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?

This is relevant:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4432087-Self-ID-chat-BBC-radio-4-at-7-48am

Caroline Noakes on the Today programme on Radio 4 this morning making it clear that she's going to push for a mere declaration form of self-ID.

Caroline Nokes

She's going to be quite important in this, can we start getting her name right.

There seems to be no consistency in whether they consider transgenderism to be a health issue. On the one hand they quote Theresa May saying that she wanted to “see a process that is more streamlined and de-medicalised - because being trans should never be treated as an illness”. But then a large part of the report is concerned with the need for specialist transgender healthcare and gender identity clinics.

If it's not an illness, why the need for all the specialist medical care?

And isn't there a contradiction in demanding all this healthcare whilst at the same time demanding that the legal requirements are de-medicalised?

I’m concerned that much of the ‘healthcare’ that’s being lobbied for will turn out to be tax payer funded cosmetic surgery.

Yet the very recent Supreme Court judgement on the request for a 'non-gender' passport marker [result: request denied] clarified that in law in this country, a woman is an adult human female and that sex matters and is biological and immutable. It's in the sodding judement. From the Supreme Court.

Is Nokes trying to pretend the law isn't what it is, before she's even set out to try and change the law?

@2Rebecca

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wanting a GRC don't have gender dysphoria and feel that living as the opposite sex is difficult because it is based on outdated stereotypes then what is the point of it?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.

Quite.

Its not an illness but needs medical treatment. Its not about stereotypes, but you have to 'live' as the opposite sex.

Is there anyone, anyone at all on that committee, who is wondering how cross dressers, transvestites and autogynephiles fit in to all that?

They are treating the T as though it's LGB, despite zero criteria and no common ground. And then they wonder why they can't answer any questions and everyone must shut up.

Idiocy.

And yes, they are woefully out of step with public opinion.

@lostandfoundedges

I’m concerned that much of the ‘healthcare’ that’s being lobbied for will turn out to be tax payer funded cosmetic surgery.

Absolutely, and those are extremely damaging procedures being performed on mentally vulnerable people. It's a medical scandal.

Luckily for us the W&E select committee is pretty irrelevant, and can be ignored. It's actually quite funny how miffed they are that Liz Truss, GEO and EHRC ignored their stupid and irrelevant inquiry! Yes, the Government is required to produce a formal response, but they can just say 'thanks, but no thanks'. Reading it, they come across as absurdly out of date, like they think we are still stuck in 2016 or something. They actually have the balls to recommend that trans lobby groups help write the GEO and EHRC guidance, and that trans lobbyists should also help write guidance for women's sports! What planet are these MPs on? No, no, no. Stonewall don't run the Government anymore. You have to listen to women.

Eleven on the Committee. Only two vote against, and one seems to be a declared Male Rights Activist.

Thank you, Jackie D-P.

(DH came across her when she was a Civil Servant, and confirms she is a sensible and competent woman with, unlike many politicians, proper experience in the real world.)

This means that 4 Tories, 4 Labour and 1 Scot Nat don't understand the need to protect women's rights.

committees.parliament.uk/committee/328/women-and-equalities-committee/membership/

Which suggests Liz Truss and Kemi Badenoch are courageous, even within their own party. (Indeed if the Mail is to be believed, and they can be good on Conservative politics, they are in direct conflict with influential figures in No 10.)

@Sunkisses

Luckily for us the W&E select committee is pretty irrelevant, and can be ignored. It's actually quite funny how miffed they are that Liz Truss, GEO and EHRC ignored their stupid and irrelevant inquiry! Yes, the Government is required to produce a formal response, but they can just say 'thanks, but no thanks'. Reading it, they come across as absurdly out of date, like they think we are still stuck in 2016 or something. They actually have the balls to recommend that trans lobby groups help write the GEO and EHRC guidance, and that trans lobbyists should also help write guidance for women's sports! What planet are these MPs on? No, no, no. Stonewall don't run the Government anymore. You have to listen to women.

The last time they wrote a report didn't they use the contributions of Jess Bradley (exposing their penis at work), Jane fae (advocate for extreme porn and lowering the ages of the participants) and Action For Trans Health (release all trans prisoners, let us operate on each other and allow us to buy hormones over the counter)?

What planet are these MPs on? No, no, no. Stonewall don't run the Government anymore. You have to listen to women.

👏

The last time they wrote a report didn't they use the contributions of Jess Bradley (exposing their penis at work), Jane fae (advocate for extreme porn and lowering the ages of the participants) and Action For Trans Health (release all trans prisoners, let us operate on each other and allow us to buy hormones over the counter)?

Indeed they did, Datun. And look! They've learnt absolutely nothing. There are 11 MPs on the committee, and it seems that nine of them have not paid any attention to the debate that has raged over the past four years. None of them has any grasp of the issues, nor even, apparently, any understanding that the tide is turning against self-ID. It's extraordinary. I absolutely despair that our elected representatives are so intellectually feeble, lacking even the level of curiosity required to inform themselves about the subject they are publishing a report on.

Have I just woken up in 2018, found Bobby Ewing in the shower, and the last 3 years of public debate and pushback on GRA reform never happened?

