Sex Matters to seek judicial review on BTP searching policy

[southbiscay]

x.com/sexmattersorg/status/1872368242012131505?s=46

Good news - gardening in order.

Also there is an interesting comment on the GRA:If we lose and the court declares that a GRC changes a police officer’s sex for the purpose of searching members of the public, this would strengthen the case for repealing or reforming the Gender Recognition Act."

And it's good to see this bit bringing awareness of the fetish that is autogynephila to a wider audience: "The High Court will be asked not just to look at the meaning of words in law, but to consider the concrete facts relevant to the case, including the facts of autogynephilia; the way systemic weaknesses tend to act as magnets for abusers; the impossibility of “passing” for most men who identify as women; and the abusive nature of deceit as to sex where intimate procedures or searching are concerned."

"The protected characteristic of GR is to protect people who have, are undergoing or propose to undergo gender reassignment. Thats different to being gender non conforming."

IANAL and not well versed on which protected characteristics gender non conformity would cover, so it may be that sex would cover it. What I have in mind is protecting people who feel more comfortable presenting themselves to the outside world in ways that are associated with the opposite sex. I think the belief that make up and dresses should only be worn by females, or should be worn by females in order to look 'presentable', regressive and harmful. If, on top of these views, organisations discriminate against non-conforming people, I think this should be illegal.

organisations discriminate against non-conforming people

Can you offer examples of what you mean, here?

Helyo : "Yes you’re exactly right. Now is the time for a serious campaign to repeal the GRA"

Please l, please press on with it. Start your campaign. And if it is serious and cogent I'll even chuck some cash in.

But it won't negate the need for the other stuff that is going on. The Overton Window is not sitting over the repeal the GRA' end of the gender spectrum. If anything, it is closer to the 'introduce no-strings self-ID' end.

The UK has a Labour government. More than that, the UK parliament has nearly 500 of its 650 seats occupied by Labour or Lib Dems - two parties pretty much signed up to gender woo. And as only parliament can repeal laws, I'd genuinely like the Repeal the GRA crowd to tell me HOW they are going to persuade this Parliament to overturn the GRA.

In the meantime all power to the organisations who are chipping away at the nonsense, undermining its foundations. Because, for some time yet, that is all we can hope for.

Safeguarding relies on knowing everyones age and sex. We dont allow 14 year olds to have adult id and adult men to pretend to be 14 on their passports because we can immediately see the potential danger to children.

The reason children cannot get a GRC is because of safeguarding. So the fact the government allows adult men female id is an obvious hole in safeguarding. Its the policy that doesn't follow safeguarding principles and therefore puts children and women when vulnerable at risk. And will continue to do so for as long as the government allows any man to conceal their sex.

Once i saw this, i had no choice but to support repealing the law. Its not a case of how, its a case of understanding my role in safeguarding is to talk about safeguarding failures and making policy makers aware however i can.

Court cases like these are necessary but do not solve the problem because they only block one failure at a time. And crucially we are waiting for safeguarding failure to happen before a case could ever be taken to court. It will never end because the hole is there for abusers to find.

It's also the case that when Safe Schools Alliance tried to get a public inquiry into these issues, they were left unsupported and alone. There was also a parliamentary petition for an inquiry which was not supported. And one for repeal. WDI have put out their position on repeal. Again, unsupported by the big names.

Why then, should we dig deep to support lawyers arguing in court, when we know that many of the big names have not supported efforts that would actually get to the truth, and deal with the core problem? Women are not a cash point.

That's an excellent summary.

What do you suggest we do?

If there's not enough support for repeal to get any campaign moving, and you don't think we should support the court cases like this, what do you think is the way forward?

I think this is really not about what the "big names" do and that that's a good thing. I agree it can be frustrating to see that one fundraising effort takes off and one doesn't, but that's the nature of crowdfunding. I think we need to trust the emergence: the things that succeed in raising funds are those whose moment is right, in that they catch lots of people's eyes (including, sometimes, the eyes of those you think of as "big names"). It is worth paying attention to what will happen to money that isn't used for whatever reason; in this case, as a Sex Matters supporter anyway, I'm happy to trust that SM will use my donation wisely if this action turns out not to need it (e.g., because they win!) or not to go ahead. I think the emergence is actually likely to lead to better results than if we had a small committee deciding what to fund, though maybe that's just me being Pollyannaish. When I see something going past that I think isn't sensible to fund right now I don't donate, and I think that's fine and part of the process too. So, of course, is trying to influence other people's donations - I'm not saying anyone shouldn't, that's part of the process too, but I feel there is no need to get upset about it. Other people having different opinions from oneself about what is sensible to fund right now is interesting, more than it's worrying. Sense will prevail, and indeed, we can see that gradually, it is. Let's not imitate the Good Law Project ;-)

(And I am a fan of Akua Reindorf too :-) )

@Brainworm it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender reassignment (one of the 9 protected characteristics in the Equality Act). So if, say, a male chartered accountant wanted to wear dresses as part of his gender reassignment to a trans woman then he should absolutely go ahead. That is already covered.

What is happening here is that trans women (men) in the Police are not simply wearing makeup and dresses, they want to strip and conduct intimate searches on real women and their bosses are telling them to go right ahead. That isn't equality for trans women it's sexual assault ratified by the chief constable.

Great campaign by Sex Matters. I will donate.

