Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

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
lifeturnsonadime · 24/04/2024 17:46

AdamRyan · 24/04/2024 17:31

I reported you for calling me a TRA repeatedly. It is incorrect and offensive. If anyone calls me it again I will report them too.

Talk guidelines are to be respectful to each other and no personal attacks. I've told you repeatedly I'm not a TRA and find it offensive and you persist.

So whose rights ARE you trying to protect with your posts Adam?

It's certainly not the girls who are school refusing when they have their periods because toilets are too difficult, aren't they?

It's not the religious minority women & sexual assault victims who are unable to engage fully in society due to the fact that toilets have become unisex without consent and due to misinterpretations of the law that you don't think need to be drawn back on or clarified?

You are offensive too. You have named called me and told lies about my motives throughout many many threads. I haven't reported those posts because you are entitled to your opinion of me, even if it is misguided.

I will desist in using the term TRA in connection with your posts which favour trans women over women it offends you but I hope that you will understand that your assumptions and posting style is equally 'offensive'. If a person won't vote Labour because this issue is important to them then it's perhaps better to accept that's the truth & accept their reasoning for that rather than attempt to belittle their priorities when it comes to voting and suggesting they have right wing ulterior motives. Otherwise you are simply being a hypocrite.

You don't like being associated with a negative thing that you feel doesn't apply to you and nor does anyone else.

BIossomtoes · 24/04/2024 18:00

Do I want people who say something as mental as "women can have penises" in charge of the country?

We currently have a government that thinks it can just say Rwanda is a safe place and that makes it one. That seems just as mental and a lot more dangerous to me.

We aren't the ones whose stance has literally been "no debate".

To be fair you are. Because some of you refuse to discuss anything else or to concede that anyone else might have a point, particularly that we currently have a government happy to oversee crumbling services and mass poverty which are damaging the lives of women and children to a greater extent than an army of trans people could.

AdamRyan · 24/04/2024 18:03

Underthinker · 24/04/2024 16:40

@BIossomtoes
Just as a hypothetical question. Is there a policy that Labour could propose, that was so bad that it could turn you into a single issue voter? Say for example Starmer took leave of his senses and vowed to legalise slavery or to build a wall between England and Wales. Can you imagine under those circumstances voting Tory, even knowing all the things you've disliked about them for years? Or maybe not even voting for them, can you imagine coming online to argue that you can no longer vote Labour until they reverse that policy? That's where many (not all) of us are.

It's not the same comparison. I can think of a whole heap of issues that would turn me off voting Labour.

I can't think of a single issue that would persuade me to vote for a party I otherwise abhor, because they are the only party offering that option.

OP posts:
AdamRyan · 24/04/2024 18:07

BIossomtoes · 24/04/2024 18:00

Do I want people who say something as mental as "women can have penises" in charge of the country?

We currently have a government that thinks it can just say Rwanda is a safe place and that makes it one. That seems just as mental and a lot more dangerous to me.

We aren't the ones whose stance has literally been "no debate".

To be fair you are. Because some of you refuse to discuss anything else or to concede that anyone else might have a point, particularly that we currently have a government happy to oversee crumbling services and mass poverty which are damaging the lives of women and children to a greater extent than an army of trans people could.

Just about to post the same.
When people are accused of being activists who are harming women and children for holding a different view that is the epitome of "no debate". It surprises me to see GC feminists operating to that principle recently. We know what it's like to be on the other side.

OP posts:
AdamRyan · 24/04/2024 18:09

lifeturnsonadime · 24/04/2024 17:46

So whose rights ARE you trying to protect with your posts Adam?

It's certainly not the girls who are school refusing when they have their periods because toilets are too difficult, aren't they?

It's not the religious minority women & sexual assault victims who are unable to engage fully in society due to the fact that toilets have become unisex without consent and due to misinterpretations of the law that you don't think need to be drawn back on or clarified?

You are offensive too. You have named called me and told lies about my motives throughout many many threads. I haven't reported those posts because you are entitled to your opinion of me, even if it is misguided.

I will desist in using the term TRA in connection with your posts which favour trans women over women it offends you but I hope that you will understand that your assumptions and posting style is equally 'offensive'. If a person won't vote Labour because this issue is important to them then it's perhaps better to accept that's the truth & accept their reasoning for that rather than attempt to belittle their priorities when it comes to voting and suggesting they have right wing ulterior motives. Otherwise you are simply being a hypocrite.

You don't like being associated with a negative thing that you feel doesn't apply to you and nor does anyone else.

Literally posting my opinion and asking questions. I could not care less who you vote for.

Maybe you should consider why me expressing an opinion triggers you so much. You are still being very rude.

OP posts:
AdamRyan · 24/04/2024 18:10

Oh, and of course if you feel attacked you should report me. MNHQ encourages it to promote open debate.

OP posts:
NoWordForFluffy · 24/04/2024 18:20

BIossomtoes · 24/04/2024 14:28

I care about public services, the environment, education and the NHS so for me it’s a single issue. I don’t frequent FWR as a rule so I haven’t been privy to those arguments. The only reason I’m here now is because this thread’s been moved.

