Intellectual Dishonesty

Placemarking.

So to get back to the issue of intellectual dishonesty, it's dishonest to say that the changes to the GRA won't affect the Equality Act provisions.

Yes. I think it is self evident that the operation of the EA will be affected. I'd love to hear the contrary view from a lawyer who supports self ID, if there is one. But not one has offered me a convincing argument that I am wrong.

Probably other things too, put all this stuff together and it makes for a perfect storm where the protected characteristic of sex is to all intents and purposes removed.

So to get back to the issue of intellectual dishonesty, it's dishonest to say that the changes to the GRA won't affect the Equality Act provisions.

Old Crone
That requires a change in the Equality Act, though. Just making everyone's legal sex a matter of choice for the individual, which is what self-ID would do, removes the PC of sex without making any changes to the EA. TRAs say we're all silly women who don't understand that the EA is not going to be changed, so there's nothing to worry about, knowing that changing to self-ID changes the EA by the effective removal of the PC of sex.

Absolutely, yes. I can't see an actual amendment to the EA any time soon - changing primary legislation is costly and time consuming.

However I don't think the EA needs to be changed to have the effect that sex is removed as a meaningful characteristic.

There are various things which I can see could lead to this result:

• self ID, as I've already discussed

• the poor drafting of the EA guidance, which says some weird stuff like (paraphrasing) if someone passes treat them as the opposite sex (this is not the effect of the words in the Act in my view).

• the refusal of organisations to make use of the single sex exemptions that exist, for example all women short lists can remain all women and do not have to include TW, but it seems likely that political parties will choose to accept TW on all women short lists.

• the conflation/confusion of sex and gender both in the EA (and GRA) and in the policies and procedures of organisations.

Probably other things too, put all this stuff together and it makes for a perfect storm where the protected characteristic of sex is to all intents and purposes removed.

I asked her to define woman in that case.

Crickets.

Everyone here knows there is a definition. It's not "depends", it's "if we expand". The problem is, by expanding it, it becomes meaningless, as there is no objective criteria anymore
This

Well done for SarahAr the troll, manged to sneak in, write a bunch of offensive nonsense and then sneak out. Fwiw - "depends how you define woman" is intellectual dishonesty right there. Everyone here knows there is a definition. It's not "depends", it's "if we expand". The problem is, by expanding it, it becomes meaningless, as there is no objective criteria anymore but only subjective 'feelz'.

This could well be the logical conclusion. I think some (Stephen Whittle, for example) want to change the protected characteristic to gender instead of sex. Which would be just as meaningless imo.

Yes. If they change 'gender reassignment' to 'gender identity', and 'sex' and 'gender' are seen as synonymous, then you have two protected characteristics which seem to be the same, so you only need one of them.

That requires a change in the Equality Act, though. Just making everyone's legal sex a matter of choice for the individual, which is what self-ID would do, removes the PC of sex without making any changes to the EA. TRAs say we're all silly women who don't understand that the EA is not going to be changed, so there's nothing to worry about, knowing that changing to self-ID changes the EA by the effective removal of the PC of sex.

Old Crone
If we end up with self-ID in the GRA, with everyone free to choose their own legal sex, then won't the protected characteristic of sex effectively cease to exist? If anyone can identify into the sex of their choice, then the category of sex will become meaningless.

This could well be the logical conclusion. I think some (Stephen Whittle, for example) want to change the protected characteristic to gender instead of sex. Which would be just as meaningless imo.

According to the WHO, at least a third of women worldwide have experienced physical and/or sexual violence at the hands of a partner (Devries, K. M. et al. Science 340, 1527–1528 (2013) -- and that's intimate partner violence, not between strangers.

1/6 men being rapists sounds more than probable.

It’s from one of the many studies that have been done which ask men if they have done certain things, and doesn’t use the words ‘rape’ or ‘sexual assault’ to describe them even though they meet international definitions of what rape and sexual assault actually are.

It’s actually one of thelower figures reported in similar studies.

