Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

The history of the Gender Recognition actand Labour's role

1000 replies

AdamRyan · 22/04/2024 15:08

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.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
20
MissScarletInTheBallroom · 23/04/2024 13:50

BIossomtoes · 23/04/2024 13:41

Because. They. Don’t. Need. To.

And they won’t have time at least in the next parliament.

You really are just proving my point for me, aren't you?

All the talk about women's rights being a priority is just talk.

BIossomtoes · 23/04/2024 13:53

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 23/04/2024 13:50

You really are just proving my point for me, aren't you?

All the talk about women's rights being a priority is just talk.

What talk about women’s rights being a priority? Which political party has said that? None of them.

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 23/04/2024 13:54

@Bigcoatlady Thanks for your perspective. It's good to hear that at least some very valuable organisations such as yours are applying the single sex exemptions.

I would like to see rape crisis organisations required by law to provide single sex services, to guard against the ideological capture that has clearly taken place in some of these organisations.

AdamRyan · 23/04/2024 13:55

Merrymouse · 23/04/2024 13:13

The U.K. birth rate is now about 1.5 births per women, so the average woman will spend just over a year pregnant - not long in terms of an entire working life.

However you cannot just analyse the impact of child birth on work in terms of ‘pregnant people’. You need to look at the impact of E.g. employer concern that a woman might become pregnant, miscarriage, fertility treatment, maternity leave, and the fact that these can have long lasting consequences.

Why would you not want sex based analysts?

I never said I didn't.
I am taking issue with the repeated assertion that without a definition of "woman" you can't protect women's rights.

It is demonstrably incorrect. Because as GC posters point out, being a woman is a physical, tangible reality. Therefore you can take action to protect them.

OP posts:
MissScarletInTheBallroom · 23/04/2024 13:55

BIossomtoes · 23/04/2024 13:53

What talk about women’s rights being a priority? Which political party has said that? None of them.

Someone posted a bunch of links to Labour MPs claiming exactly that in this very thread.

But good to see you're acknowledging that it is not a priority for Labour, unlike those who would like to gaslight us into believing that it is.

AdamRyan · 23/04/2024 13:55

BIossomtoes · 23/04/2024 13:16

you cannot just analyse the impact of child birth on work in terms of ‘pregnant people’.

Why not? Those will all be biological women regardless of what they choose to call themselves.

Exactly 💯

OP posts:
MissScarletInTheBallroom · 23/04/2024 13:56

AdamRyan · 23/04/2024 13:55

I never said I didn't.
I am taking issue with the repeated assertion that without a definition of "woman" you can't protect women's rights.

It is demonstrably incorrect. Because as GC posters point out, being a woman is a physical, tangible reality. Therefore you can take action to protect them.

Do you not understand that it is easier to take action to protect a certain group if you have the language to clearly define who is in that group and who is not?

AdamRyan · 23/04/2024 13:58

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 23/04/2024 13:16

In that case, why don't they commit to NOT bringing in anti-woman policies, and to making some small tweaks to their own legislation which is no longer working as it should to protect women, so people like me can vote for them?

Errrr- what now? You want politicians to say what they won't do? That would take forever. Where does it stop?

"We won't implement policies to put pickled onions round the edge of dartmoor. We won't implement policies to make children drink apple juice on a Tuesday. We won't implement policies to give everyone over the age of 40 an extra week of Bank Holidays...."

😂

OP posts:
BIossomtoes · 23/04/2024 13:59

AdamRyan · 23/04/2024 13:58

Errrr- what now? You want politicians to say what they won't do? That would take forever. Where does it stop?

"We won't implement policies to put pickled onions round the edge of dartmoor. We won't implement policies to make children drink apple juice on a Tuesday. We won't implement policies to give everyone over the age of 40 an extra week of Bank Holidays...."