It's been said on threads you're on regarding Labour not in FWR.

Underthinker · 24/04/2024 18:28

When people are accused of being activists who are harming women and children for holding a different view that is the epitome of "no debate".

No it's not. We're 582 replies in on this thread alone. It's a pretty poor example of "no debate".

BIossomtoes · 24/04/2024 18:29

NoWordForFluffy · 24/04/2024 18:20

It's been said on threads you're on regarding Labour not in FWR.

And your point is?

NoWordForFluffy · 24/04/2024 18:29

'No debate' has taken on a whole new meaning, it would appear!

AdamRyan · 24/04/2024 18:31

Underthinker · 24/04/2024 18:28

When people are accused of being activists who are harming women and children for holding a different view that is the epitome of "no debate".

No it's not. We're 582 replies in on this thread alone. It's a pretty poor example of "no debate".

OK. Well let's just say I don't feel at all welcome on this board and am only here out of a long association and sheer bloody mindedness.

You'll see posters insulting me, implying I'm a troll, a TRA, discussing "cold shoulder" etc. None of that is a debate. And it is not just me it happens to.

OP posts:
NoWordForFluffy · 24/04/2024 18:31

BIossomtoes · 24/04/2024 18:29

And your point is?

Ummm, you said this: 'I don’t frequent FWR as a rule so I haven’t been privy to those arguments.' I'm saying that you have, as they haven't just been on FWR and I've seen you on threads where the issue has been raised.

It wasn't a hard point to follow.

AdamRyan · 24/04/2024 18:32

NoWordForFluffy · 24/04/2024 18:29

'No debate' has taken on a whole new meaning, it would appear!

What does "no debate" mean to you? How was it enforced by TRAs?

OP posts:
MissScarletInTheBallroom · 24/04/2024 18:33

BIossomtoes · 24/04/2024 18:00

Do I want people who say something as mental as "women can have penises" in charge of the country?

We currently have a government that thinks it can just say Rwanda is a safe place and that makes it one. That seems just as mental and a lot more dangerous to me.

We aren't the ones whose stance has literally been "no debate".

To be fair you are. Because some of you refuse to discuss anything else or to concede that anyone else might have a point, particularly that we currently have a government happy to oversee crumbling services and mass poverty which are damaging the lives of women and children to a greater extent than an army of trans people could.

"Rwanda is a safe place" is a matter of opinion based on various different criteria and probably varies depending on the current political climate there. I don't consider myself an expert in Rwanda so I can't judge how safe or otherwise it is, and I doubt whether you can either.

"Women can have penises" is factually wrong on every level unless your argument is, "Women can have penises as far as UK law is concerned because Labour changed the law so that a person with a penis could be legally a woman, which means that is now what a woman is and we no longer have or need a word for female people."

As arguments go, it's a pretty piss poor one.

If the Tories changed the law today to say that chicken is now, legally speaking, a vegetable, and then tomorrow they went round saying, "a chicken is a vegetable", it wouldn't be any less mental for the fact that it was, legally speaking, true (because they made it so), nor would vegetarians be OK with eating it.

As for whether it is more dangerous to say that women can have penises or that Rwanda is a safe place, the number of women affected by birth registered males being allowed to self ID as women is far greater than the number of people at risk of being sent to Rwanda, so I disagree with you on that point too.

For what it's worth, I think the Rwanda policy is stupid and I wish we didn't have a binary choice between the people who have concocted a very expensive and pointless policy of sending asylum seekers to Rwanda in order to curry favour with middle England, or the people who say women can have penises. What a time to be alive.

On what basis are you saying my stance is "no debate"?

I'm not telling you not to vote Labour. It's up to you to decide what is important to you and which party is the best choice depending on your priorities.

I'm simply asking you to accept that for some of us this is a deal-breaker, and no amount of whataboutery about Rwanda or emotional blackmail about crumbling services is going to convince us that women's rights and child safeguarding are minor issues.

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 24/04/2024 18:36

AdamRyan · 24/04/2024 18:07

Just about to post the same.
When people are accused of being activists who are harming women and children for holding a different view that is the epitome of "no debate". It surprises me to see GC feminists operating to that principle recently. We know what it's like to be on the other side.

What is it when we are accused of harming asylum seekers or not caring about crumbling public services simply for holding a different view, out of interest?

AdamRyan · 24/04/2024 18:44

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 24/04/2024 18:36

What is it when we are accused of harming asylum seekers or not caring about crumbling public services simply for holding a different view, out of interest?

I don't think anyone has "accused" you of that.

I think women saying they think those things are important and don't understand why women prioritise toilets (paraphrasing) are making an observation. The same as people making the "observation" to me that they don't understand how I could be GC and vote labour given the history. That's fine, thats a debate. We should all be old enough to accept people have strong opinions.

Accusations are personal and and equivalent accusation would be "you hate all transgender people and they are being harmed because of you" or "how many trans people have to die before you accept the GRA"? A familiar tactic to GC people.

