Right then.

And so, finally, I get to turn my attention to the shambles that is the #FairPlay4Women guidance.


I'll be breaking up the posting times of this, so the whole thing will likely take a couple of hours to come through.

Stay awhile, and listen

But before we dive into the nitty gritty of what’s wrong with it (everything), let’s step back a bit and look at the big picture here. This is a consultation that is set up to look at the issue of making it easier for trans and intersex people to get a GRC to correct...

, or adjust, the initial info recorded on their birth certificate when it was first issued. That would be ALL trans and intersex people(and before you chime in with your usual bullshit, do you know what it is that actual intersex organisations say about trans people...

and orgs? That we fail the intersex community by all too often leaving them out of the conversation around trans issues and fail to adequately support and boost their voices. Intersex orgs don’t want trans people not to include them in their activism. It’s very much the...

complete opposite) who want to access their human rights, #FairPlay4Women, not just trans women. Not that we’d know that looking at your response.

I’ve mentioned before; if you want to be effective at this kind of thing, Rule 1 is: Don’t believe your own propaganda.

Woo nelly, #FairPlay4Women. You failed at that one. Your palaple hatred for trans women, and your biological essentialism (which will play no part in the actual consultation, because how the law looks at sex has changed since Corbett) shines through every section of your...

guide. You spent so much time and energy trying to repress your urge to shout, ‘Penis’ and , ‘It’s sex, not genDAAAHH!’ at every question the huge, gaping, negative space, reinforced by the euphemisms you tried to deploy, literally just screams, ‘PENIS’ and, ‘We don’t...

know what the law is’. Very literally your entire response is centred around your hate for trans women, and shouts as loudly as possible, “We’re transphobic, please stop these icky trans women from existing”.

See, if you had bothered to actually believe the intro to...

the consultation, as well as the information contained in the consultation documents, you’d already know that the consultation won’t look at the points you’ve so desperately been trying to raise.

This is the description of the consultation, the starting point:

“This consultation does not consider the question of whether trans people exist, whether they have the right to legally change their gender, or whether it is right for a person of any age to identify with another gender, or with no gender. Trans and non-binary people are...

members of our society and should be treated with respect. Trans people already have the right to legally change their gender, and there is no suggestion of this right being removed. This consultation simply asks how best government might make the existing process under...

the Gender Recognition Act a better service for those trans and non-binary people who wish to use it.”

Trans people exist.
They have the legal right to change their gender.
A person of ANY AGE may identify with another gender (poor choice of words by the consultation...

there, but considering it’s set up by #ciswits, what can you expect), or with no gender.
Trans and non-binary people (notice the inclusion of non-binary people here, and the acknowledgement of their existence) are members of our society…
Trans people already have...

the right to legally change their gender
There is no suggestion of this right being removed.
This consultation only asks how the government can make the existing GRA a BETTER service for trans and non-binary people

And your guide? Completely fails to address any of...

this by deliberately and wilfully choosing not to engage with the terms of the consultation. And here’s the thing about consultation responses that refuse to engage with the terms of the consultation—they get noted as having been sent in, and further noted as not...

engaging with the consultation. Your own arrant arrogance has managed to sideline your own voice. Whoops. The best you can hope for is the “also-ran” section that you managed to occupy in the National LGBT Survey Research Report.

Your guide also fails to take into...

account how these consultations actually work. This isn’t a “one person, one vote” kind of thing. Everybody gets a voice, but the voices are not equal. The biggest voice goes to those registered and reputable organisations that have a proven track record around...

this, Stonewall, Women’s Aid (who have already released a statement that they support trans inclusion), etc. After that the next strongest voices will be given to the responses to people who honestly answered any combination of the following answers; 1, 2, 20, & 21.

After that the voices with the least weight will be the respondents who didn’t respond to those questions, or responded in such a way as to inform the people compiling the report that the respondent wasn’t acting in good faith and so their response to that particular...

question is not to be included.

But now, onto details.

Question the first. Well, actually, Q3 (“Do you think there should be a requirement in the future for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria?”). Oh dear, oh dear. Where do we start with this? The use of language?

Yeah, that’s a good place to start.

“Female sex category”? A thing in gender studies. Not a thing in law. And this is a process of law that we’re talking about here. Randomly smashing words and terms into the consultation process that have no actual bearing on the...

consultation isn’t going to help your cause.

