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?

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.

The existence of a "women's and equalities" committee is very odd in itself. It suggests that equality of the sexes is sufficiently distinct from other kinds of equality (gay equality, racial equality etc) to merit its own category. And yet this committee has just written a report that actively undermines women's rights.

Can anyone tell me now they have recommended it what is the next step? Is writing to MPs worthwhile at this stage?

It already seems like we have self ID in practice anyway.

I really don’t know how they can resolve this mess without scrapping the whole GRA.

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.)

I think this could become particularly interesting were there to be a leadership contest Needsmoresleep it's something of a thought experiment as I'm sure the Tories will keep Boris going until they have found their next white male heir, but just imagine if there were to be contest. Women are adult human females would have significant pull within the Tory rank and file.

I wondered that tinsel.

And there seems little consideration that if a wife and kids are told one day that the husband is transitioning they potentially have a very short time from then to legally dissolving a marriage and a family. All because no such thing as family and obligation to care for others should impede a transition.

That was the tone of this conclusion in my eyes.

@Helleofabore

I wondered that tinsel.

And there seems little consideration that if a wife and kids are told one day that the husband is transitioning they potentially have a very short time from then to legally dissolving a marriage and a family. All because no such thing as family and obligation to care for others should impede a transition.

That was the tone of this conclusion in my eyes.

Yes. And the part about financial settlement seems tacked on as an after thought. I don't see how you can take the annulment itself out of the hands of a court, then have the financial settlement dealt with as an entirely separate process. It takes away bargaining power from both sides

@OldCrone

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?

Those are excellent points that I would like to see addressed.

I don’t see how a govt dept can interfere with divorce proceedings in anyway to facilitate giving a GRC.

I cannot see on what grounds this group deserve such special treatment above the needs of the families.

@Grumpyoldpersonwithcats

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)

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

That was my first thought as well. And I suspect the way that Gordian knot is cut will be to define "live in their required gender" as "whatever that person wants it to mean", and a great big fuck off to the rest of us who have thereby find our own existence and experience has been redefined without our consent to accommodate it.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the Government is free to ignore this report completely. TG we now have Liz Truss in charge, not Maria Miller.

I will be reminding the next dimwit who posts that 'the tide is turning' about this report, though. The tide is not fucking turning when 9 out of 11 of our elected representatives are happy to throw women under the bus.

@lostandfoundedges

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

You have to wonder why women with crippling back pain are so restricted in the help they can expect with breast reduction surgery when the NHS is giving physically healthy young women mastectomies on the NHS to address psychological issues. It seems particularly unjust.

From FairPlay

fairplayforwomen.com/women-and-equalities-select-committee-report-on-gender-recognition-reform/

Final thoughts from FairPlay

This inquiry has been little more than a platform for a small group of MPs to once again promote their view of “trans rights”. Women engaged with the inquiry in good faith with the hope that this would be a serious and fair assessment of the conflict of rights. Thousands of hours have been dedicated to providing evidence. Our concerns have not been listened to – but that’s no surprise – but what matters is that our collective concerns are now on the parliamentary record. We now have an incredible resource to pull on and next time someone says “But why on earth would we want to?” you’ll have the answers at your finger tips.

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

My concern is that what it will mean that any self declared transwoman who does not use the womens toilets, changing room, compete in womens sports etc is seen as not 'living in their acquired gender'. So basically these male people will have to use the female facilities or be seen as fraudulent

It's rather depressing that it's down to Liz Truss and Femi to hold the line, especially now she's taken on the Brexit brief on top of everything else. Let's hope if there is a leadership contest in the next few months she wins. They sound so out of touch it's amazing really.

Grumpyoldpersonwithcats - anyone who understands reality is welcome in this section, IMHO

The "genuine intent" phrase is meaningless - I might say I have a genuine intent to run a marathon next year, but that alone wouldn't be enough to get me onto an athletics team!

Kemi, not Femi!

''We have carefully considered the arguments for and against the spousal consent provision. The choice to transition by one spouse can, for some, fundamentally change the nature of the relationship and the marriage contract. The spousal consent provision should be removed in favour of a new approach, where a full GRC can be issued at the same time as an annulment, if necessary.''

They didnt publish my response but this was at the heart of it; except I aded that an annullment should be compulsory before issuing a GRC otherwise the non transitioning spouse is at risk of coercion.

A marriage contract is a legal contract. They were trying to change the fundamental meaning of a contract, to make it possiblte for one party to retroactively change the conditions of a contract without the agreement or permisson of the other party.

@Grumpyoldpersonwithcats

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)

I reread this multiple times earlier and thought the same thing, I'm baffled.

@Grumpyoldpersonwithcats

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)

No, you are not being thick Grumpy this is the whole problem with Gender Ideology it contradicts itself at every turn.

Why on earth laws are being made and re-written on this contradictory, indefinable nonsense is alarming.

Yes, it's totally contradictory.

"We can't ask people to 'live as their acquired gender' because there's no definition and it relies on regressive stereotypes. But we must ask them to declare that they will 'live as their acquired gender' before being granted a GRC and this is an essential safeguard (even though there's no definition of what this means apart from relying on regressive stereotypes)."

"Gender dysphoria is not an illness so it's unreasonable to expect anyone to get a medical diagnosis before obtaining a GRC. But trans people need specialist medical treatment and we must set up expensive clinics for them to have specialist treatment for their condition which is not an illness."

"Middle aged men who decide they are women should simply be able to sign a form to be recognised as women for all purposes. They don't need to undergo any physical transition. Children and adolescents who are confused about their 'gender' because they are gay or lesbian/ because they are finding puberty difficult/ because they don't conform to gender stereotypes need to be put on untested experimental medication immediately as the first step in an irreversible medical process (or they will kill themselves)."

@Grumpyoldpersonwithcats, you are more than welcome here. Your clear sight and excellent points make you a good poster.

@Grumpyoldpersonwithcats

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)

Yes you are correct - or I am being thick also. And I don't see why a man can't post here. You are the not the first by any means.

@RoyalCorgi

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.

The existence of a "women's and equalities" committee is very odd in itself. It suggests that equality of the sexes is sufficiently distinct from other kinds of equality (gay equality, racial equality etc) to merit its own category. And yet this committee has just written a report that actively undermines women's rights.

I agree that the title leaves a lot to be desired, but mainly because I hate the word 'equalities' which is now displacing 'equality' when journalists and others write about the subject and erroneously start renaming the Equality Act or the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

It's for historical reasons though, rather than because there is any distinction being made between one equality and another. Originally in government, there was women's equality, including minister, office or unit and so on and it has since been widened to include other categories, hence the women and equalities tag on this committee and on the government equalities office, the women and equalities minister etc.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10331801/MPs-say-trans-people-able-self-declare-legal-gender.html

As Fair Play for Women point out the evidence given by feminists is on record.....

and the Mail is quoting them.

Why did our MPs not listen to the evidence that was put before them?