Harriet Harman says women are women, or men who are 'certified' women.

[ArabellaScott]

https://twitter.com/roseveniceallan/status/1713176479528300891

'There's a question of what is a woman and what is a man. But I would say a woman is someone who is born a woman or someone who under the GRA 2004 is certified as having transitioned from a man to a woman'.
...
'I support the GRA and don't want to see it rolled back. We brought it forward for a very good reason'.

Harriet Harman, at the Fawcett Society event.

Thank you, Julia Long, for asking the question.

Glad to see the sharp mind of david lammy was there to reassure everyone that because it only ever going to be a small number eligible for a grc, there was never going to be any problems.

He now calls any women who questions his assurances 'dinosaurs'.

So, basically the Blair govt in 2003 was no different from the Tehran govt today.
Don't wany gay marriage, but no problem with men becoming women.
I'm speechless, actually!

The discussion on the witnesses and their exposed prejudices and thinking on the Jo Phoenix thread probably casts light on this.

We are seeing people entirely sucked into a religion, and it's incompatible with a duty of impartiality or equality, hence why they are seeming absolutely mad. No one of this faith is able to do a public service job; heavy prejudice and abandonment of care for others is a key condition of belonging to the faith.

And to think there used to be a fuss about that MP belonging to that Catholic extremist sect. Seems quite a mild thing compared to this.

Repeal the GRC. It’s an anachronism and causing far far more problems than it solves

Whats odd, though, is that civil partnerships were introduced just a few months afterwards - The Civil Partnership Act 2004. There must have been groups working on the two acts at the same time.

I think the talk about marriage was a bit of a side show. The real point of the GRA was to allow men to have a female birth certificate, and they needed reasons, like marriage, to justify it.

The birth certificate in the opposite sex wasnt needed to allow marriage, the lack of same sex marriage was used to justify changing the birth certificate.

I suspect thats why the GRA was introduced quietly a few months before civil partnerships was introduced as a flagship act.

It's an interesting one.

Was it gerrymandering, something put in for deceptive strategic purposes where everyone knew but kept quiet?

Or was it incompetence, and the left hand had no idea what the right hand was doing? Hence MPs recorded in Hansard, discussing without any mention of this?

I had thought about this earlier but am listening to a podcast on politics atm and how people vote (mentioning gender equality but not this issue) and it reminded me

On how the hell this has happened is also greatly influenced by our assessors

For a country or a school.

Take NZ which is near top of human rights charts but also heavily captured to point of recent events, politicians and media. What is the criteria that prioritises men over women in the marking of what we do?

Ditto on a much smaller level if Ofsted demands evidence of gender ideology over girls we get similar outcomes

People no matter where usually want to do well. Look at the markers and ask is their criteria right for women and girls

Such an important point.

I'm not sure a lot of local authorities were particularly on top of the GRA - they were tied up with the Civil Partnership Act 2004, looking through the minutes of meetings and reports from my council (online), in terms of social policy.

There's no doubt that the GRA was introduced quietly, especially compared to Civil Partnerships.

It could be argued that the media was to blame for being uninterested and the numbers likely to get a civil partnership far outweighed the numbers geting a GRC.

But there was talk about how allowing marriage or civil partnerships could change the concept of marriage for everyone, so its odd that the impact on society of the GRA wasnt seen as a newsworthy talking point, but perhaps its because its difficult to understand.

Also, it makes sense to publicise civil partnerships so society and every authority understands what they are and the rights attached. But that wasnt needed for the GRA?

There were obviously reasons why the GRA wasnt publicised at the time, and its odd that politicians are pretending that its always been celebrated and widely understood. HH is speaking as if she could have said the same thing regarding 'grc = changed sex' before 2015, when thats clearly not true.

I'm a massive politics fiend, but I can genuinely say I have no recollection of the debate or the law passing. Don't recall any media coverage, or news of the law when it happened. Was it in Blair's 1999 manifesto? I don't think so.

Was it discussed in parliament quietly in late night sessions, while the media was obsessed about Iraq and Afghanistan 24/7?

Maybe the lack of heat was because it was estimated only 5k total number of men (and some women) would apply for GRCs.

5k is negligible in real world terms. Of course, only if it stays at that number.

Whereas the heat generated by Cameron's same sex law involved potentially 3% of the population, some 1m citizens. Way more visible and potentially polarising.

5k is almost a statistical rounding error compared to 1m.

A few may have voiced concerns at the time but it was largely absent from public thought until events started to occur

These are possible due to the GRA but it’s taken time for men to build momentum and see it as a challenge, to threaten physically and legally any counters

It’s picked up from obscurity to our schools

We’re at indoctrination, lies and threats level because you can’t actually override biological reality,

It can always go further though if everyone lacks care

In the FSU video on how the Left can fight back against woke involving Alice Sullivan, a Q from the audience caught my ear.

When will this post modern ideology extend to subjectivism on age?

The lady from the audience asked this ironically and rhetorically, her tenor was that this will be the next barrier, the big one, to fall.

Ie, if the gender ideologues really do win this battle in gender, then not only will gender/sex be a construct, but so will age.

Your chronological age/date of birth on birth certificate will mean nothing, again just your authentic self and lived experience will matter.

So, break barriers that until 5 minutes ago have been impenetrable re men and women, it's not madness to suspect age as a category is up next.

I mean, really, what could go wrong? I can't see it.

There's already pressure to reduce age of consent, the UN activists have a mission on this.

We see the bye that Russell Brand was given by so many.

People like Harriet Harman and husband Jack Dromey who failed first time around trying to fool society using liberty arguments to Trojan Horse the likes of PIE into acceptability, must be gaga over the modern Labour Party and their weaponised ambiguity on GI policy, once in, Labour will be lockstep with the gender ideologues in the Professional Managerial Classes.

I hate to see thin ends of wedges, Trojan Horses and conspiracy theories. But batter GI into victory as a societal revolution, trans age really does look like a final frontier.

PIE by any other name.

Adults could indoctrinate children with anything should they choose. It’s pretty scary.

Biological lie, grooming, whatever.

It could have just been overshadowed by the civil partnership act? But i cant find Blair talking about it, even for the 2005 election, when he was listing his achievements.

Its as if it was a obscure admin act in 2004, nothing to concern anyone else, to a something we are all suppose to know, understand and support now.

Maybe its similar to the EqA. It used to be focused on employment and service provision, but its creeping into personal life.

Somewhere is the quote from Whittle about the success of it being slid through quietly below the radar with no one really knowing or understanding it.

It goes with the comments about the cosy cups of tea in back rooms, making deals with politicians to avoid public scrutiny, democracy, other people's interests, that kind of thing. This movement isn't much for equality. Or sunlight.

The one that I recall of the top of my head is from Christine Burns (also of Press for Change).

Much of their campaigning remained on the quiet. The passage of the 2004 law to give trans people legal status was "remarkable," says Burns, because "the government was able to pass an entire act in parliament without anyone throwing a fit in the press".In popular culture, the activists became more forthcoming in their attempts to increase popular understanding of trans issues." (continues)
www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jan/22/voices-from-trans-community-prejudice

Government can make laws in secret, but how can they implement them without everyone from HR departments to women in shopping centre toilets knowing?

In 2006, few women knew about GRC, no one has a right to know who has a GRC anyway, but we have to assume that the man saying hes a woman is a woman legally?

The GRA was obvious not intended to be a social policy, just an admin one where a man could get his pension at the womens pension age.

Thats why the Act doesnt fit what politicians want it to do now - have society see and treat some men as women. And thats why HH sounds bonkers when she patiently explains why a man with a certificate is female.