😂

😭

AdamRyan · 23/04/2024 14:00

Bigcoatlady · 23/04/2024 13:42

@AdamRyan apologies you copied my post on a.n.other forum and wanted to try and have a reasoned debate here. I'm not going to join in here for the simply reason that the debate is so debased and pointless. I am not a trans rights activist. And I certainly have not captured the delivery of refuge services to women where I work. I have simply spent hours of unpaid time trying to secure funding for accommodation for women who have been victims of DV when all other services were withdrawn. The organisation I volunteer for organises services on the basis of sex not gender. No woman we accommodate has ever shared accommodation with a trans-woman. We are not an exclusively DV charity and could take referrals from transwomen and transmen - our non-DV residents have to have priority for accommodation for other reasons under homelessness legislation usually vulnerability and we always conduct an individual risk assessment to establish where they will be safest living which could be in a mixed sex non-DV house or in a single occupancy flat depending on circumstances.

What we want to deliver is single occupancy flats for all women (whether they have experienced DV or not) so that no woman coming to us has to share accommodation. As I'll explain below it is actually very hard to keep women's shared accommodation safe. Single-occupancy accommodation with call buttons and CCTV would be better ways to ensure that her safety plan and recovery plan can be entirely personalised. At the moment that it is extremely difficult to offer this to men and women under 35 as their housing benefit only entitles them to subsidised rent at the rate for a room in a shared house. The situation is different where a woman leaves with children and additional funding can be made available from children's services.

[There is a hypothetical argument that since we run shared womens houses a transwoman who passes incredibly well and has changed her birth certificate and passport - which we legally have to see as her landlord - could have been accommodated by us without our knowledge. I cannot disprove a negative, I can only say it is statistically unlikely that this has happened and if it has happened we have not had allegations of rape or sexual assault involving a penis occurring as a result. We have had women tenants participating in prostitution, bringing male pimps and dealers into the properties, engaging in violent crimes and threatening other residents with knives and guns. Indeed levels of violence in our women only accommodation are vastly higher than in our male only accommodation. Not because women as a class are more violent than men but because young women without children leaving violent relationships who do not have family to turn to are usually care experienced, have a history of drug use, have already been in prison, may have had their own children removed from their care and are usually very deeply traumatised.]

This thread is over-run with hypothetical arguments about risk which bear no relation to the realities women leaving domestic violence live with. Aside from the fact I'd hardly volunteer to do any of this stuff if I did not care about the safety and welfare of our residents risk assessment is of paramount importance to providers due to the fact that our survival is on the line if we don't keep people safe. This theory that we have been captured by TRAs and will compel women to share accommodation or services with transwomen or men is just not evidence based. Aside from a risk of sexual violence if a woman is frightened of a co-occupant of her home this will simply put back her recovery which helps no one. As I said, my dream is for women in this state of distress to have safe accommodation and consistent stable support around them to enable them to heal.

In the meantime we weekly turn away applicants for accommodation due to shortages, exacerbated by the huge crisis in temporary accommodation generally.

We have never been required to offer our shared women's accommodation to transwomen. The EA guidance on this is clear and straightforward. If other charities find this difficult to interpret the most constructive action anyone could undertake is to join the board of their local housing/DV/rape crisis charities and argue for application of the law as it exists currently. But I have been baffled as to why the noise about this takes place on social media and in courtrooms rather than in charity board meetings. We are all publicly accountable organisations and people concerned with the preservation of single sex services of women could step forward and take this simple action.

Charities nationally are crying out for volunteers. At least consider it.

Thank you. I will

OP posts:
MissScarletInTheBallroom · 23/04/2024 14:01

AdamRyan · 23/04/2024 13:58

Errrr- what now? You want politicians to say what they won't do? That would take forever. Where does it stop?

"We won't implement policies to put pickled onions round the edge of dartmoor. We won't implement policies to make children drink apple juice on a Tuesday. We won't implement policies to give everyone over the age of 40 an extra week of Bank Holidays...."

😂

I think that if their position in relation to self ID has changed, they should say so, yes.

They are well aware that many people hate this policy. They saw what happened in Scotland.

Saying, "We will not reform the Gender Recognition Act in the next parliament" would give some people the reassurance they need that it's safe to vote Labour.

BIossomtoes · 23/04/2024 14:02

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 23/04/2024 13:55

Someone posted a bunch of links to Labour MPs claiming exactly that in this very thread.

