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 · 24/04/2024 19:09

AdamRyan · 24/04/2024 19:08

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

That's a massive stretch.

You could argue that literally any policy which doesn't directly benefit women is harmful to them because the time and money spent on it could be put towards women instead.

AdamRyan · 24/04/2024 19:11

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 24/04/2024 19:07

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.

I started a thread on a different board at the request of a poster who was insistent we talked about trans issues on a current affairs thread. That poster so far has declined to join this thread, I don't know why. This post got moved here by mnhq, not at my request.

I also routinely get told to start my own threads if I comment on other people's threads on here.

I'm not suggesting people vote Laboir, any more than the posters starting threads entitled "In praise of Kemi Badenoch" are suggesting people vote Tory.

It is very strange to insist this board is happy for debates, its not political etc and then take exception to people posting threads that spark a debate.

OP posts:
AdamRyan · 24/04/2024 19:13

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 24/04/2024 19:09

That's a massive stretch.

You could argue that literally any policy which doesn't directly benefit women is harmful to them because the time and money spent on it could be put towards women instead.

Did you look at the tweet? Even Danny Kruger says it's a fair criticism.

Rape victims are waiting 7 years for trials, due to lack of resources in the court system. Yet the Government can prioritise to find judges to deal with Rwanda.

OP posts:
MissScarletInTheBallroom · 24/04/2024 19:17

AdamRyan · 24/04/2024 19:13

Did you look at the tweet? Even Danny Kruger says it's a fair criticism.

Rape victims are waiting 7 years for trials, due to lack of resources in the court system. Yet the Government can prioritise to find judges to deal with Rwanda.

Do you have a source for that 7 year figure?

AdamRyan · 24/04/2024 19:18

My bigger problem with Rwanda is the government has broken democracy to implement it, continuing the pattern that started under Johnson when he prorogued parliament.

If politicians feel they are more important than the law and can override it at will, that is really dangerous. For everyone including women.

OP posts:
AdamRyan · 24/04/2024 19:21

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 24/04/2024 19:17

Do you have a source for that 7 year figure?

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/rape-victims-suicidal-cases-take-more-than-eight-years-trial/

The part she can’t see improving “anytime soon”, is the time it takes rape cases to reach court: “The record Crown Court backlog is huge, and there isn’t a huge amount of effort coming from the government to really try to tackle that.”

https://bylinetimes.com/2023/12/15/rape-serious-sexual-offences-cases-now-represent-record-one-in-seven-of-all-trials-in-courts-backlog/

https://rapecrisis.org.uk/get-informed/breaking-point/

Rape & Serious Sexual Offences Cases Now Represent Record One in Seven of All Trials in Courts Backlog

As the overall crown court backlog hits a record 67,000, Byline Times can reveal the number of ‘RASSO’ cases waiting to be heard has more than tripled in five years

https://bylinetimes.com/2023/12/15/rape-serious-sexual-offences-cases-now-represent-record-one-in-seven-of-all-trials-in-courts-backlog

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

AdamRyan · 24/04/2024 19:18

My bigger problem with Rwanda is the government has broken democracy to implement it, continuing the pattern that started under Johnson when he prorogued parliament.

If politicians feel they are more important than the law and can override it at will, that is really dangerous. For everyone including women.

Right, but it's still a massive stretch to imply that the Rwanda policy is evidence of the Tories not prioritising women, which seems to be the argument being made here.

Compare and contrast.

A: I'm voting Labour.
B: Labour are anti-women because they believe male people with female gender identities should be allowed to access women's single sex spaces and they want to make it even easier for them to do so. This has obvious implications for women's safety and dignity.

B: I'm not voting Labour because I believe Labour are anti-women.
A: But what about the Tories' Rwanda policy?

