Stella Creasey is on a guest post invoking SEX as a protected characteristic for legislation!

Self-id would go further than not recognising this dynamic. It would remove the language to even describe it. It would take away women's right to name it.

It's a mindfuck of mammoth proportions.

Absolutely 100% deliberate.

It's also this refusal to take into account the power dynamic between men and women.

Absolutely this.

Self-id would go further than not recognising this dynamic. It would remove the language to even describe it. It would take away women's right to name it.

It would remove women's ability to organise as a sex to protect themselves against it.

Agree, Datun.

Squatters rights is spot on.

It's also this refusal to take into account the power dynamic between men and women.

To understand that there is a massive cohort of men who are trying to stick to women.

Why would Stonewall give two shits about the ramifications of misogyny towards women? They're not a feminist organisation. The last people in their acronym they support is lesbians, women.

Them supporting a law is guaranteed to mean it benefits men at the expense of women. They may not even take into account that expense. Women just don't exist, as far as they're concerned.

I don't think we have quite got that far as there are lots of inconsistencies in the way both laws work together. What we need to do is clearly unpick this and challenge the government to clarify terms.

This. Squatters rights is a great analogy. Or when you use a bit of someone's land as a footpath and no one challenges to you and you can make a legal claim that you are entitled to do so after a certain amount of time.

So once more we have an interplay with the GRA. Don't ever let anyone say, "move along, nothing to see here, it's just admin, it has nothing to do with you".

The big problem here is that not just passing MTFs are covered by "perception" which is understandable as a logical framework, but any man as the protected characteristic of female sex also covers approx 3k males with a GRC. And potentially many more if self ID passes.

Apologies train connection

As I understand it, the amendment uses the protected characteristic of sex but actually legislates for those "having or presumed to have" the protected characteristic of sex. Meaning you don't actually have to qualify for this protected characteristic to be included in the legislation.

So does the EA by allowing discrimination/harassment to be claimed on the "grounds of perception" (mistaken). I agree it's deeply flawed.

As I understand it, the amendment uses the protected characteristic of sex but actually legislates for those "having or presumed to have" the protected characteristic of sex. Meaning you don't actually have to qualify for this protected characteristic to be included in the legislation.

So does the EA by allowing discrimination/harassment to be claimed on the "grounds of perception" (mistaken). I agree it's deeply flawed.

As I understand it, the amendment uses the protected characteristic of sex but actually legislates for those "having or presumed to have" the protected characteristic of sex. Meaning you don't actually have to qualify for this protected characteristic to be included in the legislation.

So does the EA by allowing discrimination/harassment to be claimed on the "grounds of perception" (mistaken). I agree it's deeply flawed.

Oh and sis also confirms that SC is hopeless on trans stuff and is a firm believer in the "Transwomen Are Women" mantra.

My sister lives in Creasy's consituency and is really involved in a local FB group of women fighting back against street harassment. According to sis, street harassment of women and girls is totally out of control and SC hasn't really done anything (apart from at one point asking members of the group of they would come with her to be filmed confronting harassers in the street IIRC - all smacked a bit of publicity for her).

So on the one hand it's good that she's finally taking this group's concerns seriously. On the other hand, I don't really get how a commitment to review hate crime legislation helps anyone.

As someone upthread said, hate crime is a bit of a dodgy concept in itself. It is galling that everyone except women seem to be covered by it though. But in practice what would it mean. My sister tells me that women and girls are facing constant harassment on the high street near her - cases of girls being followed, spat at, flashed at etc. Few women report to the police. Those who try to have apparently not been able to get through or in one case were treated really badly by operator who basically told her she was wasting their time. So how does making misogyny a hate crime help anyone? I would have thought more police on the beat would be a better starting point. More street lighting maybe?

As I understand it, the amendment uses the protected characteristic of sex but actually legislates for those "having or presumed to have" the protected characteristic of sex. Meaning you don't actually have to qualify for this protected characteristic to be included in the legislation.

See the problem? See why Stonewall backs it?

Have I got this right - Creasey is saying we now need the hate crime of misogyny in order to ban upskirting? And TW may be covered by this new law if it says characteristics of sex and not just sex.

But then that becomes challenge-able under sex discrimination laws as men who choose to wear skirts would not be covered by this law. What about Scotsmen visiting England?

OK so, I still don't know what the amendments to the upskirting bill are because they don't seem to be listed anywhere in plain English; and I'm not sure I support amending the upskirtuing bill at all.

We need to make upskirting a crime, because apparently just wearing clothes isn't enough in itself to guarantee your privacy under those clothes.
Changing the upskirting bill by adding to it gives MP's a get out clause for voting against it.

@ShrodingersSturdyPyjamas yuk. I see what you mean.

2) does anyone else think that 'Stephie' has chosen a particularly horrible surname?

First name, and last name. Say it to yourself really slowly.

Yes of course a man with gender dysphoria will call them selves a hard 'wood' penis. Damn right.

Curious choice, listing the signatories alphabetically by first name (even though one is ‘Dr’ ) especially as it means the deputy Green leader is first...

Long-time lurker here, . Just seen The Independent is asking for our letters on this initiative ;)

www.independent.co.uk/voices/letters/misogyny-hate-crime-women-change-theresa-may-stella-creasy-a8523876.html

It's a problem in scientific research - mice and rats behave differently when male researchers conduct experiments than when female researchers do.

Derail, but I love the random & fascinating facts that pop up on MN in the course of a discussion.