The history of the Gender Recognition actand Labour's role

[AdamRyan]

There have been lots of threads recently about Labour's position on gender and their role in the GRA. A poster on another thread made a slightly off topic point that I thought deserved a thread of its own. Please scroll on past or hide this thread if you aren't interested in discussing further!

Thanks to @bigcoatlady....

The Gender Recognition Act 2004 only allows people to apply for a Gender Recognition Certificate if they have two written reports by medical professionals confirming that they have lived in their affirmed gender for two years as well as evidence of any medical treatment they have undergone. There is no requirement for a GRC to be issued that the applicant has undergone surgery, the reason for this is the original bill introduced by Labour restricted GRCs only to those who had received surgery and this was removed in the Lords by Tory peers uncomfortable with the requirement that 'men' undergo surgical removal of the penis.

That much is ancient history. Less than 5000 people in the UK have a GRC.

In 2015 the Home Office launched a proposal to remove the costly and time-consuming medical assessment of applications for gender recognition in favour of self-ID. This was a Tory proposal from a Tory government. They have since reversed their position on it but it was never a Labour proposal.

The Equality Act 2010 has always made it possible to exclude trans women from women only competitive sports (s.195), women only services (sch 3), all women shortlists(s104(7)), communal accommodation (sch23), women only associations (sch16) and job requirements (sch 9).

As a result employers who want to recruit a woman but not a transwoman to a role such as 'rape crisis counsellor' have always been able to do so. If a rape crisis service wanted to offer rape crisis group therapy ONLY to women and not trans women they are entirely permitted to do so. If a domestic violence refuge (and I have chaired the board of trustees of a housing charity which offers refuge services for many years) wants to only accommodate women and not trans women it can do so.

Services such as Survivors Network are choosing to include transwomen in their service for whatever reasons but there is no legal obligation on them to do this.

Even had the Tory proposals to permit self-ID gone ahead it was never proposed that the law be changed further to reduce the protection for women only spaces in the Equality Act.

You can call that a gender ideology scandal if you like but its pretty tame.

There is another scandal. During those fifteen years, those of us who have been scrabbling to fund frontline services have been hard hit by austerity. In the city my charity operates in the women-led charities which delivered refuge services went to the wall in the first round of austerity. By 2015 we had no DV refuges at all. Our Rape Crisis nearly went bust and is currently closed to new referrals. We are not a women only provider but we started to offer specialist accommodation for women at risk of homelessness 8 yrs ago because of the massive demand. Women leaving violent partners were becoming street homeless and ending up in hostels surrounded by aggressive mean with drug issues due to the shortage of safe accommodation.

Two years ago the govt did create a statutory duty on councils to urgently accommodate households leaving DV BUT by then it was too bloody late, the good charities had already sold up their properties and moved on. The sector has been ripped apart by the last fifteen years

This is a bigger scandal than the GRA.

Meanwhile the Conservatives prioritise judges for Rwanda over rape victims
https://twitter.com/vicderbyshire/status/1747557144038089152

Not sure what this new thread is intended to discuss. There are a number of claims made in the OP, but what is the "off topic point" that deserved a thread of its own?

It was originally posted in response to the news about the Rwanda judges, which sparked some debate about rape services and single sex provision. That threatened a derail of our current affairs thread so just made a separate thread for people to continue the discussion if they wanted.

I guess the issue being debated is, is the underfunding of services for women and children by the Conservatives a bigger safeguarding issue than the implementation of the GRA in 2004 by Labour?

But if you say that the Tories really don't care about women and i believe that, then what excuse will I be able to give to myself when I vote Tory again?

Knowing what a woman is, is more important than caring about them?

I’m not sure there are any claims in the OP. It looks like a statement of fact to me. And a knowledgeable expose of just how badly women’s services have suffered in the last decade or so.

Oh, ok. Well two thoughts in response to that:

1. Why frame the question about the significance of the GRA in historical terms? It isn't the implementation in 2004 that is a possible issue for women's services today but the way in which it plays a part in current policymaking and decision making, in which there are radically different definitions and presumptions from the ones with which we operated in 2004.
2. Why the need for ranking? Both issues are pretty powerfully destructive, and the underfunding has the effect of potentiating the detriments caused by the gender-related issues

I would add that no-one is legally allowed to ask if a man has a GRC so it's pretty pointless going to the trouble of getting one.

Don’t people of both sexes apply for GRCs?

Yes but women are less likely to have their vulva on show in a male changing area so no-one is really concerned about that. It's intact males in female spaces which are of concern to women.

Yes, historically the Tories have been poor on this issue and were prepared to effectively end women’s right to single sex exemptions. They have since understood the issues and I believe are the safer choice on this issue.

Labour are still very captured and can’t define a woman or whether or not women can have a penis.

