Melanie Field: the former EGRC expert behind Labour's women's rights policy

[LetsTalkTwaddle]

Word has it that Melanie Field, who was one of those behind an attempt to oust Baroness Kishwar Falkner from her position heading the EHRC, is the woman who is telling Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner what to say when asked about women's rights.

Last year Kishwar Falkner came under attack for alleged bullying and transphobia, which she was later cleared of. Melanie Field left the EHRC thereafter and set up as an independent adviser. It's Field, I'm told, who is behind the 'biological women and other, traumatised and vulnerable women who've been born in the wrong body' line that Keir Starmer et al are trotting out.

Field has also written an article on why the Equality Act is just fine and needs no clarification: she was apparently one of the key people who drafted it.

https://uk.linkedin.com/in/melanie-field-389901148

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/do-we-need-amend-equality-act-protect-womens-rights-melanie-field-dyewe?trk=publicprofilearticleview

The previous head of the EHRC was David Isaac who also acted as Chair of Stonewall during the time he was in official office. Melanie Field was working in the EHRC during his period in the EHRC.

Elsewhere GC groups have noticed that Stonewall and other trans groups have gone very quiet about the use of the phrase 'biological women', which they would once have protested about, because TWAW. There's speculation that Stonewall and allies have agreed to pipe down in order to enable Labour to pursue the 'Biological and other women' line.

Lawks, I mean the EHRC. Can't seem to edit and correct the title.

I’m not on LinkedIn so I couldn’t read much without prompting to sign in, but there were some interesting comments below the article pointing out where and why she is wrong. Peter Daly being one of them.

https://x.com/Nancy_M_K/status/1725187293319696753

I wonder who has the ear of Melanie Field?

Field seems particularly keen on the concept of " balancing rights" - which automatically assumes, I suggest, that women have to give way on some issues and trans identified people in other ways.

It ignores the fundamental conflict which is not simply over access to single sex spaces, but about the very definition of sex. In the act of compromising and balancing.....what we are being requested to do is to obscure the truth.

Seems Field is one of the main movers and shakers of the 'Equalities' world, having drafted the original equalities act.

It looks as though she had to be re-educated by the trans lobby after suggesting in 2022 that GRA reform shouldn't be rushed into.

Speaking at the committee, Melanie Field, chief strategy and policy officer for the EHRC, said: “In the case of reform of the Gender Recognition Act, we reached the position that more detailed consideration is needed before legislative change is made.

"This is because of the continued lack of certainty about the practical consequences for individuals and society of extending the ability to change legal sex from a defined group with a recognised medical condition who have demonstrated their commitment and ability to live in their acquired gender to a wider group.

“Questions continue to be raised in different quarters about potential consequences. For example, in relation to the collection and use of data, participation and drug testing in competitive sport, measures to address barriers facing women and practices within the criminal justice system.”

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/gender-recognition-scotland-ehrc-says-lack-of-certainty-remains-over-gra-reform-despite-delay-concerns-3697767

Field says:

"The key lesson I took from working on the Equality Act, and later on same-sex marriage legislation, both of which involved complex balancing of competing rights, was the crucial importance of genuinely addressing concerns. That requires carefully listening to, and engaging constructively with, those who are not supportive of change"

This passage is written with the assumption that the public have to be talked into, or re-assured about changes.....which is excatly what Starmer has been at pains to say in recent days.

"Yes, we do. I hope that after the election space will open up for a less polarised public conversation"

And how is that going to be achieved? It does seem to be assumed that if you talk nicely to people and say soothings things then essential disagreements will disappear.

"The key lesson I took from working on the Equality Act, and later on same-sex marriage legislation, both of which involved complex balancing of competing rights, was the crucial importance of genuinely addressing concerns. That requires carefully listening to, and engaging constructively with, those who are not supportive of change.

The integrity of the equality and human rights framework relies on engaging positively and in good faith with those who fear their own rights may be impacted, understanding their fears and examining – impartially and on the basis of evidence – where those concerns come from and how they should be addressed.