But good to see you're acknowledging that it is not a priority for Labour, unlike those who would like to gaslight us into believing that it is.

I’ve acknowledged nothing of the sort. I’ve said it’s not a priority for any political party. Which it isn’t.

lifeturnsonadime · 23/04/2024 14:02

I went on a walk and in the meantime -

6 pages of Scarlett (and others) making very valid posts about the need for women to have rights separate from all men.

6 pages of rebuttals from the TRAs.

It's the same names time and time again coming on to try to convince women to lower our boundaries around men. For whose benefit? Trans women.

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 23/04/2024 14:04

BIossomtoes · 23/04/2024 14:02

I’ve acknowledged nothing of the sort. I’ve said it’s not a priority for any political party. Which it isn’t.

"Glad to see you acknowledging women's rights are not a priority for Labour."
"I've acknowledged nothing of the sort. I've said it's not a priority..."

OK then.

illinivich · 23/04/2024 14:06

We have never been required to offer our shared women's accommodation to transwomen. The EA guidance on this is clear and straightforward.

You are missing the point with the discussion on this board.

In some very controlled situations, it is possible to offer single sex provision. But that isnt guaranteed.

As someone using a service i cannot know what the provider means by 'women only' without asking, and asking can cause the service provider to treat me as a bigot.

Similarly, its not clear to men who want to be women where they are welcome and where they are not.

This is because governments set up a series of laws that allow men to have female id, and then allowed providers to offer single sex and both sex services using the same language.

Women on a door could mean female only, female and grc holders, female and men with the PC of GR, or anyone who wants to be there.

Its good that you can provide single sex services, but this discussion goes far beyond what you as service do.

Separate and single-sex service providers: a guide on the Equality Act sex and gender reassignment provisions | EHRC

This guide is for service providers who are looking to establish and operate a separate or single-sex service.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/equality/equality-act-2010/separate-and-single-sex-service-providers-guide-equality-act-sex-and

BIossomtoes · 23/04/2024 14:06

lifeturnsonadime · 23/04/2024 14:02

I went on a walk and in the meantime -

6 pages of Scarlett (and others) making very valid posts about the need for women to have rights separate from all men.

6 pages of rebuttals from the TRAs.

It's the same names time and time again coming on to try to convince women to lower our boundaries around men. For whose benefit? Trans women.

What you’ve found is vigorous and intelligent debate. No insults, no putting anyone down, no name calling. Frankly it’s been an absolute pleasure.

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 23/04/2024 14:06

lifeturnsonadime · 23/04/2024 14:02

I went on a walk and in the meantime -

6 pages of Scarlett (and others) making very valid posts about the need for women to have rights separate from all men.

6 pages of rebuttals from the TRAs.

It's the same names time and time again coming on to try to convince women to lower our boundaries around men. For whose benefit? Trans women.

I don't get the impression that the pro Labour posters in this thread are particularly fixated on trans women.

They are more fixated on Labour, and as such as trying to tell us that our concerns about Labour's attitude towards women are unfounded, and that we should put them to one side for the greater good and vote Labour into power.

Sorry, I'm not playing.

My vote is mine, it's not communal property.

If I don't like Labour's policies, or the Lib Dems' policies, I won't vote for them.

If I believe they are anti-woman, I will say so.

Merrymouse · 23/04/2024 14:07

AdamRyan · 23/04/2024 13:55

I never said I didn't.
I am taking issue with the repeated assertion that without a definition of "woman" you can't protect women's rights.

It is demonstrably incorrect. Because as GC posters point out, being a woman is a physical, tangible reality. Therefore you can take action to protect them.

No, you can’t protect women’s rights if you don’t have a name to explain why particular policies are necessary or how they have impacted women.

You can’t talk about a subject like access to contraception or population increase or decrease without analysing the specific impact it has on women. You can’t look at women’s access to education across the world without looking at multiple factors. I’m surprised that anyone would argue with this.

And why on earth wouldn’t you use a word to refer to sex?

Signalbox · 23/04/2024 14:11

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 23/04/2024 12:53

And how do Labour plan to fix it?

