Go Fund Me addiction part 2

I agree. I think it could be argued that AWS are now discriminatory against non trans identified males, as they are not solely open to women, as per sex as protected category. Though it's complicated by the fact that "discrimination by perception" is illegal and not being able to ask about GRC means that self ID happens in practice. All this stupid patchwork of legislation is basically unworkable to protect women's rights or indeed those of legal trans identified males with GRC.

No, I see I've got that wrong. They are still discriminating in favour of women, but they are not excluding self identified women, so it is allowed.

Do you not have to have a definition of what self identified woman means?

Just to let you know that I have been in touch with Jennifer James and they are still very much committed to the original aim of the fundraising. If the decision goes the right way this afternoon and AWS are to be limited to women and transwomen with a GRC they will refund the money - but also look into how to support the 10 (to date) women that are at the receiving end of harassment from the TRAs directly as a result of the fundraising (I have told her that I would be happy for them to use my donation for this purpose instead if indeed the decision goes the right way).

They are holding off updating the GoFundMe page until the decision has been made, but basically, I think the message is, don't worry - we won't be using your money for anything other than the original purpose unless you agree otherwise.

She also asked me to apologise to the amazing Mumsnet people for the state of flux.

(will post on other relevant threads so apologies if you read this repeatedly!)

By opening up AWS to "self-identifying", AWS are discriminatory, as before, but no longer discriminating on the basis of one of the permitted characteristics. So its no longer permitted discrimination

Can you explain that differently? It's discriminatory, but not on the basis of one the protected characteristics? So who is it discriminating against?

People who don't identify as women?

So despite being a woman, unless I identified as one I don't get on the list. But 'not identifying as a woman' is not a protected characteristic so I'm fucked?

OK. So on what basis would challenging all women shortlist be made?

Sorry I don't mean immaterial, I mean wrong.

ChemistryGeek

So would challenging the basis of all women shortlist need to define what women means?

Or have we gone too far in terms of equality law and the GRA for that definition to be immaterial?

@ChemistryGeek that was a very useful post, thank you.

she just has to have broken the party's own internal rules.

As far as I know, the current rules are that all women shortlist are available to women. They've only recently specified self identified women.

Are you saying that the Labour Party can make up the definition of 'self identified woman'?

Does it have to have some kind of accepted definition, or can they decide, themselves, what it means?

Because if they can, then surely Jennifer James would have been told no, you cannot launch a legal case on the basis of what self identified woman means?

I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm finding, because the law contradicts itself in terms of the GRA and the equality act that things get very muddy.

Datun First, I’m generally a lurker on these threads but hugely grateful for all your input - you’ve taught me so much.

But on your last point, doesn’t it depend on whether the people she’s accused of harassing have GRC’s? I thought that the way it worked was that if you publicly and intentionally called a biological man with a GRC a man then this was transphobia. Whether true or not (!), LM has claimed to have a GRC on Twitter. I would have thought it was only calling self-id TIM’s men that would lead to a legal precedent? Wouldn’t be at all surprised if I’m wrong, but that was my logic.

Datun I think you're a bit confused about the issue. As pointed out above this is an internal Labour party matter. VA does not have to have done something illegal to be expelled from the party, she just has to have broken the party's own internal rules.

Any legal challenge will be on the basis of whether or not the Party has correctly and fairly applied its own rules and procedures. Most likely the case will not touch on the Equalities Act or set any precedent related to it.

Alright you lot, who made this edit on wiki?!

ChemistryGeek

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm trying to work out what would be the conclusion of the test case.

Eg would it be the definition of transphobia? Because at the moment, transphobia is the word used when the equality act is breached. It's also the word used if you correctly identify biology.

At the moment, all women anything is based on sex discrimination. Which is covered by the equality act.

However, gender reassignment is also covered by the equality act and the two protected characteristics conflict.

So to decide if Venice was chucked out on the basis of transphobia, you would have to define transphobia.

Defining transphobia will clarify how transphobia breaches the equality act. Which will have to take into account the conflict between gender reassignment as a protected characteristic and sex as a protected characteristic.

Which directly feeds in to the basis on which we decide who can apply to all women shortlists and stem scholarships.

That's how I see it logically.

But I'm not a legal person.

Agreed ChemistryGeek

Fact is though that Jennifer put paperwork about harassment in the hands of lawyers before Venice was suspended:
twitter.com/msjenniferjames/status/955260824976752641

This does little to progress our protection of the main legal rights for women.

It does show how going after VA to be the suspended person has been a highly effective tactic.

But that makes me think that getting drawn into that game and diluting the effort and money that can go into fighting self-ID in AWS is a really bad idea.

Oh god, that made me lol. The audacity of it. When I first came across Lily I thought they were misguided and a bit thick but over the previous weeks I've really had my eyes opened to their vacuous, vicious nature.

The problem is that this is starting to feel more and more like a mud-slinging match between VA and LM. Both claim that the other have organized supporters to harass them, and I’m sure that neither’s hands are completely clean. There’s an obvious lack of equity when one is suspended and the other isn’t, but fundamentally it looks less like a matter of principle and more like a private disagreement. The message is being lost .

I agree - people being kicked out of Labour is an internal Labour matter.

Whether or not self-identity trump's the sex based exemptions of the equality act has ramifications way wider than just the Labour party, and I'd hazard a guess that is why most people are donating