“This would significantly dilute the membership of the female sex category”? Just, what? #Sex isn’t #squash. You can’t dilute sex, especially in regards to its legal use. Sex just is. In fact, in law, sex is just one part of...

the personal information that makes up you. And in law that is a thing that was once quaintly known as “sexual identity”, and is now known as “gender identity”. All you’ve done with your use of language here is indicate to the consultation that you think that one...

sex (women) is an elitist club whose membership should be restricted. That’s not how it works. At all. Do you remember the intro to the consultation? “This consultation does not consider the question of whether trans people exist, whether they have the right to legally...

change their gender [. . .] Trans people already have the right to legally change their gender, and there is no suggestion of this right being removed. This consultation simply asks how best government might make the existing process under the Gender Recognition Act...

a better service for those trans and non-binary people who wish to use it.” Yeah, that’s the starting point to this consultation. The government has a positive duty to ensure that trans people, and that includes all the trans men and non-binary people you’re so...

desperate to ignore, can have their gender identity correctly recognised in law as being their sex.

And the government recognises that it has already failed to do so in this regard, something that is already noted in the consultation documents to this consultation...

(documents I’m guessing you either failed to read or, in your arrogance, assumed were wrong and that only you are right) assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upl… para 5 - 8, in particular.

Then there’s the little matter of you trying to separate out “transsexuals” from “transgender”.

Yeah, that’s a distinction that doesn’t exist, certainly not for the Government, or for the purposes of this consultation. Have a look back through the consultation documents. Have a look at the top of page 7 of the full consultation document.

Yep, it reads, “We are also aware that certain terms used in legislation because of their specific legal meaning, such as ‘transsexual’, might be considered out of date. Throughout this consultation we have tried to use terminology that is generally accepted.“. And...

throughout the document the quite deliberate decision was made to refer to trans people as exactly that, trans or transgender. Even when referring to the number of GRCs issued.


Yep, all that effort you put in, claiming that the GRC is only meant to be...

for True Transsexuals™, and not trans people? Waste of time. The entire process is for all trans people, not just the ones you grudgingly accept you have to accept until you can find a way to pull a Trump and legislate them out of existence. Furthermore, the push in...

your response to try and claim that the GRC process is only for the tiny number of True Transsexuals™? Completely wasted. The Government already outlined in the consultation documents that the GRC process is there for all trans people, that the current system is too...

broken for trans people to access, and that they will have to change it to allow that access. Trying to put up a false wall isn’t going to work, the Government has already made it clear in the consultation documents that this has been ruled out.

Then there’s this little...

doozy of a statement you put in that, unfortunately for you, and very fortunately for the UK trans community, doesn’t argue what you hoped it would argue. In fact, it argues the exact opposite.

So a little segue. The statement in question is, “The transgender community...

is estimated to be up to 1% of the UK population, or up to half a million individuals. Currently, a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria is used to regulate access to an NHS-funded medical transition. Legal transition should remain regulated in a similar way.”

So how...

did you manage to fuck that up?

Well, the current Government is Tory. And as anybody who has ever tried to convince most Tories to do something, talking to a Tory ain’t like dusting crops—no, sorry—ain’t like talking to ordinary folks.

Talking to Tories is a...

language in its own right, and its own little skillset. See, Talking to Tories involves using English, but using words that you know have very specific meanings to Tories and talk to their ideological ideas. And when Talking to Tories you need to keep three things in mind.

Money—Power—Occasional spurts of libertarianism.

In this particular case you’ve just very ably pointed out to every Tory that will see your response that hundreds of thousands of trans people will be wanting to access the GRC process and to do that need to have a...

diagnosis from a relative handful of highly specialised, and therefore, highly paid, medical professionals. In other words, a system that costs the NHS, ergo the State, money. And you’ve just argued that you want that expensive medical system in place for a purely...

legal matter.

Hmm. You’ve just presented the average Tory with two choices. a) An expensive system that, by the Government’s own figures, will be accessed by hundreds of thousands of people, or b) removing the need of a MEDICAL diagnosis for a purely LEGAL process,

thereby saving the State rather a large wad of cash by not forcing these hundreds of thousands of people through the NHS for a solely legal matter and allows the Tories to sell this move as being libertarian in nature—that is, it’s solely a personal decision to be...

made by that individual, and the consequences of making that decision is solely the individual’s to bear.


