Ex Head of the Labour party’s domestic policy unit: "Demedicalisation” of the gender recognition makes a mockery of the reserved equality laws that facilitate an accessible public realm for women and girls

[IwantToRetire]

“Demedicalisation” of the gender recognition process is intended to reduce the stigma attached to transgender people. Instead, in its proposed forms, it opens up the statutory route to a change of legal sex for all purposes to a much wider group of people.

While our society has for decades agreed to require women and girls to make limited accommodations in the public sphere for all those who are experiencing gender dysphoria, in order to facilitate an accessible public realm, we are still very far from ready to extend those same accommodations to people who would merely prefer to access the sports teams, refuges, hospital wards, rape crisis services, changing rooms and sleeping areas intended for the opposite sex.

That is not a condemnation of trans people. It is an understanding of why so many people are opposed to these reforms as they stand, which make a mockery of the reserved equality laws that facilitate an accessible public realm for women and girls.

www.theguardian.com/society/2023/jan/24/trans-rights-in-scotland-and-a-constitutional-clash

Posting as much because it is interesting that someone involved in the Labour Party would write this and that the Guardian would publish it.

Well it seems that at least one person might have half a clue but I have to say I don't much like this bit ... " While our society has for decades agreed to require women and girls to make limited accommodations in the public sphere for all those who are experiencing gender dysphoria, "., you see, I don't ever remember being asked, let alone being allowed to answer as to whether I agreed and if so to what extent.
Whatever accommodations were made, were made without comprehensive, wide ranging discussion with society at large, in much the same way as the current and proposed future liberties with womens spaces/needs are concerned have been made with no reference to the wishes of those who will mostly have those situations to contend with.
Still, on the whole, at least whoever wrote that comment has a more stunning and brave attitude than starmer! Not that that takes a lot of effort to achieve, to be fair!

I took that to be a polite way of saying politicians had required women to accommodate those with actual gender dysphoria.

Not sure if you read the whole letter but he goes on to say the UK Government is right to challenge the new Scottish GRR.

So what with this letter from Lachlan Stuart and the article from Theresa May's former Joint Chief of Staff seems to imply that once you escape the Westminster bubble you acknowledge real life not the rainbow fiction.

Did you check out the other letters, the Beaumont Society and the first trans peer.

There's also some bloke who looks suspiciously wee in twitter pictures but could just be far away.

According to the Beaumont society person:

All a gender recognition certificate (GRC) entitles anyone to is birth, marriage (if relevant) and, eventually, death certificates in their acquired gender. Nothing else.

And apparently being able to falsify these documents has no effect on their life or anyone else's. Seems like a good argument for repealing the GRA.

Didn't see the other letters but now have. Thanks.

And on one level it is true that a GRC doesn't actually give much. The real problem has been the sucess of Stonewall, Mermaids, etc., in getting people to change their behaviour and thoughts to the extent that any woman just saying she deserves equal rights and to be respected as a woman in now a figure of hate and derision.

This is the real power change. That not just individuals but organisations have happily gone along with the trans agenda that puts a small minority as having more rights than women.

And unfortunately deeply entrenched misogyny and the lack of respect for women has meant that many have welcomed this opportunity to "legitimately" tell women to shut up.

So whether the trans agenda has been so sucessful because its foundations are built on the deep sexism in society, or because so many MRAs welcomed another set of arguements to deny women their rights, just means that as always women's rights are never top of the agenda.

I really dislike the idea that "society" can somehow collectively "agree" something that is binding on the rest of us.

I am hoping someone will write an article soon examining the areas in which men are now in female spaces and how we reached a point where this is unquestioningly accepted by those in authority.

There are very low levels of awareness about what’s actually going on. I have a conversation with a clued-up friend a few days ago and she didn’t know the GRC results in a new birth certificate with your new (legal) sex. She was gobsmacked that an official record of fact could be amended in this way.

The bluntness and anger in that is heartening: there is some waking up going on. However the baked in misogyny is.... a reminder of why men like this have enabled it all to get this far.

When he says 'society' he means men.

Men decided to require women to submit to exclusion and harassment and loss of privacy and dignity for other men's better happiness. They did not consult or ask. They felt entitled to 'require'. Their view of 'accessible realm' was only for men, they've never cared about the impact or exclusion effects on women. Just another little downside of being born outside the master race. But now possibly, the 'requirements' on the service humans might be getting a little bit OTT, and the master race might need to get a little firmer about how they treat the servants.

Fuck the fuck off to the far side of fuck and then fuck off some more.

'While our society has for decades [by society I think he means MPs and lawmakers circa 2002/3] agreed to require women and girls to make limited accommodations* in the public sphere for all those who are experiencing gender dysphoria, in order to facilitate an accessible public realm...'

I'm so glad someone has finally admitted that it's women and girls doing all the accommodating. Now, if only ordinary people could understand what that actually means e.g., the convicted double rapist pictured being remanded to a women's prison...

