Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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 14:32

AdamRyan · 23/04/2024 14:29

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.

Where have they said so?

Saying it's not a priority is not the same as committing not to do it.

AdamRyan · 23/04/2024 14:33

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.

Of course.
Equally it would be nice for posters to recognise some women think Labour are a good option and it's not because we are TRA's/misogynists/child abusers etc.

People can put their vote where they like. They can't make an informed decision if there is misinformation being pushed though. Such as "Labour don't support womens rights" when they've put womens rights front and centre of policy. Or "Labour will bring in self-ID" when they've categorically ruled it out.

OP posts:
AdamRyan · 23/04/2024 14:34

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 23/04/2024 14:32

Where have they said so?

Saying it's not a priority is not the same as committing not to do it.

In the BBC article:
Labour has ruled out introducing a self-ID system to allow people to change their legal sex without a medical diagnosis.

OP posts:
MissScarletInTheBallroom · 23/04/2024 14:37

AdamRyan · 23/04/2024 14:34

In the BBC article:
Labour has ruled out introducing a self-ID system to allow people to change their legal sex without a medical diagnosis.

Anneliese Dodd said, "We will modernise, simplify and reform the gender recognition law to a new process. We will remove invasive bureaucracy and simplify the process."

What does that mean?

To me that sounds like they still want to make it easier to get a GRC.

Why should it be easier to falsify your legal documents?

illinivich · 23/04/2024 14:43

When politicians embraced trans ideology, they did more than remove women only spaces, they removed 'women' from our biology.

This leads to women referred to a 'cervix havers', but also as Starmer said, makes it wrong to say that only women have a cervix.

Cervix and women become disconnected from each other. Not just our biology, even the misogyny we face. What do we think is going to be the definitive of misogyny in any law drafted soon?

This has spread into schools, and now children believe that just because they are born female, they dont have to stay that way or become a women.

We might disregard 'pregnant people' as silly and meaningless - after only women can be pregnant people, but children see this and dont understand. Girls really think that they can avoid being women, risk of pregnancy and misogyny.

And who can say anything different to them? If we have to tolerate india Willoughby saying he's a woman, biologically female and its mean to call him he, who can say anything else, but 'of course you can be a boy' to any girl who demands it?

Politicans have been breathtakingly slow to join the dots. They still think we can give men female birth certificate, have unambiguous female only spaces and not have children believe the lie that they can change sex.

AdamRyan · 23/04/2024 14:44

"Easier" as in quicker and less bureaucratic, not to a lower standard.

Why should tax payers pay over the odds for an inefficient process?

Less than 10,000 people have a GRC. It already only costs a fiver (Conservative change). I really don't think a streamlined process is going to change the price of fish in any way.

OP posts:
AdamRyan · 23/04/2024 14:49

illinivich · 23/04/2024 14:43

When politicians embraced trans ideology, they did more than remove women only spaces, they removed 'women' from our biology.

This leads to women referred to a 'cervix havers', but also as Starmer said, makes it wrong to say that only women have a cervix.

Cervix and women become disconnected from each other. Not just our biology, even the misogyny we face. What do we think is going to be the definitive of misogyny in any law drafted soon?

This has spread into schools, and now children believe that just because they are born female, they dont have to stay that way or become a women.

We might disregard 'pregnant people' as silly and meaningless - after only women can be pregnant people, but children see this and dont understand. Girls really think that they can avoid being women, risk of pregnancy and misogyny.

And who can say anything different to them? If we have to tolerate india Willoughby saying he's a woman, biologically female and its mean to call him he, who can say anything else, but 'of course you can be a boy' to any girl who demands it?

Politicans have been breathtakingly slow to join the dots. They still think we can give men female birth certificate, have unambiguous female only spaces and not have children believe the lie that they can change sex.

"they removed 'women' from our biology.....Cervix and women become disconnected from each other"

You sound like you are talking about some weird surgery Confused

Children don't "decide not to be women" and then it just happens. There does need to be medical intervention and thanks to Cass that's under much more scrutiny now.

