People are being mean to Caroline Nokes when she's just trying to be kind

[RoyalCorgi]

That's the gist, but if you feel so minded you can read it in full:

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/dec/23/why-am-i-being-abused-for-trying-to-improve-gender-recognition-process

Oh, Caroline. You've recognised that 'gender' is a social construct. Well done.

Now try 'the difference between sex and gender', and come back when you've grasped it.

Those wishing to transition also require a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria – a mental health condition, effectively giving the view that being transgender is an illness.

Why does she think gender dysphoria is a mental health condition? The NHS is clear that it is not:

Gender dysphoria is not a mental illness, but some people may develop mental health problems because of gender dysphoria.

www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/

@ArabellaScott

Oh, Caroline. You've recognised that 'gender' is a social construct. Well done.

Now try 'the difference between sex and gender', and come back when you've grasped it.

This.

Er, because you haven't actually put in the work to understand the issues ? Which is, um, the exact job you were paid to do? Maybe?

Not giving the Guardian clicks but are comments open on that comment is free piece?

Nokes says:

Second, we have specifically called for single-sex exceptions to be not only upheld but clarified. We have asked the Government Equalities Office and the Equality and Human Rights Commission not only to improve their guidance for female-only spaces, such as refuges, but to use worked examples, so that there can be no doubt about the right of service providers to restrict use to natal women only. There should also be best practice to provide trans and non-binary inclusive and specific services, including those relating to domestic violence and sexual abuse. Sometimes it will be appropriate to provide exclusive spaces. Those that argue I am against this are plain wrong.

Is this not a reasonable position? It seems like a reasonable position.

The report says:

Appropriate safeguards are essential to ensuring that the rights of natal women and the use of the single-sex and separate-sex exceptions in the Equality Act 2010 are protected. Therefore, it is appropriate to retain the statutory declaration, as well as introduce additional legal tests. It would also be possible to police statutory declarations more strictly, and to bring prosecutions for fraudulent declarations if it becomes apparent that the person had no real intention of living in the acquired gender.

Comments aren't open - they never are on pieces like this.

Perhaps Mumsnet could invite Caroline along for a webchat and we could ask her some questions. Perhaps we could begin with: Is Claire Goodier a woman? If so, what makes her a woman? If not, why not?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10336917/Paedophile-60-identifies-female-jailed-20-months-sex-dog.html

...But then there's stuff on the "spousal consent" which suggest that marriages should simply be annulled. That could be an easy, quick, cheap and cheerful method of divorce. Marriage is a contract. How would liability work under this?

Poor old Nokesy, eh? She sold women down the river by trying to appease a tiny sub-set of natal males. What could possibly go wrong?

If Caroline agreed to come here for a web 'chat', HQ would have to gag and duct tape down FWR before it even started, and it would be the usual fiasco of very limited questions permitted and pre written answers released on the day with no ability to point out 'you are avoiding the question and churning out absolute nonsense'.

They're a waste of time, sadly.

Ms Noakes' primary problem is believing that 'kind' means 'female enabling of male wishes at their own expense'. She could use a few months on the relationships board, where she'll find out what robust female kindness actually entails, and how women teach other women about boundaries and escaping unhappy and coercive relationships. It's a wonderful place. Sentiment and excusing of awful behaviour doesn't fly there at all.

If Caroline agreed to come here for a web 'chat', HQ would have to gag and duct tape down FWR before it even started

OK, I've found the right thread now...apologies!

If she understands the issues so poorly, then she needs to get another job and let someone who knows what's going on take over.

Here's my 🎻 kept for such emergencies...

She's really doing herself no favours.

That report was deeply flawed and contradictory in parts.

It demonstrated a lack of understanding of the issues and frankly any MP should have been ashamed to put their name to it.

Is this not a reasonable position? It seems like a reasonable position.

It does. But I don't believe Ms Nokes has grasped that self ID makes it untenable. Until we have robust definitions of women that are inequivocably sex based, the right to single sex spaces is meaningless.

Still being contradictory in that article:

Those wishing to transition also require a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria – a mental health condition, effectively giving the view that being transgender is an illness

First and foremost, even with our proposed reforms, the process for an individual to have their acquired gender legally recognised is a drawn-out process, with numerous stages to go through. Waiting lists are incredibly long for NHS consultations, and I can think of my own constituents who have waited years for just a referral to one of the very few clinics, before having given up and paid for private treatment they could ill afford. The suggestion that someone could change legal sex on a whim is quite patently nonsense; the process takes years.

