Alison Pritchard: TRA behind the scenes? Part one: GEO

Pritchard does have a social media presence but, certainly on twitter and facebook, they are not vocal on ”trans” rights. Perhaps when your CV has seen you deeply embedded, at a senior level, in the Civil Service you have all the voice and influence you need?

Prichard’s linkedin does not go back further than 2009 but elsewhere we can learn they have been with the Civil Service since 1987.

Government Equality Office (GEO)

As far as I could ascertain their are no smoking guns or controversial statements in the public domain but is it really coincidental that moves to embed “Trans” rights at the expense of women’s rights, tend to follow him around? Let us have a look I at the actions of the various of the departments during Pritchard’s time in post. First up the Government Equality Office between 2009-2012 when Pritchard was Head of Strategy.

During Pritchard’s tenure the GEO began a review of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. This document covers the outcome if this consultation.

review-information-advice

This is a list of the organisations consulted:

Follow the money!

I have had a look at all of these organisations websites and they are all paid up purveyors of Gender Identity Ideology. Of course I can’t check their stance back to 2011 but even End Violence against Women no longer defines women based on biological sex. The Equality and Diversity Forum is now called Equally Ours and its funders are some of the foundations committed to spreading Gender Identity Ideology. Esme Fairburn also funds End Violence Against Women which explains a lot. Paul Hamlyn Foundation shares a trustee with the Scott Trust that oversees the Guardian media, group. Barings Foundation funded Stonewall to provide secretarial services for the All Parliamentary Group on LGBT issues.

The document itself is very dry and goes into quite a lot of detail on the efficiency (or not) of its helpline services and its grant making powers. A few points stand out. The EHRC is criticised for the power imbalance between the organisation and those grassroots organisations it funds. The grant recipients are also, it is argued, hindered in meeting the criteria for obtaining and monitoring grant expenditure. Moreover the report highlights that some groups who are part of the more established protected characteristics my be getting more priority. This is despite the review having this to say about the EHRC grant allocation.

Gendered Intelligence is singled out for particular comment. Was the review setting the scene for more grant awards to specific organisations and a relaxation of the ”stringent” criteria?

The report also details a specific intervention made by the Scottish EHRC in relation to the ”Transgender” community. Was this to shame the English EHRC for not attemp to obtaining similar concessions from the English NHS? 👇 A not so subtle hint about what would be considered good practice?

Outcome of the Review

The resulting proposals were set out in a document signed off by the then Home Secretary, Theresa May and Lynne Featherstone who was Minister for Women and Equalities; a title she shared with Theresa May. Their proposals were outlined in the document below:

Building a fairer britain EHRC-consultation-

The decision was taken to end EHRC’s grant making powers. It was also determined that the EHRC would no longer be required to foster good relations between different protected characteristics. This has significant implications when one protected group, Gender Reassignment, is demanding rights which the protected characteristic of Sex had been granted; namely the right to single sex spaces which exclude males irrespective of their ”Gender Identity”.

This despite the overwhelming number of respondents opposing the repeal of this responsibility.

The appendix lists organisations that responded and I counted only few organisations that were women’s organisations. Scottish Women’s Aid is not exclusively for women but regards ”Trans women as Women”. The Women’s Resource Centre and National Board for Catholic Women (NBCW). I can find no reference to this issue on the NBCW website.

Whatever their position in the past the Women’s Resource Centre does have a statement on their website which defends sex as a biological reality and wishes to preserve the right to single sex services. It is, however, clear that they represent members who adopt a variety of positions.

Statement on Women’s Services

The list of trans organisations is somewhat longer. Gender Identity Research and Education Society, LGBT Youth Scotland, Press for Change and Stonewall all made submissions.

I will return to Pritchard as he continues his career to examine any other pertinent activities which occurred on his watch.

If you wish to support my work with a gift you can do so here. All donations gratefully received. I now have a subsistence level income (finally) so only give if you have something to spare.

DD44E02E-B4E2-4BB3-B581-8BB81DBDC0A0

Researching Gender Identity Ideology and the impact on women’s rights, gay rights and the medical experiment on children.

£10.00

2 thoughts on “Alison Pritchard: TRA behind the scenes? Part one: GEO

Leave a Reply