Good idea for a thread. I wouldn't hold your breath that it will work though @AdamRyan. There is a lot of cognitive dissonance is at play with some Tory voters around this. One Conservative supporter explained it to me, they really can't get their heads around the fact that their party inflicted the trans shitshow on women so it has to be someone else's fault. It just has to be.😒

Labour are still very captured and can’t define a woman or whether or not women can have a penis.

They’ve said quite clearly that they believe some spaces should be reserved for biological women, exactly as the GRA provides, no party has any plans to change that. I’m unclear what effect the ability or otherwise to define a woman has on that when the legislation is clear and precise with its inclusion of “biological”.

It’s pretty academic anyway when women’s spaces and services have been starved out of existence as outlined in the OP.

I've yet to meet anyone that can 100% successfully identify what a woman is without being invasive or impractical.

Adam what is the point of this thread?

We've already established that you are an activist because you believe that some males should be allowed to be in women's single sex spaces because they identify as trans, even though this is against the wishes of some women and even though it will result in some vulnerable/ minority women being unable to use those spaces.

You agree with Starmer that the law should be retained that some women have penises to support your above position.

So if your point is that 'this happened under Tory watch' well we know that but we don't trust Starmer to put women first in the future (by that I mean above trans identifying males), even though we know that allowing some men into women's spaces has a negative impact on women.

This is the relevant point in the OP:

The Equality Act 2010 has always made it possible to exclude trans women from women only competitive sports (s.195), women only services (sch 3), all women shortlists(s104(7)), communal accommodation (sch23), women only associations (sch16) and job requirements (sch 9).

Trans women could be excluded from changing rooms if the service provider wanted to do so.

I would say we've already established that your definition of "activist" is pretty wide ranging, doesn't require any activism and includes most politicians and the majority of the public.

This isn't about my position. It's about what was outlined in the OP regarding the impact of the Conservative government on women's services vs. The impact of the GRA on women's services. Do you have any comment to make on that?

You keep coming on or starting threads trying to convince women to lower our boundaries and to agree with Labour's position on women's rights that some people with penises are women.

That's activism. The people you are an activist for are trans people (specifically trans women who want to be in women's single sex spaces even though you know this harms / displaces some vulnerable and minority group females). You think because you don't think they should be in ALL single spaces that you are not a trans rights activist but you are because your activism favours trans people over women.

That you don't like me calling it that is not really my problem.

Re. the point of your thread.

It was enabled by the GRA which was introduced by Labour.

Made worse by the Tories.

Likely to be made worse going forward by the Labour Party than by the Tories.

HTH.

Oh and before you say that Labour are better for women's rights other than the ones where we are displaced by penis women.

Why should we settle for less than women being treated as fully human in a democratic society.

Women & children have been harmed by trans identifying men in women's single sex spaces over the last few years. There are lots of examples of that.

You would think that Labour would want to put a stop to the harms to women.

I'm not arguing with you life. Most people would not consider someone who posts an opinion on MN to be an activist but if you want to, feel free.

Most people on Mumsnet with an opinion are not activists of course Adam.

But when you are consistently using your opinions to try to convince women to lower boundaries in favour of males when you see the harms to women that is activism.

There is a difference and you know it.

I'm an activist and so are you just for opposing sides of the trans rights argument.

I'm concerned that one of the TRA activists who pester the FWR board claims to be the trustee of a charity dealing with vulnerable women and (presumably) advocates for TW in that space.

I agree the wanton underfunding of women's refuges is a massive issue, but this post is being disingenuous by highlighting only that the law permits single sex spaces. It does but, in the absence of clear EHRC and judicial guidance on this, the costs of defending them (financial, social, legal) fall entirely on whatever gym/small charity/lesbian knitting circle has the courage to put its head above the parapet.

Add to this that Scotland, Bristol and probably a fair few other places won't fund women's shelters unless they explicitly include TW.

And that's before the TRA rentamob targets the courageous women who said no and had boundaries. This mob includes many prominent Labour politicians who are happy to attack their own.

Sorry Adam, most Mumsnet posters are capable of holding several thoughts at once. We deplore the lack of funding and also deplore the deliberate male invasion of female spaces.

Sorry Adam, most Mumsnet posters are capable of holding several thoughts at once. We deplore the lack of funding and also deplore the deliberate male invasion of female spaces.

Turn that statement upside down and you get the same thing. @AdamRyan and I are capable of understanding that there is a vast range of issues worth considering when deciding how to vote. That isn't what I'm seeing from certain GC feminists. Yes, the trans issue is important. Is it more important to me than all the other things put together? Hell no.

Except in many areas services such as refuges and rape crisis centres don’t get funding if they’re single sex. Brighton and Edinburgh spring to mind.