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
Underthinker · 22/04/2024 18:55

JessS1990 · 22/04/2024 17:50

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

I've yet to find anyone who can 100% successfully identify who has a female gender identity by any means whatsoever.

BIossomtoes · 22/04/2024 18:55

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.

Had you read the OP properly you’d have noticed that it credits @Bigcoatlady who wrote the original post. Not that OP is a trans activist in any case.

AdamRyan · 22/04/2024 19:04

Igmum · 22/04/2024 18:46

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.

What are you talking about?
This post isn't on FWR, it is not about an invasion, it's about an extremely interesting factual post someone put on another thread. Engage with the content or don't. But not everything is about FWR and some sort of perceived threat.

OP posts:
JessS1990 · 22/04/2024 19:04

AdamRyan · 22/04/2024 18:14

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?

Does activist mean anyone who disagrees with me?

pointythings · 22/04/2024 19:05

JessS1990 · 22/04/2024 19:04

Does activist mean anyone who disagrees with me?

Anyone who disagrees and has the temerity not to shut up about it. You're only allowed a view on women's rights if it's the correct view.

GrumpyPanda · 22/04/2024 19:09

What are you talking about?
This post isn't on FWR, it is not about an invasion, it's about an extremely interesting factual post someone put on another thread

It is now 😂😂
Too delicious to see a bona fide TRA thread moved to the naughty step for a change. What goes around comes around I guess.

AdamRyan · 22/04/2024 19:09

Yeah. We are such TRAs, having the temerity to point out austerity has fucked up services for women and the government would rather send 150 judges to Rwanda than deal with the rape backlog.

OP posts:
AdamRyan · 22/04/2024 19:10

GrumpyPanda · 22/04/2024 19:09

What are you talking about?
This post isn't on FWR, it is not about an invasion, it's about an extremely interesting factual post someone put on another thread

It is now 😂😂
Too delicious to see a bona fide TRA thread moved to the naughty step for a change. What goes around comes around I guess.

Ha! Is it? That's totes hilarious. No skin off my nose though. Will look forward to saying hi to the regulars.

OP posts:
AdamRyan · 22/04/2024 19:11

I'm a bit gutted to be honest as I got told to start threads in other bits of the board as I'm not welcome here, but I guess I don't make the rules for moving threads

OP posts:
AdamRyan · 22/04/2024 19:11

GrumpyPanda · 22/04/2024 19:09

What are you talking about?
This post isn't on FWR, it is not about an invasion, it's about an extremely interesting factual post someone put on another thread

It is now 😂😂
Too delicious to see a bona fide TRA thread moved to the naughty step for a change. What goes around comes around I guess.

I'm not a TRA though, just to be clear. Unless you are using Jess description.

OP posts:
MrsOvertonsWindow · 22/04/2024 19:11

GrumpyPanda · 22/04/2024 19:09

What are you talking about?
This post isn't on FWR, it is not about an invasion, it's about an extremely interesting factual post someone put on another thread

It is now 😂😂
Too delicious to see a bona fide TRA thread moved to the naughty step for a change. What goes around comes around I guess.

😂😂
Maybe it should be on Feminist chat? That much demanded board from a vanishingly small number of posters objecting to women speaking freely seems a bit quiet?

Underthinker · 22/04/2024 19:12

The problem with the EA in my opinion is the ambiguity. Legal experts argue about its interpretation, whether "case by case" means service by service or user by user, and no one really knows what is and isn't a proportionate reason to keep a service single sex or how all of that is changed by the possession of a GRC. All of the questions have failed to be resolved by court cases.
The ambiguity puts campaigners in a limbo where they simultaneously don't have single sex spaces, but are told SSS are already perfectly legal so what are they complaining about? It's is the worst of both worlds. If the law was unambiguously against women's spaces, the campaign to fix that would likely be backed by overwhelming public opinion, and be swift and decisive.
Hopefully the main parties will commit to clarifying all this in their manifestos.

AdamRyan · 22/04/2024 19:13

Feel free to report it and ask for it to be moved, if you want to hive off certain views mrsoverton. As you know, I'm more than happy to post here. I know lots of people have this board hidden though so it probably won't get as much reach here.

OP posts:
JessS1990 · 22/04/2024 19:14

pointythings · 22/04/2024 19:05

Anyone who disagrees and has the temerity not to shut up about it. You're only allowed a view on women's rights if it's the correct view.

