- Words Mean Things (but this post may contain a lot of screenshots) 😜 - October 30, 2022
- Artless does #LetWomenSpeak (Brighton) - September 23, 2022
- Stand Down Caroline Nokes - December 23, 2021
Photocredit: – @genderisharmful
“Biological sex is well-understood to exert a key influence over experiences and outcomes from birth onwards. It is one of the most important variables for the purposes of policy, planning and research.” —@mbmpolicy
I am out shopping with my mother, the woman who raised me to appreciate every aspect of being a woman, despite the drawbacks being female attracts in a male dominated world. As we shop for the last Christmas presents, and enjoy the cherished bond between mother and daughter, I have been rudely brought back to address your increasingly misogynistic policies which harm UK Women, by your gaslighting article in the Guardian.
You have NOT been “abused” for seeking to make the Gender Recognition Process easier, you have rightly been subjected to criticism for seeking to give away COLLECTIVE female rights that do not belong solely to you.
As chair of the WESC, I’m sure you are very well aware of the obstacles Women face and navigate in our daily lives. Indeed, your committee wrote a report highlighting the disproportionate impact of the Pandemic on Women, due to our biological differences which entail women carry a large part of the reproductive burden, and a resulting male-dominated world ensuring women are the primary caregivers within families, creating a conflict with our working lives. It is unfathomable to me, then, that you would seek to strip females of legal recognition, by expanding the universal definition of what it means to be a Woman. Current law and biological science recognize very clearly that a Woman is an Adult Human Female.
Yet your report recommends “The requirement of a diagnosis for gender dysphoria in order to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) should be removed, moving the process closer to a system of self declaration.”
How can you in any good conscience recommend that, and not expect criticism, given the well documented harms self ID has already posed to women in the arena of sport, in prisons, in hospitals, and to young girls?
Infact, just yesterday, an article by the Norwich Guardian has explicitly highlighted the dangers of such an approach where a biological male raped a dog, and then sought to defame innocent women, by labelling himself as a “woman”. Chances are very likely that this man, (AFTER FUDGING THE CRIMINAL STATISTICS WITH THIS VERY MALE CRIME, and who has also been linked to child abuse), will go on to pose more dangers and be put in a jail cell with other females, after insisting he is also a “woman”. Outrageous and completely defying logic.
The committee received over 2000 submissions. Yes, some from women emotional at the loss of rights being bartered away without a democratic mandate. Collective female rights that were not solely yours or the WESC’s to give away. Rights that Women long ago threw themselves under horses to secure for generations of young girls and women to come. The Suffragettes threw themselves under horses and were force fed, so WOMEN could unapologetically live their FEMALE lives in all its glory, not so young girls lop off healthy breast tissue to masquerade as men, or for mentally unbalanced men to use fetishized notions of femininity to masturbate in changing rooms, or for more “Karen Whites” to rape women in prisons.
Aside from ordinary women, you received eloquent and expert evidence from social scientists, women’s organisations, and data experts who explained to you in exquisite detail the importance of sex as a demographic variable. You ignored them all in favour of your pre-determined ideological position.
I’m not sure whether you had the chance to read this excellent submission from Dr. Alice Sullivan and other Data experts, or this from Dr. Jane Clare Jones, or perhaps even read this from Dr. Kathleen Stock, even though you invited both Dr. Sullivan and Dr. Stock to give oral evidence to the Women and Equalities Committee last December. I suggest, perhaps (if you manage to stay in your position as Chair), that you revisit the evidence and read carefully some of the submissions from people with medical & scientific expertise, rather than prioritise the subjective, political perception of organisations with a particular viewpoint on transgender identity. Even in ECHR law, there is recognition that whilst you can go beyond the law, it cannot be at the expense of others’ rights, and all further examination of this flawed and biased report seems to show that the WESC report has approached this complex subject from the exclusive perspective of one group of people with no recognition that the rights of any other group might be engaged.
The damage that Gender ideology and your policy captured recommendations would inflict on UK society (and the wider world) may require a new Enlightenment, Civil Rights Movement, and Women’s Rights Movement to repair.
It is only right, then, that your biased, non-evidenced based proposals be given short thrift, and be subjected to the most robust scrutiny and criticism.
I will give you fair warning: Kindly expect more robust criticism (known in Carolineland as “abuse”), and a complete rejection of any FURTHER attempts to erode the rights of the 35 million women and girls in the UK. 2022 will the year Women from all political parties, all religious creeds, all races unite to say “No, we will not go quietly into that good night”.