The history of the Gender Recognition actand Labour's role

[AdamRyan]

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.

Thank you

I understand its frustrating

After your allegations that we are misrepresenting the Labour Party's position on trans rights, you come out with this and expect to be taken seriously?

Literally no one has said, pretended or implied anything of the sort.

Stop misrepresenting posters on this thread. It doesn't help your position.

Your posting on this thread is very tedious.

Like every other thread.

No I don't feel attacked Adam, this is an internet forum where people have differing opinions, some of them are strong because these are issues that matter to us.

Women's rights to single sex spaces and the impact of gender ideology on autistic children particularly matter to me for some very personal reasons. I have a daughter who has been impacted, she also happens to be a school refuser so my heart goes out to the girls who feel unable to attend school when on their periods due to the lack of bathroom privacy. Education is important and my heart goes out that some girls are missing education as a result of this issue.

I don't think it is good enough that the Labour party don't care about the impact of this issue on girls & women and I'm not impressed with women who brush it under the carpet as being not important enough either.

Shouting down women as being right wing or closet Tories or whatever for having boundaries for ourselves and for our daughters because we won't hold our nose and vote labour anyway is no way to win your argument. It's rude and judgemental. But it is important posts stand in the interest of having a conversation and it is important that readers understand that Labour activists are using these tactics.

It does remind me of the Brexit situation where remainers were talking about Brexiteers being 'turkey's voting for Christmas'. That's no way to win over hearts and minds. Threads like this which effectively are attempting to shame women who have boundaries wrt women and children's single sex spaces into voting for a party who we fundamentally disagree with on this issue has a similar ring to it.

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".

Yet you gloss over the impact on women and girls.

No doubt it is hard for trans people to see the impact on women and girls of the loss of single sex spaces but why is that more important than the women and girls harmed or displaced because of the loss of single sex spaces.

What about the autistic teenage girls caught up in all the mess caused by the over reach of the gender clinics. My daughter was very very nearly one of them?

What about the young women who have gone down the route of puberty blockers/ cross sex hormones and surgery because their autism wasn't identified or seen as a reason why they might be struggling with their identity who are now realising that these things don't make them a man and that their issues remain?

I have sympathy for everyone caught up in this lie that people can be the opposite sex if they get a certificate that say so or have surgery.

it's high time the politicians went back to reality because it's not really helping anyone.

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".

Yet you gloss over the impact on women and girls.

No doubt it is hard for trans people to see the impact on women and girls of the loss of single sex spaces but why is that more important than the women and girls harmed or displaced because of the loss of single sex spaces.

What about the autistic teenage girls caught up in all the mess caused by the over reach of the gender clinics. My daughter was very very nearly one of them?

What about the young women who have gone down the route of puberty blockers/ cross sex hormones and surgery because their autism wasn't identified or seen as a reason why they might be struggling with their identity who are now realising that these things don't make them a man and that their issues remain?

I have sympathy for everyone caught up in this lie that people can be the opposite sex if they get a certificate that say so or have surgery.

it's high time the politicians went back to reality because it's not really helping anyone.

I have no idea why that posted twice. Apologies.

So you are saying that trans is in fact a mental illness then? Sounds very Terfy to me Adam. This is the only thing that the medical profession allows to be self diagnosed and the point is that on the basis of this self diagnosis people are attempting to change the nature of reality for other people, and using the law to enforce it.

Is a Labour government likely to improve the wait time for rape trials, or the NHS?

They like to trade on the assumption that because they "care" they will accomplish those kinds of changes, but I don't think we can take it for grated that they will. or that if they attempt it, it will be a plan that is anything more than a short term band-aid that leaves things worse off in the end.

This seems to be the pattern with Labour governments, they get toward the end of a few terms, and their policies start to unravel, usually financially. I'm not sure this time that they will have a lot of options for even trying to make changes.

Any voting calculation about who to vote for based on things like saving the NHS needs to be based on what they will actually do.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/scunthorpe-tories-b2315032.html

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/27175749/wes-streeting-nhs-major-reform-labour/

I AM very TERFY, that's why it sounds very TERFY! Partly why getting called a TRA is ridiculous!

I don't think I know better than the doctors and psychologists attempting to treat this condition. The fact is there is a sizeable minority of trans identifying children who grow into trans adults (20%). There are a lot of adults who live as the opposite (or even no) sex and say it relieves their dysphoria.

I am not getting involved in how best to treat them, I'm not a professional.

