All the best to Kate Scottow in court tomorrow

I went for a wander through the kiwi orchard and noted with interest that apparently the subject of our inquiry has posted 51 tweets about Glinner over the past few days. Sounds a little... obsessive? Harassy?

Due to their many errors in the past, such as institutional racism, ignoring child abuse, falling hook, line and sinker for "Nick", treatment of Cliff Richard - the list is endless - it seems to me that the police and CPS are now trying to get ahead of the game with regard to trans issues.

In other words, lets pick off a few low hanging fruit such as Harry and Kate so we are the right side of history and cannot be accused of ignoring a potential problem. Trouble is, the police have gone far too far the other way in their actions and their blatant re-branding of their cars and uniforms to support one particular cause is nauseating.

What they seem to fail to understand is that if they put their minds and efforts into stopping (rather than ignoring) low-level criminal offending, all members of our society would benefit. Secondly the most vulnerable members of our society are our children, so any "campaigning" on the Police's part should be aimed at them.

It seems to be a law of convenience for when you need to shut someone up but they can't be done for a proper crime.

Doesn't it just. And when you look at who the case involves, it makes a mockery of the police and justice system.

I wonder if the recent cases that have yet to produce a verdict have anything to do with the new regulations coming into power regarding the policing of social media sites. Or is it just a coincidence?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-51446665

I don't understand how this case passed the CPS's public interest test.

There's a bullshit law that says it's illegal to annoy someone on the internet. It's not used often because otherwise we'd all be inside. It seems to be a law of convenience for when you need to shut someone up but they can't be done for a proper crime.

Why was it in the public interest for the CPS to bring this case?

Solidarity Kate, I can't imagine how tough this week is for you

Going back to the blocking on twitter, isn’t there a saying that eavesdroppers only hear bad things about themselves?

If you don’t want to know, stop listening at doors.

How can one have the ‘feelings’ without stereotypes of feelings- it is a never ending loop.

Quite how you can marry that up with a belief that someone can have a gender identity that doesn't align with their biological sex, I have no idea.

I think it then all just comes down to 'feelings', so a man is a woman if he says he 'feels like a woman'.

But I think people like Jess Phillips have just switched their brains off on this issue, so as not to have to face up to the fact that they've capitulated to a violent and threatening male-dominated movement out of fear.

IIRC that was part of Jess Phillips's arguments in favour of reforming the GRA - that it's sexist to assume a gender role carries certain behaviours and traits, so they shouldn't ask for that at all.

Quite how you can marry that up with a belief that someone can have a gender identity that doesn't align with their biological sex, I have no idea.

as far as I'm aware nobody has defined 'female gender role' in the context of a 40+ year old biological male.

I think they tried to, and realised it could only be based on sexist stereotypes which would obviously be seen as regressive by most people. That was the point at which they should have realised that the GRA should be scrapped because it makes no sense.

How can you be harassed by someone who has actively sought to prevent all contact?

When someone creates fresh accounts after being banned, and carries on postIng about another person, by name, on a public platform, where anyone not specifically blocked (or simply not logged in) can read, share, and circulate, that’s not avoiding contact is it?

Blocking someone, so they can't read your tweets and you can't read theirs, is the definition of avoiding contact. There would, self-evidently, be no direct contact at all unless one side actively sought that contact. It doesn't mean the other isn't allowed contact with anyone else, or must remain silent.

That’s just talking about someone when they’re not directly in the conversation, whilst knowing that they will hear all about it one way or another, as will literally anyone else who cares to look, or has it shared to them.

I wouldn't know what someone said about me if the mutual dislike was sufficient for mutual blocks, because I'd block for a reason, not to make a flouncy point, and my friends have sufficient maturity and common sense not to take pleasure in shit-stirring. And there is no right, in life or in law, not to be talked about. There is a right not to be harassed, and a right not to be defamed. You can't be harassed if you have to seek out the discussion. Every gossip site on the internet would be liable, were that the law.

The prosecution, according to the reports, argue Kate created multiple accounts to circumvent a block. Yet now it seems that she created those accounts to avoid Twitter rules, not a block from Hayden, and in fact had blocked Hayden herself. Hayden's confusion in believing retweets were visible despite a block does not make that true: it is not true. Nobody here is arguing that it is true. Hayden sought the tweets out; they could never have been seen otherwise.

This is not complex or esoteric. It's very simple. If you don't want contact, and don't want to know what is being said about you, don't take active steps to find out.

Isn't self I'd disabled more about not forcing people to identify as disabled? That's how dh thinks it works ?...many people with DH condition do identify as disabled...helps with job interviews and allowances for eg hospital appts and such, but DH doesn't see himself as disabled

Rather the opposite of what we have here where woman are forced to identify as something

"However, "Self-ID" in terms of disability is a VERY different kettle of fish to "Self-ID" in terms of the GRA 2004 and Equality Act 2010. In order to obtain protections under the Equality Act 2010 objective evidence is required. It is not sufficient to "self declare" that one "feels disabled"."