I have to say I'm really looking forward to Labour "halving violence against women and girls within a decade". I do wonder how they intend to achieve such a monumental task though. It'll be an interesting decade.

BIossomtoes · 23/04/2024 14:12

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 23/04/2024 14:06

I don't get the impression that the pro Labour posters in this thread are particularly fixated on trans women.

They are more fixated on Labour, and as such as trying to tell us that our concerns about Labour's attitude towards women are unfounded, and that we should put them to one side for the greater good and vote Labour into power.

Sorry, I'm not playing.

My vote is mine, it's not communal property.

If I don't like Labour's policies, or the Lib Dems' policies, I won't vote for them.

If I believe they are anti-woman, I will say so.

You’re absolutely right. I’m certainly not fixated on trans women. Equally I have no interest in persuading you how to vote. Regardless of how you or I vote it will be a miracle if Labour isn’t in power after the next election.

I genuinely enjoy a decent debate and you’ve given me one this morning @MissScarletInTheBallroom. So thank you.

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 23/04/2024 14:14

Merrymouse · 23/04/2024 14:07

No, you can’t protect women’s rights if you don’t have a name to explain why particular policies are necessary or how they have impacted women.

You can’t talk about a subject like access to contraception or population increase or decrease without analysing the specific impact it has on women. You can’t look at women’s access to education across the world without looking at multiple factors. I’m surprised that anyone would argue with this.

And why on earth wouldn’t you use a word to refer to sex?

Exactly this.

How can you effectively crack down on male violence against women and girls, if:

  • the police aren't accurately recording the sex of people who perpetrate these crimes, so the data are inaccurate
  • the media aren't accurately reporting the sex of the people who perpetrate these crimes, so the public's perception of who represents the greatest risk to whom is distorted
  • male people are able to self ID into female only spaces which were created to improve the safety of women and girls
  • children are being taught that there is no material difference between the sexes, that it is all a question of identity and that to question someone's identity is transphobic, which means that girls are conditioned to ignore the instincts which tell them they are in a dangerous situation and which exist for their own self-preservation, and discouraged from reporting anything which does happen to them as a result for fear of being branded transphobic
MissScarletInTheBallroom · 23/04/2024 14:15

Signalbox · 23/04/2024 14:11

I have to say I'm really looking forward to Labour "halving violence against women and girls within a decade". I do wonder how they intend to achieve such a monumental task though. It'll be an interesting decade.

For all we know they might intend to halve it by assuming that any woman or girl with short hair who is a victim of violence must identify as a man or boy.

JessS1990 · 23/04/2024 14:27

AdamRyan · 23/04/2024 13:58

Errrr- what now? You want politicians to say what they won't do? That would take forever. Where does it stop?

"We won't implement policies to put pickled onions round the edge of dartmoor. We won't implement policies to make children drink apple juice on a Tuesday. We won't implement policies to give everyone over the age of 40 an extra week of Bank Holidays...."

😂

It might have its advantages.
For example if Sunak and the Tories had done this before the last election they might have said.
We won't deport people who work for the UK government in other countries, before we consider their asylum claims.
And in so doing he would have saved himself a lot of aggravation.

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 23/04/2024 14:29

JessS1990 · 23/04/2024 14:27

It might have its advantages.
For example if Sunak and the Tories had done this before the last election they might have said.
We won't deport people who work for the UK government in other countries, before we consider their asylum claims.
And in so doing he would have saved himself a lot of aggravation.

How many votes do you think that would have won them, out of interest?

AdamRyan · 23/04/2024 14:29

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 23/04/2024 14:01

I think that if their position in relation to self ID has changed, they should say so, yes.

They are well aware that many people hate this policy. They saw what happened in Scotland.

Saying, "We will not reform the Gender Recognition Act in the next parliament" would give some people the reassurance they need that it's safe to vote Labour.

They have said so

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66299705.amp

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2023/nov/26/labour-grassroots-back-starmer-gender-self-identification

This is exactly what I mean about misrepresentation. You don't believe them. That's not the same as they haven't said it.

OP posts:
Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.