Honestly, all this word salad is just like the TRAs. You can write it on the Internet, you can make it logically consistent in your head, but that doesn't make it real.

OP posts:
Merrymouse · 23/04/2024 14:58

I don’t think the Conservatives have announced any plans to get rid of GRCs? Is there really much difference between the 2 parties on this?

However, I genuinely think that we have turned a corner, largely because inevitably reality asserts itself - in prisons, in sport, in healthcare - and feminists doggedly and determinedly did the work and research to challenge policy, expose abuse of the system and take cases to court.

Signalbox · 23/04/2024 14:58

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 23/04/2024 14:37

Anneliese Dodd said, "We will modernise, simplify and reform the gender recognition law to a new process. We will remove invasive bureaucracy and simplify the process."

What does that mean?

To me that sounds like they still want to make it easier to get a GRC.

Why should it be easier to falsify your legal documents?

Self ID in all but name.

Justnot · 23/04/2024 15:07

There is less trust in politicians of all hues, there are lots of things that have got me here (labour all my life) where some of us don’t want to vote for anyone - very few politicians cover themselves in glory and some are as thick as mince as the saying goes.

In the past I’ve held my nose and voted Labour anyway (it was impossible to contemplate anything else) but you get to the point where you have to face the truth and not some cheerleader everything is going to be fine line - do you really think we could have got to the Cass report, reverse ferrets galore etc if there was nothing to see here? Have we made too much of a fuss?! I think not……

Now we need to hold the ferrets to account - wearing I fucking told you so t-shirts

lifeturnsonadime · 23/04/2024 15:17

AdamRyan · 23/04/2024 14:33

Of course.
Equally it would be nice for posters to recognise some women think Labour are a good option and it's not because we are TRA's/misogynists/child abusers etc.

People can put their vote where they like. They can't make an informed decision if there is misinformation being pushed though. Such as "Labour don't support womens rights" when they've put womens rights front and centre of policy. Or "Labour will bring in self-ID" when they've categorically ruled it out.

But you are deliberately targeting these threads towards women who have said that we won't vote Labour because of their position on trans demands v women's rights by posting these endless threads about why we should lower our boundaries and agree with Labour's position on this, seemingly because your own personal position is that you don't care too much about those spaces or you think it is too difficult (I think that is a cop out).

I have complete respect for the women who say that they don't much like what Labour's position is on women with penises and women's single sex spaces BUT in spite of that they will vote Labour because that's still their voting preference on balance.

But what you are doing is coming on threads to try to say that these women's rights issues don't matter. When they do to lots of women. Women are harmed by these policies and some are excluded from aspects of public life as a result of this. You are suggesting we should lower our boundaries and agree that the word woman includes some men and that toilets (for example ) should be mixed sex.

This activism favours the wishes of trans identity males over the needs of (often vulnerable ) women.

BIossomtoes · 23/04/2024 15:36

I don’t think the Conservatives have announced any plans to get rid of GRCs? Is there really much difference between the 2 parties on this?

You couldn’t get a fag paper between them. And it was the Tories who reduced the cost of a GRC to £5. If that isn’t making it easier I don’t know what is.

BIossomtoes · 23/04/2024 15:39

I have complete respect for the women who say that they don't much like what Labour's position is on women with penises and women's single sex spaces BUT in spite of that they will vote Labour because that's still their voting preference on balance.

No you don’t. You hector us and call us TRAs and activists. That’s what was really lovely about this morning’s debate - it was intelligent, respectful and considered.

illinivich · 23/04/2024 15:40

AdamRyan · 23/04/2024 14:49

"they removed 'women' from our biology.....Cervix and women become disconnected from each other"

You sound like you are talking about some weird surgery Confused

Children don't "decide not to be women" and then it just happens. There does need to be medical intervention and thanks to Cass that's under much more scrutiny now.

Honestly, all this word salad is just like the TRAs. You can write it on the Internet, you can make it logically consistent in your head, but that doesn't make it real.

