Womens and Equalities report on GRA to be published tomorrow 21 Dec

[Imnobody4]

twitter.com/Commonswomequ/status/1472915228392398855?t=fm9kVI9s31fOBPCnBSNYqg&s=19

Our report into the Reform of the Gender Recognition Act is being published tomorrow. Take a look at the work we have done relating to this inquiry over the past year: t.co/uOlY23nhuN t.co/l123I2UQyQ

Still haven't published my evidence. Is this usual? Sneaking it out befote Xmas - suspicious or what?

It’ll be interesting to se the tone of this report. It might gives us an idea of what, if anything, has changed in Parliament.

There's no mention of this on the committee's web page. I wonder why they bother having a heading for News and if it has occurred to them that not everyone is on twitter.

I have absolutely zero expectation of the WEC sensing the turning tide of public awareness, and therefore support, of men being granted access to all spaces, services and sports for women.

I reckon they'll be burying their weak male-pandering in a week of numerous significant wins for women, by sneaking it out this close to Christmas.

It will certainly be interesting to see. And then to see whether it will need to be addressed that their treatment of the witnesses showed less than impartiality or fairness in gathering evidence, and whether this committee is serving its purpose of serving both women and other protected characteristics in the same brief. I'm sure Baroness Nicholson and others will be ready to look very closely.

I gear this one won't be good news. It'll be interesting.

*fear not gear!

Seems to be reported in the Mail - same old self-id

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10330585/MPs-blast-delay-new-laws-gender-change-brand-decision-scrap-reforms-unfair.html

Not holding my breath after the tone of some of the questioning.

It's out publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5802/cmselect/cmwomeq/977/report.html

They really need to rename the group. They're not terribly interested in women.

@Clymene

They really need to rename the group. They're not terribly interested in women.

Or indeed equality….

This was sadly, predictable, though depressing to see it after another victory for common sense from the justice system yesterday.

No, the committee is not interested in women and they seem utterly unaware of what the “debate” is about or about the implications of what they’re recommending for women.

This is behind a paywall:
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/21/trans-people-should-able-self-declare-legal-gender-mps-recommend/

But it contains this gem, which you won’t find in e.g. the Guardian’s coverage:

People should still be required to make a formal statutory declaration - a safeguard which ensures “genuine intent” - and “robust guidance” is needed on how this would work in practice, the MPs said

They added it should be possible “to bring prosecutions for fraudulent declarations if it becomes apparent that the person had no real intention of living in the acquired gender”

How’s that going to work then?

More to the point: what on earth does “living in the acquired gender” have to do with using the women’s single-sex toilets?

I thought it was already possible to prosecute someone for making a false declaration. But this has not been enacted AFAIK. Freddie McConnell's would be the first to go.

Does that mean Pips Bunce can be prosecuted for only being in 'girl mode' a couple of days a week?

@Rightsraptor

I thought it was already possible to prosecute someone for making a false declaration. But this has not been enacted AFAIK. Freddie McConnell's would be the first to go.

Yes, the current GRA technically allows false declarations to be prosecuted I think, but this has never happened. Freddie McConnell is the perfect example of someone taking the piss.

Well done Jackie Doyle Price and Philip Davies for trying to get sensible amendments in. The conclusions of the panel make no sense.
If the people wanting a GRC don't have gender dysphoria and feel that living as the opposite sex is difficult because it is based on outdated stereotypes then what is the point of it? It doesn't clarify why this is a sensible thing for anyone to do.

Does anyone know what (if any) practical results this will have? Does it mean the government now have to reconsider? Or can Liz Truss dismiss their “findings” and carry on as before?

There are some more positive recommendations:

The GEO should work to update the language in both acts in relation to sex and gender, ensuring consistency in the definitions used. It should be clear when an Act is referring to natal sex, legal sex and gender. The Government should also aim to update all official documents that conflate the terms sex and gender.

But then, the committee define sex as 'assigned at birth'.

“ We also strongly recommend that the Government Equalities Office and Equality and Human Rights Commission urgently develop and publish guidance, in collaboration with trans rights groups, on best practice to provide trans and non-binary inclusive and specific services, including specifically relating to domestic violence and sexual abuse.”

I had to raise an eyebrow at this because it shows the committee fail to understand gender ideology. If they ask trans rights organisations what they want, they will only demand inclusion at all costs. And the costs seem to be women and children.
Surely, it’s the job of people like MPs not to give one side in a contested debate everything they want, but to look at the issues and pull together a consensus that acknowledges all sides?
How utterly pathetic of the WESC.

Caroline noakes doing her level best to make sure they don’t come for her then

Pathetic

What was the point of that excerise except to remonstrate Liz Truss, and steady as they go for most of the rest? Including suggesting getting clarity from organisations already in the process of conducting reviews to that end. That the committee didn’t influence to get underway unless I missed those interactions.

Some clarity on spouses? That still seemed a process heavily weighted towards the transitioner. Women’s sports? The wording ‘integrity’ of women’s sports is as suspect as ever. Women’s sports - meaning what? Women in Stonewall’s definition or female?

For the most, it seemed a self important committee where some members took it as an opportunity to show their displeasure towards the women presenting information and opinions they didn’t like.

How can Caroline Nokes seriously believe that this pile of bilge is good for women and good for equality? It's risible.

What is the point of it all? What is the point of the GRA? Bloody ridiculous. This committee is so out of step with public opinion on this.

I look forward to seeing how the committee's captured civil servant advisers interpreted the evidence for them.

The comments on GPs having mandatory training in "right think" are patronising too. If trans people are not getting the sex based screening they need then that shows a need for NHS records to have an unchangeable sex marker for medical purposes as well as a gender identity marker.
The report didnt clarify why large numbers of people trying to live as the opposite gender was desirable or sensible

I am finding it really hard to not switch off Caroline Nokes. Talk about missing the point.

What is a woman?

If a person has to make a formal declaration to live as their acquired gender then presumably there will be guidance as to what that looks like?