The new clinics announced last year were of course welcome, but they had already been commissioned by NHS England and, at only three, are a drop in the ocean compared to what is needed.

FFS Caroline, if it is not an illness and doesn't require a medical diagnosis why the fuck does it require tax payer funded treatment on the NHS? Do the NHS normally provide treatment to people without any illness or medical diagnosis?

Sorry I missed this bit out:

This would mean replacing the gender recognition panel, dropping the requirement to have a diagnosis of gender dysphoria

Again if there is no requirement for a diagnosis why the requirement for treatment on the NHS?

Would this be the same Caroline Nokes MP as the one that voted against gay marriage?

I have to say I am still mystified as to where this "need" has arisen from. It seems rather as if the makers of hormone treatments and puberty suppressants, and all the attendant money to be made in the US healthcare system, have lobbied hard to transform a miniscule demand for their services into an industry. Trans people have always existed, and they always will. The stuff that's going on now seems to me to have very little to do with trans people and a lot to do with men.

Second, we have specifically called for single-sex exceptions to be not only upheld but clarified. We have asked the Government Equalities Office and the Equality and Human Rights Commission not only to improve their guidance for female-only spaces, such as refuges, but to use worked examples, so that there can be no doubt about the right of service providers to restrict use to natal women only.

What I want to know is how Caroline proposes that services identify and exclude natal males from female only services when their passports, driving licenses and birth certificates all state that they are female and those natal males think they should be entitled to enter such spaces because their documents state that they are female?

There seems to be a lot of confusion in this article, especially from someone who has just chaired an important committee to look at the issue.

For example They also have to live in their acquired gender for two years (something they need spousal consent for) is just plain wrong. Spousal consent is not required to 'live in their acquired gender', I can't imagine how that would be a requirement given that no-one appears to know what 'living in' a gender means. Spousal consent is required for a marriage/civil partnership to persist following a legal change of their partner's sex.

Also In order for an individual to have their acquired gender recognised, a person has to prove to a panel of strangers that they will never meet – the gender recognition panel – that they are either feminine or masculine. I didn't think there was any assessment of a person's feminity or masculinity in the GRC process. Certainly there's nothing in the report that shows any evidence that people are asked to prove masculinity or femininity. It simply says applicants have to provide a selection of documents, including but not limited to, driving licenses, passports, bank statements and utility bills, to the Gender Recognition Panel to show that they have been living in their acquired gender and using their new name (if relevant) which is nothing to do with masculinity or feminity. Clearly the requirement that someone is 'living in' a gender is virtually meaningless but there is nothing in the Act or process to say living 'as a woman' = feminity.

She either hasn't understood the process or is not representing it accurately in this article.

[quote RoyalCorgi]Comments aren't open - they never are on pieces like this.

Perhaps Mumsnet could invite Caroline along for a webchat and we could ask her some questions. Perhaps we could begin with: Is Claire Goodier a woman? If so, what makes her a woman? If not, why not?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10336917/Paedophile-60-identifies-female-jailed-20-months-sex-dog.html[/quote]
I would pay folding money to see that.

Noakes is upset at the idea of a panel judging whether someone is sufficiently feminine or masculine enough (women can wear trousers and have short hair, gender identity isn’t as rigid), and the two years living as the acquired gender is again upholding stereotypes of what it means to be a man or woman. (Let’s ignore the fact that noakes has no problem with people pinky promising to live as their acquired gender forever, something which she thinks doesn’t even make sense as there is no such thing as living as a woman!)

My question is this. If being trans isn’t a medical condition , if it’s not a mental illness, and if becoming a woman doesn’t involve anything at all , there being no criterion of what a woman is and no way to be a woman, then what is this process even for? The entire foundation on which a GRC even makes some degree of sense has been swept away. If being trans is an involuntary medical condition that requires surgical and hormonal intervention, and an adherence to the opposite sex’s roles such that one passes imperceptibly then it makes sense to change legal documents to enable that person to live in stealth. It especially made sense in the days before gay marriage where the government felt sorry for people who were outed as not being women. I have my doubts about the GRA even in these circumstances but at least it was somewhat coherent.

So what do they need to change legal sex for ? What is the point of the GRA?

Yes, exactly WeeBisom. Either sex is real or it isn't.

@JustSpeculation

...But then there's stuff on the "spousal consent" which suggest that marriages should simply be annulled. That could be an easy, quick, cheap and cheerful method of divorce. Marriage is a contract. How would liability work under this?

You might want to quietly read some of the transwidows support threads, and realise there's absolutely nothing 'easy, quick, cheap and cheerful' about the situation they find themselves in.