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 24/04/2024 19:28

AdamRyan · 24/04/2024 19:21

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/rape-victims-suicidal-cases-take-more-than-eight-years-trial/

The part she can’t see improving “anytime soon”, is the time it takes rape cases to reach court: “The record Crown Court backlog is huge, and there isn’t a huge amount of effort coming from the government to really try to tackle that.”

https://bylinetimes.com/2023/12/15/rape-serious-sexual-offences-cases-now-represent-record-one-in-seven-of-all-trials-in-courts-backlog/

https://rapecrisis.org.uk/get-informed/breaking-point/

Edited

It says right in the second paragraph, "These are not the standard cases."

It's clear that these are complex cases which are taking a very long time to get to court for reasons which have little if anything to do with the backlog in the court system.

Your previous post seemed to be implying that 7 years is the normal time for a rape trial to get to court these days. I was pretty sure that wasn't true, and oh look, it isn't.

You undermine a valid point (that hearing Rwanda cases might not be the best use of judges' sitting days in an already overburdened court system) by framing your argument in this way.

Otter2 · 24/04/2024 19:34

MissScarlet just wanted to say that you are on fire on this thread and to thank you for being so clear and arguing your points so effectively here. I am in awe. 🔥

BIossomtoes · 24/04/2024 19:36

AdamRyan · 24/04/2024 19:08

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

Exactly that. Rape has effectively been decriminalised because the court backlog is so long but suddenly there are 150 judges and enough court rooms to hear asylum cases for despatch to Rwanda. Meanwhile women’s rapes are without justice.

BIossomtoes · 24/04/2024 19:41

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 24/04/2024 19:28

It says right in the second paragraph, "These are not the standard cases."

It's clear that these are complex cases which are taking a very long time to get to court for reasons which have little if anything to do with the backlog in the court system.

Your previous post seemed to be implying that 7 years is the normal time for a rape trial to get to court these days. I was pretty sure that wasn't true, and oh look, it isn't.

You undermine a valid point (that hearing Rwanda cases might not be the best use of judges' sitting days in an already overburdened court system) by framing your argument in this way.

https://amp.theguardian.com/society/2024/mar/06/years-of-delays-to-trials-a-significant-injustice-says-judge

Of course it’s The Guardian so probably not to be trusted.

Years of delays to rape trials a ‘significant injustice’, says judge | Rape and sexual assault | The Guardian

More than 180 alleged rape victims have faced more than two years of delays since case first went to court

https://amp.theguardian.com/society/2024/mar/06/years-of-delays-to-trials-a-significant-injustice-says-judge

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 24/04/2024 19:52

BIossomtoes · 24/04/2024 19:41

Yes, two years. Not seven.

The point would have been valid enough if Adam had said two years. Saying seven years when the truth is two just undermines your credibility.

And if you want me to trust Labour because you say Labour can be trusted, it helps if you are trustworthy in the first place.

RebelliousCow · 24/04/2024 19:56

Bigcoatlady · 24/04/2024 17:41

I don't follow? My point was they were not ideal for me. As a mother of three children under five I valued the single sex space. Did you read my post?

Yes, you said that with just one child or adult to care for that "mixed sex spaces were ideal" Perhaps that was a typo?

Bigcoatlady · 24/04/2024 20:15

RebelliousCow · 24/04/2024 19:56

Yes, you said that with just one child or adult to care for that "mixed sex spaces were ideal" Perhaps that was a typo?

But in the context of my post it's pretty clear I am saying in theory provision of single bathrooms containing toilets and basins wd be great. Sometimes called universal provision. This is what the DLUHC guidance last year actually advocates. But in practice I can recall times that would not have been useful - if it meant trying to fit four people and a pushchair in a single small bathroom or leave very small children unsupervised.

Whereas if I only had to assist one small child (or adult) in using the toilet that would work. DH in particular regularly had to take our DDs into the gents as he couldn't take them into the ladies and they were too little to go alone. Meaning there is still a case for both 'universal' and the type of multi stall single sex provision that is typical now. Alternatively obviously wider provision of family rooms - but I've only ever see these in shopping centers and service stations, certainly not in adult public buildings like stations, theatres, galleries, museums where I have seen universal provision type toilets. Eg at the National Gallery a few weeks ago I noted the toilets were all individual bathrooms.