It is worth noting in this context that the fragrant subject of this thread posted on Reddit about how easy it is to obtain a GRC.

In this context it should be understood that to get a GRC one must show that one has been living in the new gender role for a period of two years

"proof you’ve lived in your acquired gender for the required time"

in this context there were photos posted by Miss Hayden less than two years before the GRC was granted (and boasted about on Twitter) appearing to show a male gender role.

However as there is no objective definition of living as a female for someone who is biologically male it turns out we already do have self certification of.gender, it's just one that's easier for people like our subject here than perhaps those with more limited resources.

Disability on the other hand has to have objective evidence against a certain standard. It's still a matter of interpretation obviously, but at least there is some kind of reference, whereas as far as I'm aware nobody has defined 'female gender role' in the context of a 40+ year old biological male.

Comments are open on Thursdays article, just not Fridays (there are 278 of them):

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7975577/amp/Mother-two-39-appears-court-accused-calling-transgender-woman-pig-wig.html

I'm so disappointed that the comments have been turned off in the Daily Mail article

If it's an ongoing/current court case newspaper comments are always turned off -

Yes, 'could potentially'.

It's still not wise to speculate without evidence because this individual appears to enjoy taking legal action against people.

It's also not necessary to speculate because there's enough other astonishing revelations coming out of this case of far worse wrong doing on the part of the complainant, for which there is actual evidence.

In the absence of evidence this speculation just adds to the perpetual benefit bashing narrative that disabled people have to face and will still have to face long after this unimportant individual fades into obscurity. It doesn't achieve anything else.

How can you be harassed by someone who has actively sought to prevent all contact?

When someone creates fresh accounts after being banned, and carries on postIng about another person, by name, on a public platform, where anyone not specifically blocked (or simply not logged in) can read, share, and circulate, that’s not avoiding contact is it?

That’s just talking about someone when they’re not directly in the conversation, whilst knowing that they will hear all about it one way or another, as will literally anyone else who cares to look, or has it shared to them.

I'm so disappointed that the comments have been turned off in the Daily Mail article.

Not a sentence I ever thought I'd type. But I was quite curious what the Mail readers would make of Stephanie's two photographs, and the curious contrast between her golfing history and her delicate Twitter sensibilities.

Sorry, not a GP but has access to a prescription pad.

Really pleased to hear you got your award Prawn

I agree with Spartacus about the way PIP is being discussed on this thread.

There are good people on PIP and there are absolute arseholes on PIP and everyone inbetween. The qualifying criteria quite rightly don't include being a nice person.

Nobody self-ID's onto PIP.

You have to fill in a HUGE form, list all your diagnoses and the ways they affect you, list all your medication and side effects, all the therapies you need to attend, all the aids and appliances you need to use and include details of relevant HCP who can be contacted for further information. You have to answer a bunch of depressing questions about all the things you can't do independently and you have to explain repeatedly and in excruciating detail exactly why you can't do them. You're not obliged to send in medical evidence but your chances of a successful application are very slim if you don't. In most cases you then have to attend a face to face assessment with a HCP who is likely not to know much at all about your specific conditions or the way they affect people and who is actively looking for reasons why PIP should not be awarded. Many applicants then need to go through the further stages of mandatory reconsideration and appeal before finally getting their award around 18 months to 2 years after they first apply, having shown their actual fucking medical evidence to a benefit appeal tribunal panel which includes a judge and at least one medical professional. 75% of PIP and ESA appeals are now successfully overturned.

The idea that you can 'self-declare' that one 'feels disabled' for the purposes of PIP is incredibly offensive. Not because of any snowflakey reasons but because an absolute fuckton of disabled people are being left living in extreme poverty, without the support they need, because they are not able to jump through all the required hoops and/or they do not have the wherewithal or the energy to challenge the decision through tribunal.

PIP fraud is not unheard of but it's very uncommon because of all the hurdles. There is no evidence that Hayden has fraudulently claimed PIP and frankly, given how litigious this individual is, it would be unwise to speculate.

Meanwhile, 11 criminal court appearances for 21 offences and 6 months in prison!

Terfsandwich this was part of my concern - this the thread was started to support Kate and the disability issue may well derail it. Of course I'm not trying to shut down debate or challenging your right to speak, which is of course the whole issue behind having to even have this thread, but it may well be worthy of a different, separate thread though?

I'm not saying be nice or be kind but drawing parallels between disability rights activists and TRAs is, I would think, spectacularly going to polarise opinion, derail from the support that this thread was started to give, and worthy of a separate thread.

Personally I think the "eyes on the prize" of this thread is support for Kate, and discussion of SH's total twattery is definitely relevant, but the wider disability issue might distract from this.

But I'm not very articulate or intelligent today, I may be reading it all wrongly and saying it all wrongly too Plus I know I didn't even start the thread, or everyone else may think I'm talking bollocks want to discuss these issues here...

Feel free to ignore, or tell me to fuck off - I won't be offended I would actually really like a discussion about disability self ID (in fact I'm sure there have already been lots and I've forgotten them ) I just feel its worthy of a whole separate discussion elsewhere.