Tell starmer your crap jokes, not me.

He's the one saying its not right to say only women have a cervix.

Underthinker · 23/04/2024 16:00

BIossomtoes · 23/04/2024 15:36

I don’t think the Conservatives have announced any plans to get rid of GRCs? Is there really much difference between the 2 parties on this?

You couldn’t get a fag paper between them. And it was the Tories who reduced the cost of a GRC to £5. If that isn’t making it easier I don’t know what is.

I think the key difference will be that if Conservatives maintain the status quo, a panel judges applications, so the same medics are using the same criteria for everyone, meaning there is some level of consistency and fairness. Most applications are successful but some fail (averages around 5% I think).

If a single medical opinion is needed, I think we'll end up in a situation where one or more doctors just set up a private business along the lines of gender GP, and provide a gender dysphoria diagnoses for cash.

I don't think the two situations are vastly different, the first is bad but the second is that little extra bit worse.

JessS1990 · 23/04/2024 16:06

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 23/04/2024 14:29

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

As far as I can tell Sunak has no interest in winning the publics votes.

AdamRyan · 23/04/2024 16:24

Merrymouse · 23/04/2024 14:58

I don’t think the Conservatives have announced any plans to get rid of GRCs? Is there really much difference between the 2 parties on this?

However, I genuinely think that we have turned a corner, largely because inevitably reality asserts itself - in prisons, in sport, in healthcare - and feminists doggedly and determinedly did the work and research to challenge policy, expose abuse of the system and take cases to court.

Yes I agree with this

OP posts:
AdamRyan · 23/04/2024 16:28

lifeturnsonadime · 23/04/2024 15:17

But you are deliberately targeting these threads towards women who have said that we won't vote Labour because of their position on trans demands v women's rights by posting these endless threads about why we should lower our boundaries and agree with Labour's position on this, seemingly because your own personal position is that you don't care too much about those spaces or you think it is too difficult (I think that is a cop out).

I have complete respect for the women who say that they don't much like what Labour's position is on women with penises and women's single sex spaces BUT in spite of that they will vote Labour because that's still their voting preference on balance.

But what you are doing is coming on threads to try to say that these women's rights issues don't matter. When they do to lots of women. Women are harmed by these policies and some are excluded from aspects of public life as a result of this. You are suggesting we should lower our boundaries and agree that the word woman includes some men and that toilets (for example ) should be mixed sex.

This activism favours the wishes of trans identity males over the needs of (often vulnerable ) women.

I haven't "come onto" this thread. This is my thread. I started it in response to a GC poster coming onto another thread and threatening to derail it.

I didn't even post it here, MNHQ moved it here.

I can post my opinion as much as you can. And frankly I'm getting bored to tl;dr posts misrepresenting me as a TRA

OP posts:
AdamRyan · 23/04/2024 16:32

Underthinker · 23/04/2024 16:00

I think the key difference will be that if Conservatives maintain the status quo, a panel judges applications, so the same medics are using the same criteria for everyone, meaning there is some level of consistency and fairness. Most applications are successful but some fail (averages around 5% I think).

If a single medical opinion is needed, I think we'll end up in a situation where one or more doctors just set up a private business along the lines of gender GP, and provide a gender dysphoria diagnoses for cash.

I don't think the two situations are vastly different, the first is bad but the second is that little extra bit worse.

I don't think that will happen, I think it will stay in the NHS under Labour. Labour don't have the same ethos of outsourcing for ££. But we will see what they decide.

I'm hopeful that as part of their review they will make it so the GRC has to be declared in certain circumstances (e.g. medical) so the appropriate EA exemptions can be effectively applied.

To be honest I'd rather see the GRA updated than the EA, as i think the risks to women of politicians fiddling with the EA are huge.

OP posts:
lifeturnsonadime · 23/04/2024 16:33

BIossomtoes · 23/04/2024 15:39

I have complete respect for the women who say that they don't much like what Labour's position is on women with penises and women's single sex spaces BUT in spite of that they will vote Labour because that's still their voting preference on balance.