I wasn't saying mixed sex toilets were ideal in all cases, they are specifically useful for people caring for one opposite sex person. For disabled adults this is what we've had for decades - but disabled toilets are not facilities for parents of young children. Given buildings don't have unlimited space identifying and prioritizing users needs is important so different solutions might work in different places. As I said above my only point was it's extremely complex.

Merrymouse · 24/04/2024 20:25

Bigcoatlady · 24/04/2024 20:15

But in the context of my post it's pretty clear I am saying in theory provision of single bathrooms containing toilets and basins wd be great. Sometimes called universal provision. This is what the DLUHC guidance last year actually advocates. But in practice I can recall times that would not have been useful - if it meant trying to fit four people and a pushchair in a single small bathroom or leave very small children unsupervised.

Whereas if I only had to assist one small child (or adult) in using the toilet that would work. DH in particular regularly had to take our DDs into the gents as he couldn't take them into the ladies and they were too little to go alone. Meaning there is still a case for both 'universal' and the type of multi stall single sex provision that is typical now. Alternatively obviously wider provision of family rooms - but I've only ever see these in shopping centers and service stations, certainly not in adult public buildings like stations, theatres, galleries, museums where I have seen universal provision type toilets. Eg at the National Gallery a few weeks ago I noted the toilets were all individual bathrooms.

I wasn't saying mixed sex toilets were ideal in all cases, they are specifically useful for people caring for one opposite sex person. For disabled adults this is what we've had for decades - but disabled toilets are not facilities for parents of young children. Given buildings don't have unlimited space identifying and prioritizing users needs is important so different solutions might work in different places. As I said above my only point was it's extremely complex.

Yes, I agree.

AdamRyan · 24/04/2024 20:31

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 24/04/2024 19:52

Yes, two years. Not seven.

The point would have been valid enough if Adam had said two years. Saying seven years when the truth is two just undermines your credibility.

And if you want me to trust Labour because you say Labour can be trusted, it helps if you are trustworthy in the first place.

Fine. Like I've said, vote for who you like. I know what my priorities are, you know what yours are, there's not much point on further discussion.

OP posts:
BIossomtoes · 24/04/2024 20:50

So 180 women having to wait two years for the crime against them to go to court is fine?

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 24/04/2024 20:52

BIossomtoes · 24/04/2024 20:50

So 180 women having to wait two years for the crime against them to go to court is fine?

Literally nobody has said it is fine.

Don't you ever get bored of straw manning like this?

BIossomtoes · 24/04/2024 20:54

Don’t you ever get tired of pretending the only way women can be harmed is by trans ideology?

RufustheFactualReindeer · 24/04/2024 20:57

The states for rapes going to court are bad enough as they are without exaggeration

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 24/04/2024 21:01

BIossomtoes · 24/04/2024 20:54

Don’t you ever get tired of pretending the only way women can be harmed is by trans ideology?

Your posting on this thread is very tedious.

RufustheFactualReindeer · 24/04/2024 21:03

Stats not states…though obviously its a shite state of affairs

AdamRyan · 24/04/2024 21:12

RufustheFactualReindeer · 24/04/2024 20:57

The states for rapes going to court are bad enough as they are without exaggeration

It wasn't intentional. I don't fact check every single statement, I heard the wait was 7 years, it stuck in my head.

To be honest I'm not in the mood about quibbling about how many years when the vast majority of rapes make it nowhere near court.

OP posts:
RufustheFactualReindeer · 24/04/2024 21:17

I am well aware, unfortunately, about rapes not making it to court

AdamRyan · 24/04/2024 21:22

I know. I'm not having a pop at 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.