Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

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

250 replies

Imnobody4 · 20/12/2021 18:51

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?

OP posts:
nauticant · 21/12/2021 14:23

Would it have been possible for the Daily Mail to have found a picture of Dr Nicola Williams looking even more sceptical?

Wheresthebeach · 21/12/2021 14:26

Hopefully Nic Williams will get more press coverage now. This is so worrying.

Wheresthebeach · 21/12/2021 14:29

@Cuck00soup

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 hope that's the case. Labour and Lib Dems fully wedded to self id. I wrote to Fleur Anderson and got a 'Labour is on the right side of history' response. I will keep writing tho as the more letters the better.

Fair Play For Women have lots of templates to use so worth a look.

BaronessWrongCrowdRex · 21/12/2021 14:36

@Needmoresleep

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?

Because they didn’t want to. From the way, those on the GC side, we’re treated as they gave evidence, it was obvious that the majority on the committee was biased and would listen to what women actually had to say.

Personally I think none of those on the Women and Equalities committee (with a few exceptions) are fit for the role if they are so blinkered and should resign.

BaronessWrongCrowdRex · 21/12/2021 14:37

*Wouldn’t listen.

Sorry typo.

Abitofalark · 21/12/2021 14:39

@nauticant

Would it have been possible for the Daily Mail to have found a picture of Dr Nicola Williams looking even more sceptical?
They are very good at doing that with photographs. You should have seen the one they posted recently of Dominic Cummings looking demonic and demented.
RoseWindow · 21/12/2021 14:40

Are they captured and scared, dim, or horsetrading in exchange for others MPs' support on their own issues? All of the above?
How can they read all the evidence that we know they've been sent ... and conclude this?
The whole GRA is a mess. It based on sexist stereotyped fantasy. Doesn't consider the needs of pregnant women with GRCs or of detransitioned people. Doesn't consider non binary people because that hadn't been invented then. Doesn't consider people with fluctuations in their gender identity. It doesn't work for anyone really except for the late in life male transitioners that it was built for.
You can't ever get rid of a GRC when you get one. It's for life. There literally isn't a process to reverse it. GRA needs to be scrapped- we have the Equality Act now which is sufficient.

And what do these MPs call for? They want getting a £5 GRC to be made speedier. Hmm
Why? Why do they want the numbers to be bumped up much quicker and irreversibly. Who'd advocate for that and who benefits from that situation..?

Blibbyblobby · 21/12/2021 15:00

Are they captured and scared, dim, or horsetrading in exchange for others MPs' support on their own issues? All of the above?

I think it's a combination of

  1. an understandable desire not to repeat the injustices done to gay people has lead them to fast track all TRA demands rather than think critically "Does this make sense? Does it conflict with other groups' needs or rights? If implemented exactly as demanded would it conflict with or undermine existing laws? Is this change significant enough to justify taking a holistic approach rather than piecemeal changes?"

  2. the desire, born of feminism, not to reduce women to their biology has become corrupted into a belief that biology is irrelevant to whether one is a woman

  3. The Hayley Cropper factor...assumption that all trans women are gentle, shy people who have had desperately invasive surgery.

Datun · 21/12/2021 15:20

@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)

It's contradictory gobbledygook. It always is.

The reason why they cannot define what happens when a man identifies as a woman is because being a woman is not a feeling.

They know full well it's not wearing dresses, but in the same breath they think a man who really, really wants to wear dresses should be able to have a certificate authenticating it.

They know it's crap. They just can't let go of the feeling that they're not allowed to know that.

highame · 21/12/2021 15:25

I do hope Janice Turner is looking at this

Datun · 21/12/2021 15:37

@highame

I do hope Janice Turner is looking at this
Same. I hope she holds up their ridiculous contradictions and embarrasses the fuck out of them.
VestofAbsurdity · 21/12/2021 15:52

It was no surprise that this report concluded as it did, the difference in attitude from the committee to the women who spoke and provided evidence and those who were trans or spoke for trans was so blatant it could have been seen from the moon.

They were aggressive and dismissive of the women representatives contrasted starkly with the vomit inducing full on sycophantic fawning over the trans representatives. Their agenda was clear from the outset.

rogdmum · 21/12/2021 16:10

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."

It’s the whole belief of someone having been born in the wrong body isn’t it? Except while they know better than to actually use those words it’s what fundamentally underlies it.. It’s not an illness, it’s an unfortunate mistake that can be fixed by CSH/hormones. 😡

BlueberryCheezecake · 21/12/2021 17:00

@Thelnebriati

''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.

What an absurd suggestion. You can't forcibly dissolve a marriage as a condition of transition. What if both parties want to remain married? Do they have to get re-married in your brave new world? Are they even allowed to do that or would you outlaw it? Of course the marriage should be ended if either party wants it ended, but you can't presume that's the case and take people's choice away. Nor can you use the threat of having your marriage forcibly dissolved as a deterrent to transition, which is clearly how you intend it to work.
GoodieMoomin · 21/12/2021 17:39

How thoroughly depressing and entirely predictable

barleybadminton · 21/12/2021 17:42

@Needmoresleep

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?