Which one of those choices are a bunch of Tories going to go for? Spending State money and increasing the size of the State, or saving the State money and...

decreasing the size of the State.

I don’t think it takes a genius to work that one out.

So onto Question 4. Which you fucked up right out the gate by insisting that the current process is there only to target trans women, and to protect the cis from their presence.

Not only is that not true, it’s also something the Government would never admit to to doing in any way, because if they did they’d be admitting to running a GRC process that is unlawfully discriminatory and then the Government would have to face paying out very...

large sums of compensation to anybody who has, who has wanted to, access the GRC system.

Still you get one internets for spotting that the 2017 Nicot decision made it unlawful for the State to demand that somebody undergo treatment that results in sterilisation...

as a condition of having their gender identity recognised in law as their sex. Shame you didn’t think it through.

See, as I pointed out here (}, Nicot means that not only is it unlawful for the State to demand that somebody undergoes a treatment...

resulting in sterilisation as a prerequisite condition to getting a GRC, it’s also unlawful for the State to demand that any individual hands over that confidential, private, medical information about whether they’ve had that treatment or not as a prerequisite...

condition for receiving a GRC when the State cannot legally use that information in its decision making process.

Which rather holes the rest of your argument. It lies within the State’s margin of appreciation to request that an individual allows the State to access...

specific confidential, private, medical information when processing a claim for a disability entitlement, because the State has a legitimate claim to needing to know that information to make an informed judgement on the specific case, thereby making disability claims, or...

indeed, any other analogy, counterproductive to your argument in this case. All you’ve done is argue that this does not apply to the GRC process, because it doesn’t lie in the State’s margin of appreciation to demand medical information from an individual when that...

information cannot be used in the decision making process.

Question 5. As the Government will be hearing during the consultation process, make the decision to transition is a serious and often (>96%) life-long commitment, and one that a trans individual will have made...

long before they are ready to apply for a GRC. To require that somebody undergo the whole journey again, solely to gain legal recognition, is both pointless and cruel, and not something that the Government’s particularly keen on keeping in place, because again, this...

kind of goes against Tory instinct to occasional bouts of libertarianism.

And it’s a seriously bad idea to bring up the thoroughly debunked and discredited idea of #ROGD. With both PlusOne and Brown pulling away from it, and the ample evidence available to the...

committee that all the original datasets used in the “paper” that was published were fundamentally flawed and, by the very admission of the people trying to push the “paper”, thoroughly polluted past the point of usability. All bringing up #ROGD does is discredit the...

rest of your answer for 5 (as if it needed any help with that), because you’ve already thoroughly discredited any concept of #ROGD yourself. Or do you think it’s a coincidence that the minute amount of support you found amongst T&P vanished the moment that the shit hit...

the fan and the discredited “paper” got pulled?

Question 6. You even managed to fuck up this one, and this question is fairly unfuckable. For a start, again, no such thing as a “legal sex class”, unless you’re talking about the State’s education curriculum SRE classes.

Which you’re not.

And as for the second part of your laughable claim. Dear Goddess, you lot don’t have fucking clue, do you. Courts and tribunals make decisions about the reasonableness of subjective claims all the time. It’s their fucking job. They’re pretty...

good at it. Claiming that they’re not, that it lies beyond their ability? You just pissed off every legal professional involved in the consultation and its outcome, including every MP and HoL member with a legal background, with that claim.

Question 7. “Trans...

organisations, like Stonewall, want spousal consent removed. This means for example a wife will have no choice other than to issue divorce proceeding against her husband if she does not wish to be forced to remain in a marriage that will effectively become a same-sex...

marriage.” And? If, as the Government is pursuing, no fault divorce is brought in, or an no-fault annulment process is brought in on this specific basis, your entire argument falls apart. Even if they don’t, remember, this is a Tory Government. Libertarianism. You...

chose to get married, you can chose to get divorced or not, up to you. Whereas in the other direction they already have, and will continue to get, evidence showing that the spousal veto has been used as a tool of abuse in abusive relationships.

Again, Tory...

