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?

Well said, @Helleofabore. As an HCP, I, of course, disagree with Keira's position on vaccines. But she - of all people - has good reason to be sceptical about any new medical treatment. Doctors have damaged her terribly, physically and psychologically (though I am in awe of her strength). She has every justification for her wariness.

From The Times. A temporary relaxation due to the pressures of the pandemic:-

“In March Ms Truss temporarily relaxed the legislation that forces businesses to report the gender difference in salaries between their employees, and allows the Equality and Human Rights Commission to investigate and impose fines on companies that do not record statistics on the pay gap.

Ms Truss said that the pressures of the pandemic meant that employers faced unprecedented uncertainty.”

Hello, that was the point I was trying to make. We all have different experiences and backgrounds, and can make our own minds up. Keira’s views, albeit different, are as valid as mine.

My problem is when people parade out a standard line without thinking it through. GC feminists bad, Brexit bad, antivaxers bad and so on. Because ‘everyone’ says so. With arguments limited to insults and gotchas.

Then seem surprised when democratic mechanisms yield a Brexit vote or the abandonment of attempts to reform the GRA.

Where

I meant Helleo!

Yes needmoresleep. I was building on your posts good foundations.

I did want to point out though that from the little I read, it doesn’t seem that Keira is ‘anti-vax’ in general. But is suspicious of the covid vaccines.

This is possible.

I, personally, am confident that they are not completely ‘new’ and most importantly, at a stage in my life where I am not as concerned by possible long term effects.

But in her situation, I can see why that confidence would be shaken. There are parallels but only if you look at the vaccine as an individual vaccine and not the history of vaccines, including finding similar vaccines and their history.

Whereas PBs, affirming only, treatments ARE still completely experimental for this purpose. Particularly, for the current cohort of young females who ‘sometimes’ get forgotten about by activists. Particularly male activists intent on securing a treatment that has much less negative impact on male bodies. (Something that doesn’t get said enough).

I just wanted to clarify.

And again needmore

This post above is also not directed at you (except the first sentence).

I am lazy and should have done two posts. Apologies.

No problem.

I was having a general rant about many people’s unwillingness to engage brains, something that is normally set off by the affluent metropolitans virtual signalling on my Fb feed.

This Committee is a magnificent example. All the evidence. Scope to question people of different views, but troubled by seemingly closed minds.

Then the gotcha from a poster. Keira cannot be ‘right think’ on one issue because she is ‘wrong think’ on another.

Time to remember it is the season of goodwill!

Some great posts on this thread. It is one of the unintended consequences of those dropping in to lecture and scold women using intellectually inadequate thinking and knowledge. It enables the wise, intelligent and well researched women on here to demonstrate the inadequacy of sneering personal attacks in the face of logical, evidenced and compassionate discussion.
Brava everyone!

I am genuinely not sure why some posters feel that their fully entrenched belief entitles them to righteousness. And they quickly descend into sneering or start off that way.

The reality is, rather than this board being an ‘echo chamber’ it is actually full of people with many differing opinions roughly moving in one direction - to maintain the established rights put into place to protect females and children. And also specifically to protect females from sexist discrimination to which they have been subjected to for millennia because of their sexed body.

We are a group from many different fields providing answers from different aspects of the issue. Many of us have some sort of relevant qualifications, many of us have trans people in our lives in some way, many of us care deeply about women’s rights to protect the future for our children.

It is why I laugh at the ‘mantras’ and the trope that gets posted here. Fuck no, I don’t believe in mantras. Mantra chanting is for people who have decided to abandon critical thought.

So, bring on the tired old trope. It is boring (and pathetic… wasn’t that something barley said while trying to push the ‘scale’ argument we see so commonly) but every single time it is refuted, some else is reading quietly along. And they then Google, they then follow any links, they then apply the thoughts posted in reply to make up their own mind.

The only ‘echo chamber’ is the ones those taking the sneery approach seem to have come from.

So, crack on posting sneery takes from arrogantly ego- driven positions. The tactic is blatantly common but use it to our advantage, we will.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

Trans women represent somewhere between 0.1 and 0.3% of women

They represent zero per cent of women.

Precisely.

@Datun

look at Kiera Bell, now an out and out anti-vaxxer - threatening to attack Gillick competence in the courts backed by evangelical lawyers and supported by Pose Parker.

Yeah, blokes still can't come into the ladies.

Soz.

Am I alone in not giving a toss what Keira Bell thinks about vaccines?

The lurker thread has been immensely cheering and it's telling how many of the lurkers mentioned the posters who come on to scold women and whose poor arguments just make even clearer the difference in the quality of debate. Such posters are certainly changing people's minds, just not in the way they intended.

I love the way some posters come on here thinking they can patronize the little ladies and show them with their superior male(?) reasoning just how wrong they are, only to surface a day later, so called ‘superior’ arguments in tatters, dignity shredded, complaining just HOW NASTY those GC feminists are!

Alfonso

Well exactly. There seems to be a stream of thinking of those on ‘the other side’ that we must agree with everything someone says, or nothing. This is unsophisticated thinking to say the least and must make life difficult in a complex world.

I think it is legitimate to look at who else thinks the same as you about one topic, see what else they think and if you disagree on everything else, in an analysis-and-values sense, challenge yourself as to why this topic seems to be different.

I do it all the time. Not just about this topic, about everything. Not "why am I right?" but "How could I be wrong? What do the people who have come to a different conclusion know or believe that I don't?"

That's how I know, cunt to cranium, that my rejection of an ideology that seeks to redefine my existence based on male preferences is not because I am deceived by or secretly aligned to the right wing, but because the idea that sex isn't relevant to female people's lives is utter utter bollocks regardless of where you sit politically.

I've got no illusions that the non-feminist objectors to genderism share my female-centered feminist values. I know that while the socially conservative right and I may both agree that genderism is wrong, we would not agree at all on what "right" looks like.

Something the genderists should therefore reflect on is that when two groups of people who agree on almost nothing else both agree you are wrong, is it more likely that one group has suddenly decided on a whim to reject everything they previously stood for and align with the other, or that you are, in fact, just wrong?

When the Pope says the earth isn't flat, and Jeremy Corbyn says the earth isn't flat, that doesn't make the earth flat, like they cancel each other out. The earth's still spherical.

Caroline Nokes now in the Guardian claiming she’s being abused: www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/dec/23/why-am-i-being-abused-for-trying-to-improve-gender-recognition-process?CMP=fb_cif&fbclid=IwAR1c7HNswGY0bo5Ie6iHvymr2iI8bGdHELGxO4vzrG5DWIqSAcWavydsvJg
She seems very confused on some of the issues.

How exactly is she being 'abused'?

Does she mean 'disagreed with' and 'major faults in my reasoning being pointed out'? Has she tried PC Gul?

Oh, boo hoo, Ms Noakes.

I’m never sure if Ms Nokes is disingenuous or just thick.

@AlwaysTawnyOwl

I’m never sure if Ms Nokes is disingenuous or just thick.

Both.

I'd like to barn the word "bile".

Both.

Yes, it doesn't take a galaxy brain to be sly, provocative and manipulative. Which is lucky for Caroline Nokes.

They also have to live in their acquired gender for two years (something they need spousal consent for), a pretty arbitrary period of time, and again, upholding stereotypical views of what it is to live as a woman or a man.

Be fair, she got the last part completely right

acquired gender is as nonsensical as assigned at birth it's risible, how do you acquire a gender, where do you acquire one from, are they free, are discounts available if you want more than one so you can swop them around at will?

This is the stuff our esteemed Law Makers are writing and believing, ffs.