SCOTTISH GRA REFORM ANNOUNCEMENT BROUGHT FORWARD

It seems a bit 'peoples front of judea' up there

Yes it does, doesn't it? All I can say is that I was here first

But seriously we are all just normal women working our butts off trying to make a difference whilst trying to fit it into our normal lives, AND getting a whole load of abuse and hassle in the process.

Yesterday was a good day and I hope we have more of them to come.

Thanks for sharing The Times article, it's incredible that they are claiming they revealed the issues with the LGBT Youth Scotland guidance in January!

I've been campaigning on this school guidance since last Spring, and The Herald picked up my work and were the first to break my findings in the media. It's ironic to see these claims being made especially as most mainstream media have been 'extremely reluctant' to print anything on this topic until just recently.

Here's a link to my post about it. There's loads more on my website explaining what I've been up to since then.

scottish-women.com/2018/12/02/controversial-lgbt-school-guidance-which-discards-single-sex-spaces-and-sports/

forwomen.scot/

This is where you will find the information you need.

People's front of Judea? How very dare you. This is an anarcho-syndicalist commune. With a very big manifesto.

It seems a bit 'peoples (sic) front of judea' up there

These are small, grassroots women't organisations run out of spare rooms and via Facebook. They have no money beyond donations, no political capital and have had to work very, very hard to get here.

@WeBuiltCisCityOnSexistRoles
I completely agree. I think it's good that women are drawing a line when it comes to allowing men to define what a woman is. But more women need to start understanding how deeply misogynistic it is for a man to play act certain stereotypes that are foisted onto women and believe that this is "living as a woman"

What are the campaigning organisations in Scotland? So I can see if they take donations. I know about 'for women scotland' and 'women and girls in scotland'. But I thought I had seen others with similar names. It seems a bit 'peoples front of judea' up there.

A total retraction is the only way they can avoid a future safeguarding scandal

From Somerville's statement:

The Scottish Government recognises that in taking the unarguably good general principle of inclusivity, and developing specific recommendations, the approach risks potentially excluding other girls from female-only spaces. That cannot be right.

We have therefore decided to replace the LGBT Youth work with guidance from the Scottish Government.

Apologies if already posted, haven't seen it:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/law-on-gender-recognition-is-delayed-amid-concern-for-girls-z2l5mglps?shareToken=535760cb304ac5aec75b865d3484eb1b&fbclid=IwAR18FCsiydjEEio6D6QaDiDq9r-qVRT86EhUGaLBnKAQXowp_-3R7E20HmA

So what's next for Scotland then? Because it looks like this will be the testing ground that Westminster will follow. Once you see what's really going on you can't unsee it. I've heard of loads of former allies becoming GC but never the reverse, so we just need to keep pushing until the balance tips.

• Every term needs to be clearly and meaningfully defined: woman, man, transwoman, transman, living as a woman/man, gender, sex, gender identity. No more fucking around with the language, no more room for changing the meaning of words in order to change the meaning of laws. Get some daylight on how impossible it is to define these terms without fallacies or offensive stereotypes.

• A full review of the EA10. Single sex exemptions to be enforced as the norm. Some orgs can have opt out clauses to include TW if they think it's reasonable, but for shelters, prisons, hospitals etc it should be enforced without exception. Exclusion without exception - hows that for you Stonewall? And it should be illegal to coerce orgs to not make use of the EA10 by with holding funding. The fact woman's aid must be trans inclusive to get funding takes away their right to enforce the exemption clause.

• An inquiry into the power, funding, access, and collusion with lobby groups by MPs. An inquiry into the policy capture that's been allowed to happen and new laws introduced to prevent it happening again.

Also although I am obviously glad the government is recognising the failure to maintain single sex spaces in schools guidance I see no discussion anywhere about the impact on safeguarding.

It is hard to take seriously a government campaign to crack down on FGM when the current LGBTY school guidance condones secrecy and breast ironing/binding. The contradiction is staggering and needs more publicity.

We must protect our girls and that the government signed off on this guidance in the first place is madness. They tried just removing themselves from being associated with the guidance by stating it was "optional" A total retraction is the only way they can avoid a future safeguarding scandal. Once the risks have been made clear it is very hard to continue brushing them off as has been the case until now.
stv.tv/news/politics/1435632-school-transgender-guidelines-will-not-be-reviewed/

Hard legal challenge. Public knowledge and open debate. Grass roots activism is doing this and than goodness for that. I for one am going to finish my budgeting this evening and then put as much as I can afford towards funding more of this amazing work.

Yes to the law when dealing with politicians but perhaps we should be getting women's stories out to the general public as well to counter the inevitable pushing of trans peoples stories, just to remind people there are two vulnerable groups involved in these laws.

wgscotland.org.uk/assessments/
This is the sort of work that is shifting things I think. Not responding to this would leave the government open to legal challenge. I am in awe of the grass roots women behind this.