Government, Tory MPs. Choice, ditch the spousal consent, simplifying the GRC process, shrinking the State by removing its involvement in the private affair of a marriage between people (Tories are only interested in marriage in how it pertains to the State, nothing...

more. Basically, pushing out more sproglets to develop the next generation of the workforce and stop the pension system from collapsing, which is a shitty way to view it, but it is the Tory way), or be seen supporting another decision that will be seen as supporting...

domestic abuse when there’s no ideological win it for them by making that decision. Right now the Tories are desperate for an easy-fix, costs-nothing-to-them solution that they can put in place and point to to show just how (barf) kind and caring they are.

Question 9. Your first paragraph is completely wrong. I mean, completely wrong, and again uses that phrase that doesn’t mean what you think it means. No such thing as a “legal sex class”. Your second paragraph is arguing for blanket discrimination against trans women,

and blanket discrimination against trans people (you keep on falling into the trap of not talking about trans people, just trans women, which is going to make it very easy for the Consultation process to push your response way down the list of what is considered a...

legitimate submission of evidence), is unlawful, so trying to argue for a mechanism that would allow for, or make it easier for, an unlawful process to take place is pointless. It will never happen. Oh, and you couldn’t resist yourselves could you. You tried so hard,

and still ended up with an answer that is still nothing but “"Penis penis PENIS peNis PenIs PEnis PeNIs PeNiS peNIs peniS PEnIS pENis PenIs" written in green crayon. Oh, and you’re going to get a lot of actual, real, and legitimate, women’s organisations saying that...

the current EqA2010 exemptions work perfectly well for them, and in fact, they generally don’t need to invoke them because they don’t need to discriminate. Kind of sinks your own argument when you’re arguing that it’s too difficult to use the exemptions in place...

that organisations who do actually have a legitimate need to use those exemptions haven’t found a problem in doing so.

Q11. You’re making an argument that already goes against the findings in Re: Kelvin [2017] FamCAFC 258. You’ve already lost that argument. As...

for disability, you’re going to find a lot of people with autism pissed off at your assumption that they’re too stupid or disabled to know who they are. The same is going to be true for those organisations that focus on autism who have responded to the consultation.

Q12-15. You’ve managed to fuck up your response by a) still not realising this is a consultation about and for the whole trans community, not just trans women, and by not accepting that trans women are women. You keep on trying to argue “men in women’s spaces” or...

“male-bodies in women’s spaces”. This is a consultation on the legal process that is about “women are women, including trans women” and “trans women's bodies are women's bodies”, and “men are men, including trans men” and “trans men's bodies are men's bodies” (and,

hopefully, the same for NB Folk as well, "NB ppl are valid, NB ppl's bodies are their own"). You’re own bigotry has blinded you to how your answer will be viewed by the company brought in to publish the report on the consultation responses, because not all...

responses will be given the same weight, and the ones from groups and individuals with an obviously transphobic bias, (and make no mistake in this, your entire “guide” screams transphobia because you weren’t able to overcome your own bigotry when writing it), and so...

your response, and the response of everybody who used your guide and your website will be given very little weight indeed. Approximately less than that of a sparrow’s fart, if we’re going to be honest about this.

Q12. Sport. Again, Talking to Tories. Tories are obsessed...

with the idea that HoP politicians should not, and must not, be involved in sporting decisions. Their absolute position is that this should be left up to the relevant sporting bodies for two reasons. a) it appeals to the Tories occasional spurts of libertarianism, and...

b) it means any problems are somebody else’s fault, and not the Tory party’s fault, and Tories fucking love that shit.

Of course, it’s still possible to answer ‘Yes’ to this question. I did. But then, I do know a bit about how to Talk to Tories. My answer was ‘Yes’...

because, as a I pointed out, improving access to legal recognition improves the confidence of the trans person in question, improving their likelihood of taking part in a sporting activity. And anybody who takes part in a sporting activity tends to have better health...

outcomes than people who don’t. When read between the lines it tells that bunch of Tory “we-refuse-to-see-that-others-are-deserving-of-respect” bastards that they can pass a simplified GRC process that means they still don’t have to get involved in sporting decisions,

or carry the can for them, but by passing a simplified GRC process they’ll get to reduce the load on the NHS, thereby reducing the size of the State. Talking to Tory bastards—You need brain-bleach afterwards, but it is possible to get good done even when having to shade...

the truth through your teeth about why it should be done.

So, Q12-Q18. These are, and how I hate to use the word given what we’re talking about here, but nothing else suffices, trap questions. They are there to encourage a very specific response that will allow the...