Oh yes they did @Datun! I'd forgotten that they'd demonstrated how much they were happy to take on board the opinions of completely discredited people. That's cheered me.

I absolutely despair that our elected representatives are so intellectually feeble, lacking even the level of curiosity required to inform themselves about the subject they are publishing a report on.

For crying out loud. Can't they just open a bloody newspaper.

Or if that's too olde worlde listen to a bloody podcast. There are enough of them about. Try Stephen Nolan's.

@Clymene

Oh yes they did *@Datun*! I'd forgotten that they'd demonstrated how much they were happy to take on board the opinions of completely discredited people. That's cheered me.

And claimed that the only people objecting to those sorts of contributions were women 'purporting to be feminists'.

Because, you know, women who don't want to take advice on sex segregation from an advocate for extreme porn must be something of a rarity?

I would hope the general R4 listener will have picked up on the not medical one minute and the discussion on prioritizing medical needs the next.

Toothless interview from MK.

Yeah it’s like they never read a paper or listened to radio

They are the dinosaurs.

@OutOfBounds

I would hope the general R4 listener will have picked up on the not medical one minute and the discussion on prioritizing medical needs the next.

Toothless interview from MK.

Yeah how does that work. It’s not medical but medical treatment is needed

😳

I have been googling the Tory MPs who supported the report. Two are young and seem young, and relatively inexperienced, ie politics at University, Councillor, then MP at the age of 27.

I am however impressed by Theo Clarke MP, descended from Baronets and Roosevelts, and liked this quote:

"Her mother is the magnificently named Teresa Loraine Aphrodite de Chair. One of the Somerset Chairs .... not the IKEA ones."

Another is married to a Baron. In fairness, though, the Chair is recognised as being to the left of the party and, despite being blind on this issue, is respected. Committees should have a range of views, ideally reflecting the electorate as a whole. This lot don't, perhaps reflecting instead the extent to which all parties have been captured.

It's shocking really. A Women's Committee should be setting out to protect vulnerable women and girls. Do they not care about women in prison, or in shelters, or adolescent girls, confused about puberty and growing up in a TicTok world.

It will never cease to amaze me.

If they are listening to men who spout dubious statistics, and paint men identifying as women as a terribly oppressed minority, that's one thing. But for the love of God, they cannot possibly have missed women like J. K. Rowling saying she has received enough threats to wallpaper her house.

It's in every paper in the land. The doxxing, the rape threats, the bomb threats.

Who do they think they're from????

I think this successfully demonstrates that women and TQ cannot be held in one and the same brief. This is being proven more and more.

Two separate briefs. Two separate lots of provision. One cannot subsume the other. Again, 51% of the population's interests and less than 1% of the population's interests to be considered here.

To add too: as with refuges/rape crisis centres etc which also have proved that it is impossible to hold women's services and TQ services in the same brief without female interests disappearing without trace and becoming de facto an entirely TQ politicised service that is actively anti-female interests......

Whoever holds the women's brief (or rape crisis centre or refuge etc) must be recruited on the grounds of being passionate about female interests, and not politically passionate about capturing a female resource and turning it against female interests and preventing it from meeting female needs due to a personal and male-centric agenda.

Again: it's not female people who have made this 'they're all women together' attempt fail. It's not female people who refused to be sufficiently tolerant and inclusive enough to allow a service to have strands that met all needs. Mixed sex services do not work for women because male people will always dominate time, resources, attention, agenda; just as has happened here.

And there has to be a limit as to how far paid civil servants go in abandoning 51% of taxpaying voters in order to avoid making male born people feel 'unsafe' by having to live in a world where female people have services too.

I feel that some progress has been made in this report with regards to trans widows being seen as stakeholders in the Spousal Exit Clause but I can't grasp how their suggested alternative would work in practice.

"117. We recommend the requirement for spousal consent should be removed. When an application is made, the non-transitioning spouse should be notified by the body processing the application (currently the Gender Recognition Panel) that their transitioning spouse has applied for a Certificate. The non-transitioning spouse should be given the option to either remain married/in a civil partnership or have the marriage/ civil partnership annulled. If the spouse opts for an annulment, or does not respond, the body granting the certificate should issue an annulment at the same time as a full Gender Recognition Certificate, subject to appropriate safeguards. The transitioning spouse should also have the option to annul the marriage or partnership but not before the granting body is satisfied that the non-transitioning spouse is aware of the process. The body issuing the certificate will need to be given the power to issue annulments. Any connected matters, such as applications by either spouse for a financial order, should be dealt with by the family courts"

Quoting from the BBC website this morning
The cross-party committee of MPs said the two-year requirement should be immediately removed, arguing there were "significant problems" with the rule and there was "no clear, accepted or agreed definition of what living like a man or a woman is"

It added that a requirement for applicants to make a legal declaration that they will live in their acquired gender should remain, calling it an "essential safeguard" to ensure they are doing so with "genuine intent".

Am I being really thick, or are these two statements contradictory?

If nobody can define what living like a man or woman means, how can you require someone to live in their required gender?

(For full disclosure I am male, hope nobody minds me posting this in this section)