This is the only thing that the medical profession allows to be self diagnosed

Not true. Lots of psychological conditions are diagnosed on the basis of people completing questionnaires and self disclosing their answers.

I'm very familiar with the depression diagnosis for example, it's a standard questionnaire that would be easy to "game" if for some reason one wanted a diagnosis.

You say that your not a TRA and yet almost every post you make has been an attempt to persuade women to lower our boundaries and accept some males in women’s spaces, mostly in defence of the Labour Party’s support for the Trans issue. If you walk like a duck and quack like a duck Adam, you can’t then turn around and blame women for calling you a duck.

Yes, I think this is perhaps more likely to work than their plan about domestic violence, which just seems to be based on wishful thinking, but I am skeptical it will get off the ground. I just don't really see where the money is going to come from.

That simply isn’t true. It’s as if you think if you say it enough it will be true. Stating and restating Labour policy on the trans issue in the face of continuous misrepresentation of it is hardly asking anyone to lower their boundaries.

The NHS though, I don't think they will really be able to do anything with it. The problems are too big and not necessarily the fault of any party either, some of them - the public won't accept any real restructuring to a sustainable model.

I just don't really see where the money is going to come from.

It’s odd how there’s currently quite a lot of money when it suits. All those judges and courts earmarked for Rwanda hearing could come in useful, not to mention the cost of the planes and all the money we’re sending there.

NHS graphs in here. If the past performance is anything to go by, yes Labour will reduce the NHS waiting times.

https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1606223967903260673?lang=en

Part of the reason I like Starmer is because of what he did to support rape victims when he was DPP.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/dec/16/justice-for-victims-of-rape

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/13/false-allegations-rape-domestic-violence-rare

https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/national/24246407.rape-convictions-rose-keir-starmer-becoming-cps-boss-leaving/

He actually has a track record in dealing with this; he's done things that made a real difference for victims (sadly mainly undone by Allison Saunders).

To me as someone who has reducing rape and sexual assault against women as a very high priority, it's a no brainer to vote for someone who's committed to halving violence against women and girls, and has the demonstrable track record that shows they can do that.

Just ignore it.

You say your a Terf and yet you constantly defend allowing some men into women’s toilets etc, aye right!

Whatever. Go and try and pick a fight with someone else.

The Labour Party are responsible for putting the GRA in place and therefore are the cause of the problem. Keir Starmer was the one who went on tv to say that it wasn’t right to say that only women have a cervix and that some women have a penis. Angela Rayner is a fervent supporter of the Trans ideology and Annalise Dodds has been clear about pushing for a so called conversion therapy ban. How is it misrepresenting Labour to say that it’s not on the side of women’s rights when they repeatedly put trans rights above the rights of women? Adam is constantly banging on about allowing trans women in women’s toilets etc, how is what I have said not true?

I’m not picking a fight, your the one reporting people for being observant and seeing through your gaslighting.

So, the GRA was passed in 2004 - that's a while ago. Who's been in power since then? Why is everything such a muddle now?

1. Because there's an election looming.
2. Because the US right-wing, influenced by Russia, has been messing with UK politics and the minds of the population.

That's it.

@Bigcoatlady “I did not say the violence was perpetrated by women - although some is.”
Thank you for clarifying. The way you worded it in the post I quoted it was not at all clear to me that you were talking about male violence in women’s refuges. Just to clarify, traumatised women may, statistically, be more violent than women without a history of such severe trauma, but there is no way on god’s green earth that they are more violent than men as a class.
And another thing, women who have been involved with providing safe houses for women fleeing domestic violence for more than five minutes know that “women only” safe houses are not just places where only women can apply for a bed. They are places where no male person has access, ever. Knowledge of their location is guarded, to keep the women safe. When I was a teenager my mother, who is a vicar’s wife, knew where the nearest safe house was in our suburb because she helped women who came to the church in desperation, who needed a safe house. She didn’t tell me where it was, she didn’t tell my father where it was. My mother believed in wifely submission and told me once that women had been made to be the helpmeets of men. Can you believe it, gender ideology has so rotted the landscape of services for women fleeing violent men that a conservative evangelical woman in the 90s had more of a grasp of what “women only” means than a labour-voting, charity board sitting, right thinking, left wing, frontline worker, who by their own words is not a trans rights activist, in the 2020s.

You...think British women have been tricked by the American right wing and (checks notes) Russia, into believing that their rights matter and that they are entitled to say no to men?