Government to turn around and go, “Aha, your concerns are noted, but don’t need dealing with because that’s not how EqA really works. As we pointed out in the consultation documents this is how EqA really works.” So, unless you can find a way to turn a ‘Yes’ around in a...

way that supports what the Government has already set out in the consultation documents, any ‘Yes’ answers here are going to be wasted. They are going straight into, “Your concerns are noted,—as being wong”-pile.

Q.20 You’ve fucked up this one as well (of course you...

have). The GRC process is about personal, individual, human rights. Arguing “Therefore allowing someone to change their birth certificate to say they are a third sex called non-binary, or X to denote no sex would serve no useful purpose in wider society.” is completely...

the wrong argument, because this isn’t an argument about what’s useful or purposeful for society. It’s about what’s right for the individual applying and, given the results of the UK LGBT+ Survey, the specifics of the judgement made in the recent passport case, and the...

information contained in the Government’s own Consultation notes, it seems very likely that they’re interested in pursuing this option. At the end of the day it allows a Tory Government to look like it cares about marginalized people in society whilst at the same time...

putting in a system that will allow it to remain compliant with likely future human rights rulings that will run at a fraction of the cost to the State of the current system were they to try and keep it in place.

And the Q.22 response. That’s just a shit-stain. Again, it

completely relies on their own, and utterly false, idea, that legal sex is biological sex, and that biological sex is as simple as man/woman. Legal sex no longer rests on a purely biological foundation. Starting with the decision on 14th April 1999, when the Secretary...

of State for the Home Department announced the establishment of an Interdepartmental Working Group on Transsexual People, taking a weird detour through Bellinger v. Bellinger, EWCA Civ 1140 [2001], 3 FCR 1, and then moving to CHRISTINE GOODWIN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM...

[2002] 2 FCR 577 (an unfortunate necessity given just how hostile Blair's government was to trans people), the concept of legal sex now rests on the societal and cultural acceptance of trans people as being of their acquired gender, and no longer rests on a purely...

biological basis. By refusing to accept this F4W manage to sink even this open-ended response. Males don’t transition into the female sex category. Trans women are recognised by the law as being exactly who they are, women. And trans men are recognised by the law as...

being exactly who they are, men. Trying to argue otherwise is wasted endeavor, because the law flat out tells you that you are wrong. And trying to argue that the current protections for women and girls aren’t working to a Tory Government? You were never going to get...

a favourable response to that particular line of attack, especially as the statement itself is patent bullshit.

It doesn’t help that you descend into incoherence on this - “The Commons Select Committee’s transgender inquiry consulted with trans lobby organisations like...

Stonewall, Gendered Intelligence and Scottish Trans Alliance”. Well yes, it would. The clue’s in the name of the inquiry - transgender inquiry, the principal stakeholders of which would be, hmmm, trans orgs and people.

You advance the claim that “unsurprisingly, the...

inquiry recommended the removal of women’s legal rights” and yet, at every turn, have failed to state what specific rights would have been removed if the recommendations of the committee had been taken up. You also fail to mention how any part of this is relevant to...

this particular consultation. As the Government themselves will note, you had a chance to respond to this consultation, you responded, women’s voices were listened to. Trying to drag in matters unrelated to the consultation? All of this will simply be discarded from the...

eventual report. All of it.

“Women have to be consulted!”. Women’s orgs were consulted about the setting up of this Consultation process, the GEO have confirmed this. Women and women’s orgs have been freely able to respond to this consultation. If any further evidence...

is needed from women’s orgs about the changes to the GRC, the relevant, registered, and reputable women’s orgs will be invited to give evidence. Little hint, doubt that’s going to be you, especially with your very opaque funding, and utter unwillingness to open your...

books to show that you aren’t acting on the behalf of vested foreign interests to influence the internal working policies and law of England & Wales.


unroll please

oh unexpected Sultana in the Eccles cake of life
Missing some Tweet in this thread?
You can try to force a refresh.

Like this thread? Get email updates or save it to PDF!

Subscribe to ⚢⚧🌸The Sacrifice is Made🌸🧜🏾‍♀️🦋
Profile picture

Get real-time email alerts when new unrolls are available from this author!

This content may be removed anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just three indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member and get exclusive features!

Premium member ($30.00/year)

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!