Perhaps they did listen but didn't find the evidence very compelling and so disagreed with the conclusions. Nobody has an automatic right to be agreed with no matter how certain they are of their cause.
Wheresthebeach · 21/12/2021 17:43

I don't think we should underestimate the role of Stonewall on this issue. I think they've had a massive impact - trading on their very good work in the past, they have been able to promote this agenda without question or oversight.

SweetGrapes · 21/12/2021 17:51

@Flammkuchen

Does that mean Pips Bunce can be prosecuted for only being in 'girl mode' a couple of days a week?
No, it means detransitioners will be prosecuted. Pips will probably be just fine.
Blibbyblobby · 21/12/2021 18:44

@barleybadminton

Perhaps they did listen but didn't find the evidence very compelling and so disagreed with the conclusions. Nobody has an automatic right to be agreed with no matter how certain they are of their cause.

I do hope they will publish this compelling evidence that ones gender is so unknowable it cannot be perceived by others, only self-declared, yet at the same time so deeply deeply real that it supersedes any practical reason to take account of sex despite the fact that ones sex is clearly perceived, and indeed reacted to and acted upon, by others almost continuously.

I mean it's not like we haven't been asking for this very simple, clear and compelling case for gender as a legal and social determinant, is it? If it's so compelling surely that's something genderists would want to shout from the rooftops in every GC argument, right? And yet genderists, while so very very adamant it exists, are weirdly reticent to make it.

VestofAbsurdity · 21/12/2021 18:48

Perhaps they did listen but didn't find the evidence very compelling and so disagreed with the conclusions. Nobody has an automatic right to be agreed with no matter how certain they are of their cause.

Their agenda was clear from the outset, it was obvious they had already made up their minds and asking for other views was just a charade.

Artichokeleaves · 21/12/2021 19:08

I agree; it was obvious that those following this political agenda never find the evidence or voice of female people, or their needs, compelling.

It's exactly why I feel this report proves that the female brief - which can no longer be the women's brief, because the female need is the one that matters - and the TQ brief must be held separately instead of force teamed in this way. They need entirely separate representation, and the female brief needs people focus on female needs instead of how to best suppress and avoid female needs in order to enable a male centric political agenda. It's now the only way forward; it's clear that the TQ brief is incapable of reciprocation. The existence of female need is in itself seen as hostile and a threat. Which ends any hope of managing mixed sex 'women' as a possible thing.

The evidence has largely been recorded, videoed and scripted, which makes it easy for female people to evidence the obvious bias involved from the beginning. And the degree of political capture and bias involved.

I think at this point, having done the GRA report with a high focus on TQ best interests, what is obviously now required is a female equalities and conflicts inquiry, which looks at female best interests. And will need to be led and staffed by those who do not regard female services, resources and needs as something to be politically stuffed under the rug to better enable their political will. The report is a mess, but it's really quite useful evidence for females by being so.

Artichokeleaves · 21/12/2021 19:11

Quite interesting, isn't it?

TWAW. And how many years down the road are we before female interests are so swamped and affected that 'female' needs to come out of the 'women' brief because it's not working for them? Five?

When you think about the really tiny percentage of male people involved, it's quite remarkable how severe the impact has been.

ChristinaXYZ · 21/12/2021 20:34

Excellent detailed thread by a lawyer on twitter pointing out inconsistencies in the report. Was Peter Daly one of Maya's lawyers?

twitter.com/peter_daly/status/1473285332967776266

barleybadminton · 21/12/2021 20:42

I agree; it was obvious that those following this political agenda never find the evidence or voice of female people, or their needs, compelling.

The report was largely produced by females. They just don't happen to agree. That's unsurprising, lots of females don't agree and many think the aims of the gender critical movement will be detrimental to females if they are ever successful. Sarah Ahmed's piece on that was interesting: feministkilljoys.com/2021/10/31/gender-critical-gender-conservative/comment-page-1/

Artichokeleaves · 21/12/2021 20:53

I repeat: it was obvious that those following this political agenda never find the evidence or voice of female people or their needs compelling.

After all, females following this politics have no problem with rape victims going without any crisis support at all from women's services if they refuse to subordinate themselves to superior male wishes and interests.

The fact they are biologically female does not make this politics any less sexist, or incapable of considering the needs of all females instead of the ones who think like they do. While rubbishing and decrying all females who have different opinions as wrong. As being illustrated on this thread. Female services need to meet all needs. Female briefs within women and equalities need to serve all female needs equally, and not a political agenda.

This would be the issue.

Swipe left for the next trending thread