*GRA parliamentary debate https://mobile.twitter.com/HairyLeggdHarpy/status/1177699186361458688?cxt=HHwWgIC79fLKg9ggAAAA

It's a decent letter, and surprising to see it in the Guardian, but it still perpetuates the belief that we can somehow distinguish between the True Trans and the rest.

Never mind women having to weigh up if that male-looking person in the loos is True Trans or a vile criminal.

I mean the whole psychology of the condition, with its ever-shifting diagnostic criteria, its self-reporting; the unwillingness of the therapeutic profession to do anything but affirm by taking confused kids or adults at their absolute word; the whole nonsense of passing v non-passing. Also the shape-shifting nature of the trans community itself which tells us that trans is either a life-threatening condition requiring expensive medicine or just a part of identity that people can play around with.

Lachlan Stuart has been gender-critical for a while - glad to see him writing this.

Four letters published, all by men.

Dr Jane Hamlin, of the Beaumont Society and former headteacher, claims not just to be a woman but to be actually female. Been living as a woman full time since 2011.

The trans peer claims to be a woman but also claimed the title over their elder, and actually female, sister.

Tiny looking man does stuff with strings

While our society has for decades agreed to require women and girls to make limited accommodations in the public sphere for all those who are experiencing gender dysphoria, in order to facilitate an accessible public realm...

What does this mean? What was not accessible about the public realm that women and girls had to budge up for males, to begin with? I can't remember the inaccessible public realm referred to here. Can anyone else?

Side note: "decades" doing some hard work here. It's two. And it's two, too many.

#repealtheGRA

“in order to facilitate an accessible public realm” - accessible for who? Certainly not women and girls who self exclude from parts of that realm which they have every right to feel safe in. Although Lachlan Stuart partly gets why self ID is a massive problem he doesn’t seem to get the point about the many ways in which this has been imposed so unfairly and with the needs of only one group in mind.

I can't tell whether Dr Jane Hamlin, Duncan Adamson and Matilda Simon are dim, dishonest, or simply crashingly ignorant. But on learning that "Jane" and "Matilda" are actually trans, I'm going to assume that they are simply ideologues, bent on enforcing their will and warped reality.

If (s)he's a hereditary peer (s)he cannot inherit the title unless it is one of the few baronies that allow female inheritance. Identifying as a woman and inheriting a peerage that will almost certainly be inherited through absolute male primogeniture? Remove yourself from the title and let your male cousin, younger brother or whoever have it. That (s)he has done this (and is not a life peer) shows that being trans is anything the trans community wants it to be and that includes male privileges as well as any female ones. What wnkrs.

I'm so glad someone has finally admitted that it's women and girls doing all the accommodating.

yes, I really appreciated the bluntness of that phrasing. Now let’s agree that it’s unfair and dangerous to women and girls to require anything of the sort.

(I think I’ve read an article by Lachlan Stuart. Isn’t he the one who, in his role with Labour, was horrified to learn that TRAs are much more interested in destroying all legal protections for women than in policies which would substantially improve trans people’s lives without harming women?)

I see I've been deleted yet again. Obviously hitting the nail on the head.

Peerages as an exception were written into the GRA in 2004.

16 Peerages etc.
The fact that a person’s gender has become the acquired gender under this Act—
(a) does not affect the descent of any peerage or dignity or title of honour

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7

This was to prevent any negative effect on a male person who transitioned or a positive effect on a female person who transitioned.

As if we needed any more proof that misogyny was at the heart of the GRA.

Had forgotten that get-out. Typical and so misogynistic. Thanks for reminding.

(I think I’ve read an article by Lachlan Stuart. Isn’t he the one who, in his role with Labour, was horrified to learn that TRAs are much more interested in destroying all legal protections for women than in policies which would substantially improve trans people’s lives without harming women?)

That was this:

The Confessions of a Transphobe

But [Labour's 2019 election manifsto] dismayed trans people, according to Heather’s account and the actions of pop-up people like Ellie-Mae and her ilk. It dismayed the pop up people and LGBT Labour because it was the removal of the established legal rights of women that interested them.

Nowhere, ever, have I seen any recognition from any of them of the astonishingly bold, tangible and very expensive commitment that we gave to improve the lives of trans people by ensuring adequate and much improved access to health care services.

It’s not because they didn’t know.

It’s because that’s not what they’re interested in.

I can't tell whether Dr Jane Hamlin, Duncan Adamson and Matilda Simon are dim, dishonest, or simply crashingly ignorant.

Matilda is actually quite clever as they are currently pursuing a hereditary peerage as a man, whilst claiming to pass as a woman. They don't.

Lachlan Stuart is mostly ok on this, but he's too true trans believing for my liking. The other day he was congratulating TRA Steph of "Steph's Place, noted misogynist, for getting a GRC 🙄 And that is why I want the GRA repealed.