No you don’t. You hector us and call us TRAs and activists. That’s what was really lovely about this morning’s debate - it was intelligent, respectful and considered.

Blossomtoes.

You have said on several threads that this is an issue you don't care about and you think that women should have to share some single sex spaces with males, even though you know that this harms some women and displaces some women.

You are putting the wishes of these males above the needs of vulnerable women.

You are literally therefore advocating for the rights of wishes of these males above the needs of some women. That is trans rights activism.

It is dishonest to claim otherwise.

FlakyPoet · 23/04/2024 16:34

illinivich · 23/04/2024 14:43

When politicians embraced trans ideology, they did more than remove women only spaces, they removed 'women' from our biology.

This leads to women referred to a 'cervix havers', but also as Starmer said, makes it wrong to say that only women have a cervix.

Cervix and women become disconnected from each other. Not just our biology, even the misogyny we face. What do we think is going to be the definitive of misogyny in any law drafted soon?

This has spread into schools, and now children believe that just because they are born female, they dont have to stay that way or become a women.

We might disregard 'pregnant people' as silly and meaningless - after only women can be pregnant people, but children see this and dont understand. Girls really think that they can avoid being women, risk of pregnancy and misogyny.

And who can say anything different to them? If we have to tolerate india Willoughby saying he's a woman, biologically female and its mean to call him he, who can say anything else, but 'of course you can be a boy' to any girl who demands it?

Politicans have been breathtakingly slow to join the dots. They still think we can give men female birth certificate, have unambiguous female only spaces and not have children believe the lie that they can change sex.

Great post.

lifeturnsonadime · 23/04/2024 16:36

AdamRyan · 23/04/2024 16:28

I haven't "come onto" this thread. This is my thread. I started it in response to a GC poster coming onto another thread and threatening to derail it.

I didn't even post it here, MNHQ moved it here.

I can post my opinion as much as you can. And frankly I'm getting bored to tl;dr posts misrepresenting me as a TRA

Apologies Adam you started this thread to activate in favour of the wishes of trans women, you didn't come on to it.

I stand corrected.

Underthinker · 23/04/2024 16:38

@AdamRyan I don't think that will happen, I think it will stay in the NHS under Labour. Labour don't have the same ethos of outsourcing for ££. But we will see what they decide.

Perhaps. But that would be a departure from most areas of medicine where you can generally opt to see a private doctor and they can diagnose and prescribe just like an NHS doctor can. If they are removing the panel but then specifying that the GD diagnosis needs to come from a medic employed by the NHS that's seems a weird change that wouldn't really suit anyone IMO. Applicants would still complain about referral and waiting times.

AdamRyan · 23/04/2024 16:39

lifeturnsonadime · 23/04/2024 16:36

Apologies Adam you started this thread to activate in favour of the wishes of trans women, you didn't come on to it.

I stand corrected.

No. I started this thread to continue a conversation with another poster, so as not to derail another thread.
That other poster hasn't bothered coming on to discuss it and instead it's got moved here (which isn't where I posted it).

Please stop projecting about my motivations. You are starting to seem unhealthily obsessed with my opinions and I'm finding it creepy to be honest.

OP posts:
FlakyPoet · 23/04/2024 16:39

Underthinker · 23/04/2024 16:38

@AdamRyan I don't think that will happen, I think it will stay in the NHS under Labour. Labour don't have the same ethos of outsourcing for ££. But we will see what they decide.

Perhaps. But that would be a departure from most areas of medicine where you can generally opt to see a private doctor and they can diagnose and prescribe just like an NHS doctor can. If they are removing the panel but then specifying that the GD diagnosis needs to come from a medic employed by the NHS that's seems a weird change that wouldn't really suit anyone IMO. Applicants would still complain about referral and waiting times.

New Labour saw in a huge upsurge of quangos.

Please create an account

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

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread