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.

AGP was always their weak link.

Recognising that some transwomen have a fetish has always been something they have pushed under the table, denied, minimised.

For good reason.

If the public thought it was widespread, the entire house of cards would collapse.

They are absolutely fucking determined.

And kier starmer can't wait to help them.

Here’s an archived version of Field’s LinkedIn article:

Do we need to amend the Equality Act to protect women’s rights?
https://archive.is/4f7JB

No compromise. A woman or girl cannot be unviolated. How many rapes are acceptable? How many lost sporting opportunities? What's the acceptable criteria of injuries in sport? Do we get a quota of peeping toms? How does thei balancing work?

Thank you, I've only skimmed it so far but would it be unfair to summarise it as, 'one of the key architects of the Equality Act defends the Equality Act'?

Floisme, Yes. She’s basically arguing that the EA 2010 already has all the necessary safeguards built in and what’s wrong is that society isn’t applying it in the way it was intended to be applied. And that this misapplication is harming trans-identified people and unnecessarily worrying women who really have no reason to be worried.

Let's imagine you're a political party with genuine concerns that one of your laws - of which you are inordinately proud - is being incorrectly read and applied.

Would you consult with:
a) someone who had been heavily involved in drafting this confusing law?
Or b) someone likely to take an objective view?

It worries me very much that Stonewall are so quiet. You can bet Labour have made promises to them.

She then goes on to say:

So the Act ensures that a trans man with a GRC (legally male) can access breast and cervical cancer screening, and that a women’s sexual violence service can require staff and service users to be female and not trans. It enables trans women to be excluded from women’s competitive sport where necessary to ensure fair competition and safety. The Act does not mandate either a “trans-inclusive” or a “trans-exclusive” approach – it enables common sense to be applied in a range of circumstances to enable appropriate provision to be made for everyone, striking the correct balance between women’s rights to privacy, dignity and safety and the rights of trans people not to be discriminated against or harassed.

This only makes sense if you interpret "Trans" as meaning "without a GRC". A transwoman with a GRC is no longer trans, but female, and can not be excluded.

Or have I completely misunderstood this?

It's slippery, ambiguous, and basically impossible to parse.

I think basically the way to clarify it would be to look around and see how its being understood.

Has the NHS applied single sex exemptions to ensure women who has for single sex care don't receive it from a man with a ticket?

Have prisons got males in women's prisons?

Are nurses being forced to accept a male in their changing rooms?

Are men being recorded as 'female' when convicted of a crime?

Are women's sporting awards being given to men?

It's shit law. Trying to blame the public for failing to understand this hodgepodge of contradictory waffle is nonsense.

Optional "safeguards" are not sufficient given 1 we can't ask for proof of a GRC 2. Even if we were allowed to do so who's is going to ask the 300lb six foot six bearded guy in the ladies if they have one and 3 companies and scared woke HR departments take the line of least resistance and either duck the issue entirely by making facilities or competitions mixed sex removing the single sex space avoiding the risk of losing any woke points or facing into threats from TRAs and MRAs or making services and facilities "inclusive" and throwing women and girls under a bus

You cannot have law that says someone with a GRC has changed sex but also hasn't changed sex.

It's madness.

It's shit law. Trying to blame the public for failing to understand this hodgepodge of contradictory waffle is nonsense.

You're right. But more than this, MF actually believes in transubstantiation, with the GRC as the wine and wafer.

Good Lord! The full horror of this has just struck me. I cannot vote for people who believe in magic, and who blithely ignore reason, no matter how greedy, corrupt and incompetent the Tories are.

Can you re-peak? I've re-peaked.

So this needs to be made absolutely clear by Keir Starmer - is there a mumsnetter to ask him questions so he can explain to the public?!

For Keir Starmer:
Your adviser Melanie Field says female single sex spaces for woman includes men with a GRC. Labour want to make the process of getting a GRC much simpler, shorter, with no checks. Labour also want to reduce violence against women and girls.

Questions

1. Will women ever be able to say no to any man entering a single sex space or event? For instance a violent ex-partner who could say he had just got a GRC?
2. Given that all spaces will be mixed sex spaces, that has practical implications for all of us. For example, privacy becomes all important so designs for public toilet cubicles and changing room become more enclosed. When you have private cubicles in public spaces the incidence of assaults, deaths and injuries goes up and hygiene goes down. Is privacy more important than health and safety so that everyone can go into the cubicle of their choice?

There is no end to the enpeakening.

Dennis Kavanagh very much agrees with you - he mentioned it in a recent episode of the Queens Speech that he feels it's significant that Stonewall aren't making much noise at the moment.

Kier Starmer gave what was essentially the same answer as Field's longer post when he was asked about this subject in the most recent BBC election debate: he thinks GRA 2004 and EA 2010 are perfectly good law and can be made to work if applied correctly. He mentioned that he's seen women's refuges that allow trans-identified men to use them and things worked really well in those orgs. He advised voters to read the legislation for themselves to see how it protects women.

'It’s important to recognise that defining “sex” in the Equality Act as “biological sex” would not be a clarification, but a fundamental change. In the Act “sex” means a person’s legal sex under UK law – male or female, as recorded on their birth certificate or, for trans people who have one, on their Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC

Where does it say in the Act that “sex” means a person’s legal sex? If it never clarified that then it should not mean that.

In 2010 Sex meant whether someone is male or female, and ‘male’ and ‘female’ were understood as being descriptions of reproductive body types.

If this Act was really so badly written, it is as much of an outrage as the GRA.

And are they saying that the protected characteristic of Sexual Orientation, which may include being same Sex attracted, really also means a man, who is a woman according their legal sex, who is attracted to a woman?

@UtopiaPlanitia Doesn't work well for the women who can't access the service as they need single sex support. They are excluded so Kei r doesn't count or value them- the wrong sort of women . Its after receiving reports of women in this situation Cots did the Bristol report about female abuse victims left witho ut help due to the Labour council policy. And Labour don't want both mixed and single sex abuse services everyone can access, they want women who can't pretend men are women punished, harmed and excluded.

No, it's not legitimate to have reproductive role/sex as a relevant element in the definition of any legal institution or contract.

It would be odd to have no law around the fundamental aspect of life itself and with huge social consequences for human social life.

We know most assaults happen in mixed sex spaces. The evidence already shows that. Perpetrators don’t like witnesses or visibility so mixed sex areas they can access without comment then private spaces they can push or follow women into are ideal. It’s exactly this situation that is going to increase assaults against women and girls. You couldn’t design it better for them.

This.

They've just appointed a CEO. They are ready for a comeback.

This is not good news for women.

Promises will have been made to to them about lying to us in order to manufacture consent. I believe they are still going to try for self ID, they're just going to try a more circuitous route than before and try to flannel the electorate into it.

It’s important to recognise that defining “sex” in the Equality Act as “biological sex” would not be a clarification, but a fundamental change. In the Act “sex” means a person’s legal sex under UK law – male or female, as recorded on their birth certificate or, for trans people who have one, on their Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC).

So 'sex' means a person's sex, as recorded on their birth certificate (falsified in the case of people with a GRC).

But...
The Equality Act explicitly provides for women-only services, spaces, jobs and sports. It already recognises the reality and importance of “biological sex” by providing that trans women (and trans men) can lawfully be included or excluded as is appropriate in the particular circumstances, regardless of their legal sex, where this is a proportionate way of achieving a legitimate aim.

So even if someone's sex has been falsified on their birth certificate due to a GRC, they can be considered to be their actual, biological sex in some circumstances. This means that their sex isn't considered to be their legally recognised sex in these circumstances. This appears to contradict the position that 'sex' means a person's legal sex as shown on their birth certificate. Most of the time it is, but sometimes it isn't. No criteria are specified for when it's appropriate to decide that someone's sex isn't what is on their birth certificate.

Wouldn't it be simpler to just accept that some people are male, some are female, that this is recorded at birth on their birth certificates and can't be changed?

This whole ridiculous situation has arisen from the pretence that some people who have jumped through some specified hoops have changed sex.

They haven't. Repeal the GRA.

I was wondering what influence Keir Starmer's old Doughty Street friends and colleagues may have had on these issues. In Tom Baldwin's recent biography, Helena Kennedy (Baroness Kennedy) was named as Starmer's oldest friend and mentor from his legal days - Jonathan Cooper (The Cooper Report) was one of Starmer's closest friends (Starmer delivered a eulogy at Cooper's funeral).