OP posts:
AdamRyan · 24/04/2024 18:47

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 24/04/2024 18:33

"Rwanda is a safe place" is a matter of opinion based on various different criteria and probably varies depending on the current political climate there. I don't consider myself an expert in Rwanda so I can't judge how safe or otherwise it is, and I doubt whether you can either.

"Women can have penises" is factually wrong on every level unless your argument is, "Women can have penises as far as UK law is concerned because Labour changed the law so that a person with a penis could be legally a woman, which means that is now what a woman is and we no longer have or need a word for female people."

As arguments go, it's a pretty piss poor one.

If the Tories changed the law today to say that chicken is now, legally speaking, a vegetable, and then tomorrow they went round saying, "a chicken is a vegetable", it wouldn't be any less mental for the fact that it was, legally speaking, true (because they made it so), nor would vegetarians be OK with eating it.

As for whether it is more dangerous to say that women can have penises or that Rwanda is a safe place, the number of women affected by birth registered males being allowed to self ID as women is far greater than the number of people at risk of being sent to Rwanda, so I disagree with you on that point too.

For what it's worth, I think the Rwanda policy is stupid and I wish we didn't have a binary choice between the people who have concocted a very expensive and pointless policy of sending asylum seekers to Rwanda in order to curry favour with middle England, or the people who say women can have penises. What a time to be alive.

On what basis are you saying my stance is "no debate"?

I'm not telling you not to vote Labour. It's up to you to decide what is important to you and which party is the best choice depending on your priorities.

I'm simply asking you to accept that for some of us this is a deal-breaker, and no amount of whataboutery about Rwanda or emotional blackmail about crumbling services is going to convince us that women's rights and child safeguarding are minor issues.

I think blossom meant "you" plural, as in the prevailing view of GC posters on this board, rather than you in particular.

It's a very easy trap to fall into because English grammar isn't specific enough.

OP posts:
AdamRyan · 24/04/2024 18:50

It is very hurtful to be accused of harming women and children for holding a different political opinion. Especially if one is a survivor of domestic and childhood abuse.

It is very hurtful to be called a liar for posting your own experiences, as happened earlier on on this thread.

And for people with trans family and friends, it must be very difficult to be attacked for sticking up for people you care about. I think sometimes posters forget that in the fight for the "cause".

OP posts:
MissScarletInTheBallroom · 24/04/2024 18:55

AdamRyan · 24/04/2024 18:47

I think blossom meant "you" plural, as in the prevailing view of GC posters on this board, rather than you in particular.

It's a very easy trap to fall into because English grammar isn't specific enough.

I don't see how the criticism is fair when applied to other posters on this thread either though.

Nobody is telling you (plural) not to vote Labour, are they?

JessS1990 · 24/04/2024 18:59

AdamRyan · 24/04/2024 18:50

It is very hurtful to be accused of harming women and children for holding a different political opinion. Especially if one is a survivor of domestic and childhood abuse.

It is very hurtful to be called a liar for posting your own experiences, as happened earlier on on this thread.

And for people with trans family and friends, it must be very difficult to be attacked for sticking up for people you care about. I think sometimes posters forget that in the fight for the "cause".

Thank you.

BIossomtoes · 24/04/2024 18:59

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 24/04/2024 18:36

What is it when we are accused of harming asylum seekers or not caring about crumbling public services simply for holding a different view, out of interest?

Nobody has made that accusation, I certainly haven’t. The point I was trying - clearly unsuccessfully - to make is that there’s more than one way of damaging women and I believe poor or nonexistent healthcare, terrible housing, failure to relieve poverty are much more damaging than the trans issue.

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 24/04/2024 19:02

BIossomtoes · 24/04/2024 18:59

Nobody has made that accusation, I certainly haven’t. The point I was trying - clearly unsuccessfully - to make is that there’s more than one way of damaging women and I believe poor or nonexistent healthcare, terrible housing, failure to relieve poverty are much more damaging than the trans issue.

How is the Rwanda policy damaging to women specifically?

AdamRyan · 24/04/2024 19:04

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 24/04/2024 18:55

I don't see how the criticism is fair when applied to other posters on this thread either though.

Nobody is telling you (plural) not to vote Labour, are they?

Well, yes Confused In the same way, when they post about how Labour can't be trusted or post misinformation saying they will bring back self ID and that's what I'm voting for.

OP posts:
MissScarletInTheBallroom · 24/04/2024 19:07

AdamRyan · 24/04/2024 19:04

Well, yes Confused In the same way, when they post about how Labour can't be trusted or post misinformation saying they will bring back self ID and that's what I'm voting for.

I think they're explaining why they won't vote Labour. That's not the same thing as telling you that you shouldn't vote Labour.

You have started a thread which appears to be for the purpose of persuading women to vote Labour despite their concerns about Labour's sex and gender policies.

AdamRyan · 24/04/2024 19:08

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 24/04/2024 19:02

How is the Rwanda policy damaging to women specifically?

It is diverting a lot of resources that could be better spent on other things.

The most glaring example being the judges. But also the money more generally could be better spent on healthcare, child care, domestic violence or all manner of other stuff.

https://twitter.com/vicderbyshire/status/1747557144038089152

https://twitter.com/vicderbyshire/status/1747557144038089152

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.