The UK campaign sits in human rights framework. Gathering pace away from viewing LGBTQ+ people not as ill
Recommends Victor Madrigals report. All calls of CT can cause intense humiliation. Creates self disgust. Begins with belief that someone is sick and needs to be treated. Suicidal ideation is higher
The balance of evidence is clear. All forms of CT cause harm.
It is very clear that talking forms of CT cause harm
(NB: this is not what the Coventry Uni research found)
Prohibit CT everywhere.
The rights based case: international govts are very concerned.
Is it happening. Here.
Trans people are twice as likely to be offered CT
NB: this was a self selected survey you can't draw this conclusion
The Coventry University research found the same thing. 🤔
MOU CT: an attempt to change sexual orientation or GI
It should be outcome neutral
There are 13 countries with a ban. Other countries considering bans.
What should it cover? Should cover all settings including religious and domestic setting. Supporting people coming to terms with their SO or GI should not be.
LGBTQ people are beautiful. We don't need to be changed
Naomi Cunningham - Dow we need the proposed law? Evidence of harm, convincing case that legislation can work, clear proposal. Debate
Debate is critical. This idea
To find the CEO of Stonewall on the same panel as me. So thank you Nancy
We don't know what the conversion theory survey responses mean.
Govt did not find evidence of harm. We don't have evidence
The case for legislation - not every harm can be put right with legislation.
The govt therapy proposal muddles being gay and gender dysphoria.
It is a medical condition.
Imagine you are a therapist. You have a gender non conforming child, who is expressing that they want to be the opposite sex. As a therapist you have to act
The proposed law provides a safeguard to allow therapists to act if if a child is questioning. But this child is not questioning, they are sure. The law would make it illegal.
Naomi talks about homophobic bullying and about Denton's report
Question from Kate Harris. How can you base good law on a feeling rather than a fact
Robin there is a debate over how we should amend the EqA protected characteristics.
This law is about oppressive behaviour
Nancy Kelly answers Kate Harris's question.
We don't have to use the language of "gender identity" can say "trans or non binary person"
Jayne Ozanne apologises to any trans gender people present and gets applause
Talks about child committing suicide
A child knows who they are. trans is not a medical issue
Question on consent. If I can consent to CT being gay is a lifestyle choice. How can I consent to greavious psychological harm.
Naomi. How can a child who hasn't yet developed though puberty consent to the grevious physical harm of puberty blockers and sterilisation? This will be be the scandal of our age.
Nancy: we are talking about two different things - the care package of a trans minor and the ban of conversion therapy.
The idea of consent is impossible when people can be cast out from their church and their community.
Jayne - Article 3 - states are under a duty to protect. All govts are obliged to protect.
@BluskyeAllison: how are you going to stop lesbians being harrased to accept transgender males into their dating pool when you are comparing lesbians to racists and anti Semites. It is coercion
We are talking about two seperate things lesbian sexuality and who people date. I don't think it is relevant to how we provide protection to young adults
Jayne Ozanne I don't think I understand the question. What we are here to do is to protect the right of people to chose.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This is what we mean when we say sex matters. It is what the Supreme Court meant when they said you have to be clear about what the different groups are.
It's not a legal nicety. It's not complex. It's not difficult.
It's just basic respect for women's humanity, with common sense.
I am so angry at all the highly paid people failing to do their job, who would not see that it is abusive to allow men into women's changing rooms, toilets and showers.
And even now who are resisting implementing the law. @NotPostingMatt @NHSConfed
Minister @RhonddaBryant says “We are opposing the amendment and are not intending to introduce similar legislation.”
Let’s look at the knots he ties himself in
He says “data accuracy is important. That is equally true for any data used in a digital verification service.”
OK so your new law will enable people to prove their sex accurately then? 🤔
Bryant says “the government is already developing data standards on the monitoring of diversity information, including sex, via the Data Standards Authority.”
This is distraction.
Monitoring diversity information (which is about populations) is not the only reason why you want sex data.
Some times people want to make sure their sex is accurately recorded:
- For their own healthcare
- For social care
- For a job where sex matters
- For sport
- For safeguarding
- For use of single sex services
“the @StatsRegulation published updated guidance on collecting and reporting data and statistics about sex and gender identity last year, and all Govt Departments are now considering how best to address the recommendations of the Sullivan review, which we published.”
“That is the first reason why we will not be supporting this new clause or the amendment today.”
It says women only, which means no men.
It is lawful because the situation meets one or more of the “gateway conditions” for a lawful single sex service in the EqA, and it is a proportionate means to a legitimate aim.
Who does the sign discriminate against?
Men directly.
What all of them?
Yes, because they are all excluded by the rule. Even the femmes, the crossdressers, the transwomen, the non-binaries and the gender fluids.
Here we are at @LSELaw for a legal panel discussion on the FWS case. Video will be available later.
Naomi Cunningham says the ruling changes very little .. and it changes everything.
Under the old understanding there was a route to exclude men with GRCs from women only services but it was unclear and uncertain. It sounded difficult to operate. And the @EHRC statutory code said case by case.
So the lineage of that policy that Sussex University has just been fined £0.5m for goes back via Advance HE and the Equality Challenge Unit to the SWP! 🤯