This document lists the studies - you can go from there if you want to read them. www.binghamton.edu/counseling/documents/RAPE_FACT_SHEET1.pdf

They make unpleasant reading. I’ve seen one study done somewhere in Asia that had 60% of married men admitting to raping their wives, but as I can’t find it, we can stick to the several documented studies with the figures in the link.

It seems to me that all the intellectual dishonesty is on the transactivism side. The gender critical side constantly seeks intellectual rigor and honesty.

Saying TWAW is not a form of intellectual dishonesty. It comes down to how you define a woman.

In that case there's nothing wrong with saying "Transwomen are feathers". It comes down to how you define a feather.

Saying TWAW is not a form of intellectual dishonesty. It comes down to how you define a woman.

In that case there's nothing wrong with saying "Transwomen are men". It comes down to how you define a man.

Saying TWAW is not a form of intellectual dishonesty. It comes down to how you define a woman.

In that case there's nothing wrong with saying "Transwomen are male". It comes down to how you define a male.

It’s estimated that 6% of men are rapists.

That would mean almost two million men in the UK are rapists. Where is that stat from?

Ofew
Self ID in the GRA will result in many many more men being able to hold the protected characteristic of sex as a woman. They will literally be able to "self identify" as legal women.

If we end up with self-ID in the GRA, with everyone free to choose their own legal sex, then won't the protected characteristic of sex effectively cease to exist? If anyone can identify into the sex of their choice, then the category of sex will become meaningless.

There is a mechanism in place to deal with and assess intellectual dishonesty when it comes to MPs and public bodies. These are the Nolan Priciples, now more commonly known as the 7 Principles of Public life.

From the government website:
' The 7 principles of public life apply to anyone who works as a public office-holder. This includes people who are elected or appointed to public office, nationally and locally, and all people appointed to work in:
-the civil service
-local government
-the police
-the courts and probation services
-non-departmental public bodies
-health, education, social and care services
-The principles also apply to all those in other sectors that deliver public services.

The principles are:

1. Selflessness

1. Integrity

1. Objectivity

1. Accountability

1. Openness

1. Honesty

1. Leadership

If you believe that a statement or action has breached the Nolan Principles then these are the steps:

1. Complain to person/body - 2. Formal Complaint, with time limit for response (e.g. 14 working days) -> 3. Report to the Committee on Standards in Public Life.

Committee on Standards in Public Life
Room GC07
1 Horse Guards Road
London
SW1A 2HQ
United Kingdom

Email: [email protected]

They are also on Twitter - @PublicStandards ‏- where I suppose the complaints procedure is less formalised, tag them in with evidence of the statement/action and why you interpret it violates the 7 principles. (Explain which principle and why).

Datun - I have missed you, I don't really come on mumsnet anymore because of the censorship and doxxing debacle

Saying TWAW is not a form of intellectual dishonesty. It comes down to how you define a woman.

I completely agree.

So go on then, define it.

It’s estimated that 6% of men are rapists.

So sarahAr a little over one in twenty of those men entering that female space will be a rapist. Are you OK with that? I’m not. Why are you?

For clarity, I am talking about the male population in general.

What also is intellectual dishonesty is arguing that GRA reform will lead to thousands of men entering women's spaces. There is no competent legally qualified honest person who would entertain this argument.

I am a competent legally qualified honest person. I have never seen the claim that "thousands" of men will enter women's spaces. But it is intellectually dishonest to claim that that GRA reform (especially if there is no strengthening of the Equality Act) will have no impact on women's spaces.

Self ID in the GRA will result in many many more men being able to hold the protected characteristic of sex as a woman. They will literally be able to "self identify" as legal women.

When this is combined with men's propensity towards violence and sexual violence, it is intellectually dishonest not to think some will use this to the detriment of natal women.

Oh thanks! I wish I could memorise all that!

It comes down to how you define a woman. On the contrary saying that trans women are not women on the grounds of chromosomes, but believing intersex women are women is intellectual dishonesty.

Here we go again.

There is a definition of woman. It’s an adult human female where female is the class which bear live young and produce ova

Do you believe humans can change sex, Sarah Ar?

Because unless you do, your definition includes both sexes and we already have a word for that, which is ‘people.’

So do you believe humans can change sex?