Fresh air and sunlight, that's helping but cold hard legal challenge is what is swinging it. The Equality Act is being challenged and is the only legal gatekeeper remaining in place. It is the key to all of this so the more that can be done to educate on it's actual definition (not the repeated replacement of sex with gender in unis/corporations etc as upthread) the better. LGBTY and their like have been given government funding and paid by organisations to give expensive "training courses" and advise wrongly on the Equality Act - this has had a domino effect resulting in wide ranging conflation of sex and gender as well as sanctioned authoritarian handling of any challenge on the basis of single sex exemption. Remember this?
fairplayforwomen.com/scottish_stole_woman/

Proper accessible Equality Act guidance on single sex exemption would have an immediate effect. Establishments are frightened of getting it wrong, of being targeted and of being found in breach of the law so they have been capitulating to utter nonsense. They are at fault but when their next grant is dependent on evidenced inclusivity best got by paying for government sanctioned and funded staff training complete with incorrect guidance with a government stamp and a rainbow on the cover...

We need debate. Open, frank and respectful debate.

We need clarification and answers to a few simple questions and some complex ones:

What is a woman?

What is the purpose of a GRC?

How can the rights of both trans people and women be protected without impinging on each other?

What is sex, what is gender, and what is the difference between them?

politicians are giving the illusion of listening to our fears

This is the problem, it's what it all comes down to, the illusion being presented instead of what's happening, not just with selective reporting in news, twisted meanings of words and thing, but the whole bases of women having privacy will be an illusion.

Lucy HunterBlackburn
‏**@LucyHunterB**
Very much welcome Colin (from Stonewall)’s comments about language and respect in this debate. Next step in getting this debate on a more normal footing has to be groups advocating self-declaration having a go at being willing to be on air at with those who disagree.

Joan McAlpine
‏*@JoanMcAlpine*
More Joan McAlpine Retweeted Lucy HunterBlackburn
Astounding that @StonewallScot refused to go on air at the same time as the measured, respectful academic @LucyHunterB to discuss the #GRAReform statement

Speaking to MSPs of all parties in recent weeks it is clear even those sympathetic to sex self-ID are not at all impressed with the "no debate" approach. Stonewall's attempted no platforming wont go down well

In a democracy we must have open and respectful debate, including through the media, which is an important element in that democracy - I am glad @BBCScotland went ahead with both interviews albeit separately

I truly hope not.....now that womens voices are being heard, politicians are giving the illusion of listening to our fears-also there were a lot of women in that parliamentary hearing yesterday.

Might Scotland not just say, its working there so we will roll it out here?

This is most probably what is going to happen.

I agree that "living as a woman" is definitely a lever to prise the lid off this absurdity - especially when it gets on the radar of the previously unaware section of the general public. It's exactly the sort of thing my elderly parents (for example) would immediately understand to be bollocks.

Surely it means "conforming to stereotyping based on your sex" which we should be trying to move away from not encouraging it.

Isn't it ridiculous we are in the situation of having to say things like this!

Whilst I am hopefull-WTF happened in Canada? Might Scotland not just say, its working there so we will roll it out here?

I don't think anyone can afford to be complacent that we're winning.

In other words, recognise that transgender is a category in its own right deserving of its own protections. Presumably no women’s groups would have an issue with this, but transgender groups would as they tend to equate gender with sex, and this relies on the concept of a legal sex

Transgender groups argue that separate provision for biological women and for people self declaring equates to discrimination and treating of self declared people as a different type of person, not as women. They see that as 'inequality' and 'lesser rights than other women'.

That is the part that has to be faced up to. Absolutely people should be able to believe whatever they want, live however they want, dress and present regardless of societal pressure around sex stereotypes and there is a strong case to provide resources and facilities for those who identify away from their biological sex for their privacy, dignity, safety and recognition of their choices. All fine. However biology is a fixed fact and you cannot allow males to identify into resources for the female sex without this heavily damaging women and removing their equality.

There is also the precedent here, that once it is fixed in law that personal choice must be accepted over material reality, other trans groups will want equal rights. So we will have trans aged and trans abled people who will want to be allowed to be 55 in a baby doll frock at your child's preschool, nappies changed on demand please, and trans abled people with carers and benefits and converted cars.... and that's just two already existing groups. How do you say yes to one and no to another? It won't be possible to argue it. Society can't set this precedent.

It HAS to be, full recognition of self ID - and trying to police 'living as' the opposite sex is ridiculous, it can't be done - and facilities provided in law separate to the facilities and resources for biological sex, but clear lines in law that biology is a fixed fact and in those few situations where female biology matters, transgendered people and biologically sexed people will be treated differently in order to meet and respect everyone's needs.

This will be argued against, but since that argument boils down to 'but women should lose their rights to give trans people what they want and it's just and worthwhile that they should', (ie the poster on here the other day saying they were prepared to accept a rise in assaults, exclusions and harm to women to provide full inclusion for trans people) it's not going to go well in the public eye. It's flat out sexism and as a pp laid out in their post, it's against a number of laws.

This is great news. As OldCrone says, the regressive sexist nature of this is clear once you have to define the terms. And proper impact assessments will show how damaging it is for women. I'm hoping that then we in Ireland can point our useless politicians to Scotland's assessments and get this rolled back.

Just caught up. I am heartened by this result. Firstly because now we have a debate and secondly because the work of all the women's groups who fought so hard to be heard, have been. There is along way to go, but this is a start. Well done you brave, brave women.

twitter.com/ScotlandTonight/status/1141826809819910144

A TV clip with SAS defending her decision to do further consultation. I'm pleased she mentioned that women's rights have been hard won over the years.

Absolutely, Old Crone. The fudges that were allowed when the original GRA was passed can't be allowed this time because (1) the legislation will no longer potentially apply only to a tiny number of people and (2) there is no requirement under international obligations to introduce legislation as there was then.