I have tried hard to understand the correct view, but it just gets more confusing, because there are so many holes it might be a colander.

GrumpyPanda · 22/04/2024 19:14

AdamRyan · 22/04/2024 19:11

I'm a bit gutted to be honest as I got told to start threads in other bits of the board as I'm not welcome here, but I guess I don't make the rules for moving threads

OK fair enough. Saw this in Chat and figured you'd decided to do a bit of proselytizing there since the FWR crowd is too stubborn.

That said, telling women here austerity has fucked up services for women has a bit of a "when did you stop beating up your wife" whiff to it.

pointythings · 22/04/2024 19:18

@Underthinker I think it ought to be a cross party issue and the heat of the culture wars needs to be taken out of it. If you look past all that, what you see is an awful lot of fundamental agreement: Yes to single sex spaces, no to puberty blockers, yes to third spaces, yes to safety for trans people, more prosecutions for rape, more and better mental health support, an end to stupid gender stereotypes in clothes, toys, activities. All of that can be done, but not by calling people names and saying there is a 'right' kind of feminism.

AdamRyan · 22/04/2024 19:19

GrumpyPanda · 22/04/2024 19:14

OK fair enough. Saw this in Chat and figured you'd decided to do a bit of proselytizing there since the FWR crowd is too stubborn.

That said, telling women here austerity has fucked up services for women has a bit of a "when did you stop beating up your wife" whiff to it.

Edited

Confused What?
Sorry that's a reference I don't get. I'm hoping it's not something misogynistic

OP posts:
AdamRyan · 22/04/2024 19:19

pointythings · 22/04/2024 19:18

@Underthinker I think it ought to be a cross party issue and the heat of the culture wars needs to be taken out of it. If you look past all that, what you see is an awful lot of fundamental agreement: Yes to single sex spaces, no to puberty blockers, yes to third spaces, yes to safety for trans people, more prosecutions for rape, more and better mental health support, an end to stupid gender stereotypes in clothes, toys, activities. All of that can be done, but not by calling people names and saying there is a 'right' kind of feminism.

Yes 💯

OP posts:
pointythings · 22/04/2024 19:20

That said, telling women here austerity has fucked up services for women has a bit of a "when did you stop beating up your wife" whiff to it.

What now?

Otter2 · 22/04/2024 19:20

JessS1990 · 22/04/2024 17:50

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

Eh? Is being born female not enough?

Underthinker · 22/04/2024 19:22

@pointythings
I strongly disagree with the "culture war framing". It is almost never referred to as a culture war when activists or politicians push policies such as self ID, gender conversion therapy bans or advocating for puberty blockers, but is almost always described in those terms when people argue against such policies.

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 22/04/2024 19:23

AdamRyan · 22/04/2024 15:41

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

I would like to vote for a party which knows what a woman is AND cares about them.

Which party is that, please?

pointythings · 22/04/2024 19:25

Underthinker · 22/04/2024 19:22

@pointythings
I strongly disagree with the "culture war framing". It is almost never referred to as a culture war when activists or politicians push policies such as self ID, gender conversion therapy bans or advocating for puberty blockers, but is almost always described in those terms when people argue against such policies.

Edited

I see the culture war framing as something that the politicians do - certainly our current lot are doing a lot of it, not just on the trans issue. Black Lives Matter is also something that has been weaponised under that banner. The point is that it focuses more on what divides people than on what they agree on, which is destructive.

Otter2 · 22/04/2024 19:27

pointythings · 22/04/2024 19:18

@Underthinker I think it ought to be a cross party issue and the heat of the culture wars needs to be taken out of it. If you look past all that, what you see is an awful lot of fundamental agreement: Yes to single sex spaces, no to puberty blockers, yes to third spaces, yes to safety for trans people, more prosecutions for rape, more and better mental health support, an end to stupid gender stereotypes in clothes, toys, activities. All of that can be done, but not by calling people names and saying there is a 'right' kind of feminism.

It's only ever 'culture wars' when it's women fighting for their rights though isn't it? Other groups are allowed to strongly advocate for themselves and call out bullshit - but not women, no, that's divisive culture wars. 🙄

AdamRyan · 22/04/2024 19:27

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 22/04/2024 19:23

I would like to vote for a party which knows what a woman is AND cares about them.

Which party is that, please?

You need to read my reply in the context of the quoted post:
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?

Vote for who you like. I'm not here to persuade you.

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.
Swipe left for the next trending thread