While some of the opposition to same-sex marriage may have been driven by misunderstanding or even prejudice, many objections were rooted in profoundly-held religious or philosophical beliefs. The success of the legislation hung on it demonstrably ensuring strong protection of the right to freedom of religion. That was achieved through carefully-crafted, targeted provisions designed to ensure that the law worked in the way intended in a range of specific circumstances.

I believe it is a model for legislating on contentious socially progressive issues in a way which can secure broad public support"

https://x.com/Nancy_M_K/status/1725187293319696753

Oh my goodness, when Nancy Kelley, Stephen Whittle, Robin Moira White and Melanie Field all agree on something, you can be sure that that something is worth investigating. Field is a commander in the trans brigade, not the foot soldier I'd imagined.

You get the feeling that they are still driving the car in the direction of self ID, if they have the expected huge maority who know's what they will do.

This is how this stuff becomes policy. Written by civil servants with an agenda.

Thanks for this thread. I had no idea of this woman's influence.

What they continue to misunderstand or deny to themselves, is that the public, and pesky women in particular now understand the problems with self-id of sex and we are not going to go away. Labour may have a majority in the HoC at the end of next week, but there will be an army or people like the wonderful Jane yesterday who will continue to hold their feet to the fire.

Yes, they think that they can get public consent if they massage the message enough and for long enough.

Thanks op, this is interesting. It's also very plausible but is there anything that specifically links her with Labour and their current policies and statements? (I can't access the Linked-in stuff so apologies if it's there)

I have never been so scared about a party being elected. They are working hard behind the scenes.

https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/stonewall-redefines-trans-to-exclude-crossdressers/

Stonewall’s long-standing definition of “trans” changed on 27th June 2024 to drop “crossdresser” from the list.

I'm told, by someone within the Labour Party at a high level, that Melanie Field is advising on this issue.

I'm not registered with Link In and I have no trouble getting Melanie Field's page up, declining the opportunity to sign in and still reading everything I've linked to. Not sure why it's proving so difficult for others.

The only significant conflict of interest with gay marriage was between those who wanted gay marriage and those who wanted the right not to carry out the ceremony. That was easily adjusted by saying those who didn’t want to carry out the ceremonies on religious grounds had the right to refuse.

The difference between that and demanding that some men can use women’s spaces is massive. There is no comparison.

Giving women who don’t want to share with men (on religious grounds or for any other reason) the right not to use those spaces is no answer as, unlike with a marriage ceremony, where you can simply ask someone else to do it, there is no alternative space.

Women who don’t want to share spaces with men are not in any way equivalent to marriage celebrants who don’t want to marry gay people in this situation. Those women need something themselves, the marriage celebrant doesn’t.

The only thing those two groups have in common is that activists would probably call both groups bigots.

How do Stonewall propose that we can tell the difference between a cross dresser and a trans woman I wonder?

Perhaps it assumes that if you make sure women are properly punished for wrongspeak, then you tend to get a less polarised conversation?

I’m not sure that Stonewall recognises a difference?

It also brushes over another important point, which is that women are already in a very significantly compromised position . In order to actually balance rights in that way, you would have to consider the original position (no men accepted in women’s spaces) with the currently demanded situation (all men who want to can use women’s spaces).

If you look for a reasonable compromise, that the majority might agree with you would potentially arrive where we were before transactivists moved onto demanding self-ID and numbers ballooned. Women’s spaces were for women and a tiny number of men who, for medical reasons (or so it could be argued) benefited from using women’s spaces to the point where it was something that needed to be balanced against women’s rights to male free spaces.

To reach any reasonable compromise, the current group of male invaders should actually be told they can’t have access. Instead, I imagine the Labour Party will blindly assume compromise will involve women moving further over.

It’s not going to happen and it will never be possible to persuade the majority to that position, because it is so patently unreasonable.

If cross-dressers are no longer trans, then trans are no longer trans… This has not been thought through. I wonder which unworthy group will next be dropped (or added)?

I wonder if they will remove the "crossdresser route" to getting a female passport merely by making a self declaration by letter to HM Passport Office, or whether that will quietly remain on the books.