It isn't IMO that there's not enough support for repeal. People would support it. But anyone trying to get there is being sidelined and ignored.

Saying it'll take years. Well. I recall discussion of repeal on here years ago. And now look where we are. "Oh it's difficult, it'll take years" just doesn't wash with me any more. Surely we have to examine whether some people are actively against it. And why others' efforts are being ignored.

Surely we have to examine whether some people are actively against it. And why others' efforts are being ignored.
It sounds like you believe this isn't just about lending support to a variety of different tactics but about attempts to sabotage GRA repeal?

It isn't IMO that there's not enough support for repeal. People would support it. But anyone trying to get there is being sidelined and ignored.

If people would support it, why are those trying to do it being sidelined and ignored?

If people would support it, how do we get to a position where people actively support it instead of being 'sidelined and ignored'?

Or in other words, if people would support it, why aren't they supporting it, and what should we do to change this?

Your posts sound like defeatism. We can't get people to support repeal because anyone trying to do this gets sidelined and ignored, so we shouldn't support anyone trying another tactic because it's not what you think is the ideal strategy.

But what is your strategy?

I agree Ig. I was making the point in response to the suggestion that there is no need to have a protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

I think that some employers and service providers are likely to discriminate against males who wear dresses, make up and high heels. It may be that the protected characteristic of sex cover this type of discrimination, I don't know. I was just raising the issue that this type of discrimination does exist and protections should be in place to guard against it.

I do not think that 'protections' should be in place that involve males in the female category!

I really really don't know. But at least seems odd that there have been quite a few efforts to get to the core of the problem and they've come from volunteers or volunteer type groups, and they've not been supported. Why is that? But the idea of repeal does go back quite a few years now. 2017 or before? It's now a good 7+ years then. If we knew then what we know now etc etc.

I'm not saying I'm right. I'm saying we should be querying it. Or reflecting back on however many years we think it's been (it'll be different for all of us I would think), and if we want to get to the middle of after the next election in this same position. Wouldn't it be good to start getting support for it now so it IS on the cards at the next election? Or - look at it the other way round - what would be wrong with getting to that position?

I think repeal is too far off people's radar. We need a greater number of people to see how insane genderism is first. But against that we have the backdrop of almost everyone knowing a child or young person who has been swept up into the cult, but many of them haven't yet realised it's a cult. We need the tide to turn a little bit more before repeal of the GRA seems like the most obvious way forward to a majority. We're not there yet. 7 years is nothing. The TRAs have been at this since the 90s or earlier (that's how they got the GRA in the first place).

I think men that wear female coded dress or who have various gender identities absolutely should not face discrimination. They should be treated exactly the same as other men.

Like all well run charities, I expect Sex Matters have a fixed term strategy (3-4 years) against which they have short, medium and long term operational goals.

This latest litigation will be one strand of their strategy for this year, which fits into the overall strategy. As and when opportunities arise to support initiatives that are external to their organisation, their decision to give public support will be considered in line with whether it aligns with their strategy or not - not simply whether they agree with it or not. They need to be focused on delivering what they set out to achieve in their short, medium and long term plans. Their trustees should hold them to account for this.

As with all organisations, people can disagree with their strategic formulation as to how best to achieve their organisation's aim. People might disagree with all or part of those aims.

When it comes to Sex Matters, I agree with their aims and I think they are shrewd in how they are going about achieving their aims. I respect that some people don't think their aims are 'right' and/or who think their strategic/approach isn't sound. What I struggle with is people claiming that they are somehow undermining more virtuous (pure?) efforts of others. They are not stopping others from doing what they choose and it's not their job to help others, when their job is to remain focussed on their strategy.

I've just spend a good minute or so wondering why I'm supposed to care about what Christina's "many" think and come up with nothing.

As long as that @TinselAngel ? You are very generous
Christin- it is a fact that some men have AGP- they openly admit it!

Universal suffrage came in stages. Going from votes for certain men with property to votes for essentially everyone aged 18 and over took time, numerous steps and many campaigns. That is precisely how politics works. Gender ideology and its current place in law is most definitely politics.

GRA repeal is simply not on the radar politically.

Those who think it should be the current aim (rather than the end goal) never ever say quite HOW they would achieve it.

There are a few things that irk me about Sex Matters but lack of political acumen is definitely not one of them.

Indeed their citing of the GRA in their current case is an astute move, gently and quietly sliding that card onto the table. It's putting a marker down.

Let's see the outcome before we deem any of this "astute".

Sorry @Brainworm I misread - totally agree with you (as one of many GNC middle aged women)

Id like to see a strategy from sex matters. Are they pursuing this case because its extreme or because its part of a masterplan?

The BTP policy is so bonkers it's one news story from falling apart. The legal action could take years. It could be seen as a risk to spend time and money on this case, when just lots of publicity could be equally as effective.

If it is successful, it will make BTP ammend their policy, but will it lead to M&S updating their changing room policy? If it leads to more policy excluding men with GRC thats a start, but thats unclear.

This link shows some of their thinking about this specific case:

https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/sex-matters-is-challenging-btps-abusive-strip-search-policy/

"Id like to see a strategy from sex matters. Are they pursuing this case because it's extreme or because it's part of a masterplan?

Every well run charity will have/should have a strategy. I don't really think this constitutes a master plan. It is likely to reflect a mixture of quick wins, relatively easy wins and laying the ground for some wins that are likely to need breaking down into smaller steps.