From looking at some of the statements from SNP MSPs including the Equality convenor, I think the issue is at least partly that they have decided that any women who have concerns or questions are 'anti trans', have labelled them 'bigots' and will not countenance listening to anything these women say. Not a word. Doesn't matter what anyone says, how politely or how reasoned, evidenced and referenced the argument.

This is backed up by my emails on the subject being responded to with either thinly veiled contempt or ignored altogether. (As a constituent, and of course I am always completely polite.)

This maybe worked while it was only a tiny proportion of the populace who were aware of the issues. But that proportion is growing, and it becomes quite difficult, at some point, to write off half the populace as 'fascists', or 'bigots', or 'uneducated'.

Agree, Arabella.

I have had that response from MSPs and also from people whom I regarded as friends.

My opinion that sex is real, an influence on my life and body and mind, and immutable makes me stupid, bigoted, old fashioned and not worth listening to.

Women have always been dismissed. We don't go away, though, do we?