Does Scotland not have sex as a protected characteristic?!

This clip is an example of JM's pivot when being asked about sex, and answering a different point on sex characteristics https://twitter.com/bbcscotnine/status/1208139377756561408?s=21

It's so subtle, the presenter doesn't even pick up on it. This is what JM does, repeatedly, and JM knows exactly how to keep that confusion & misinformation up, to avoid clarity of language & definitions. Stephen Whittle's work on the GRA 2004 & EA2010 specifically states that their preference on words & language was that sex & gender be conflated so as to avoid clear distinction between gender reassignment (with a GRC) & sex (women aka adult human females) because then the application of the SSEs under the EA2010 would be very easy & straight forward to implement. Based on sex, it's a no-brained what SSEs mean & who is entitled to use SS spaces/facilities/services/support. Conflate sex & gender, women lose their single sex spaces/facilities/services/support.

This is why language matters in this debate & why shit like this hate crime bill needs a thorough breakdown & challenge. I don't doubt that those with DSDs have faced issues but the only harassment & abuse I've ever seen online of those with DSDs has been from trans activists. Funnily enough, Equality Network - who claimed funding to be able to "develop a shared understanding of intersex equality, rights and inclusion priorities in Scotland" have never addressed this area of harassment & discrimination that people with DSDs face as a result of the interference of orgs like EN who use 'intersex' to further their trans rights crusade.

Here's a real world example of someone deploying something very similar to variations in sex characteristics in order to mislead:

twitter.com/MujerGuerrera78/status/1259076592367738880

In other words, a male body said to be at odds with a feminine "gender identity" is a variation in sex characteristics.

sorry, DSD is not the same as transgender. The FAQs there explain all the terms pretty clearly.

DSD Families is clear that Intersex is not the same as transgender. More info here: dsdfamilies.org/faq

I have serious reservations about any “hate crime” laws. They are a threat to free speech, and closely resemble the old blasphemy laws.

Absolutely agree with your post. This is why we need organisations like bloody Liberty - except they have tanned the KoolAid most enthusiastically! It's shocking, and I wish more people would see how fragile our civil liberties our, how important they are, how easily impinged upon.

DSD Families are registrered in Scotland & afaik they are not aligned with EN but have a chance in the next round of funding to get that from scotgov over EN to get those who have diagnosed DSD or family with DSD funded & independently represented instead of being used for other agendas. I hope they're going to be successful.

Does anyone know how intersex people in Scotland have reacted to the fact that, since 2009, Scottish law has been defined them as transgender?

Yeah Morton always there and always getting funded. Don’t know why Morton gets this.

What are Morton’s qualifications for all this policy work Morton does

Intersex, like gender, is a very useful trojan horse word to those wishing to exploit the law in their favour.

This is exactly what this is. Anyone who pays close attention to what James Mortin says when discussing sex based rights, JM always pivots & talks about sex characteristics when others talk about biological sex. The inclusion of that specific wording has JM stamped all over it. You have primary & secondary sex characteristics & when someone wants to claim to be a woman or female & has plastic surgery to alter some 'sex characteristics', to JM that equates someone male who undergoes any body modifying surgery places that person in the same biological sex category as females. You then extrapolate that to intersex or DSDs i.e. natural differences of sexual development & have both DSD & surgically modified people placed in the same category. So the thought experiment ends up codified in law & trans people get legally protected from multiple angles & hold quite a lot of legal backing should anyone ever tackle any aspect of their legal demands from any perspective.

If you ever wondered why the Equality Network claimed scotgov funding while JM actually was behind the push on conflating DSDs with trans ID, this is part of it. When you control the narrative & claim to be the authority voice on discrimination, you get a lot of free reign on shit like this.

The multi-pronged approach of the likes of JM never stops.

Intersex, like gender, is a very useful trojan horse word to those wishing to exploit the law in their favour.

Women's groups pointed out the issues and concerns for women through their language and protections being stretched and obviously, demonstrably exploited.
DSD groups pointed out the issues and concerns for people with DSD through their language and needs being stretched and already, demonstrably exploited.

But it's going to be forced through anyway. Not in the interests of women, not in the best interests of people with DSD, definitely not in the best interests of homosexual women and not in the interests of child safeguarding either.

Not that inclusive really. An interesting group for a government to be prioritising and serving against the interests of others, since the main beneficiaries look to be typically developed, able bodied, heterosexual people born male. This will be invaluable in their accessing facilities where female people and children are vulnerable, and criminalising female people who dare to protest.

Really, how stupid do you have to be to not see what's going on here?

Intersexuality is listed under transgender identity in the Offences (Aggravation by Prejudice) (Scotland) Act 2009, but has now been separated out into it's own characteristic for the new Hate Crime Bill, using the definition:
14(8) A person is a member of a group defined by reference to variations in sex characteristics if the person is born with physical and biological sex characteristics which, taken as a whole, are neither-
(a) those typically associated with males, nor
(b) those typically associated with females.

I believe grassroots dsd groups had argued during the consultation process for it NOT to be included in the Act at all. But the influence of Equality Network (variations in sex characteristics is their terminology, and who received large amounts of funding for doing work in this area, which they described as being in the early stages some 4 years later) has obviously taken priority.

There is already a law in Scotland that covers aggravated crimes against against people with the characteristic "transgender identity": the Offences (Aggravation by Prejudice) (Scotland) Act 2009. Yes, another law that seems to have been enacted without much notice at the time (and put forward by none other than Patrick Harvie).

According to this Act, transgender identity is defined as:
(a) transvestism, transsexualism, intersexuality, or anyone who has changed gender under GRA 2004; or
(b) any other gender identity that is not standard male or female gender identity.

The explanatory notes say transvestism is often referred to as cross-dressing, and the definition under (b) covers androgynous, non-binary, or those who exhibit any other characteristic, behaviour or appearance which does not conform with conventional understandings of gender identity.

There are no definitions given for any of the terms.

The new Hate Crime Bill (if it passes into law) will replace this Act, and has slightly changed the definition to:
14(7) A person is a member of a group defined by reference to transgender identity if the person is-
(a) a female-to-male transgender person,
(b) a male-to-female transgender person,
(c) a non-binary person,
(d) a person who cross-dresses.

So the definition has been narrowed down somewhat - demi/acegenders and everything else in the wider trans umbrella have been kicked out. But y'know, Scotgov somehow still think it essential to incorporate protection for cross-dressing (the number one paraphilia for sex offenders) into Scottish law. And there are still no definitions given for any of the terms.

The definition for sexual orientation has been carried forward from the same Act too. However, the definition has changed from:
A reference to sexual orientation is reference to sexual orientation towards persons of the same sex or of the opposite sex or towards both.

to:
A reference to sexual orientation is a reference to sexual orientation towards persons of the same sex, persons of a different sex, or both persons of the same sex and persons of a different sex.

Changing it from "opposite" sex to "different" sex implies that there are now more than two sexes.

NB. The Hate Crime Bill only refers to "characteristics". It's solely the Equality Act that refers to "protected characteristics".

One reason it's done is that "DSD" and "intersex" are well-known terms which carry understood meanings. Using "variations in sex characteristics" instead means that it doesn't have to carry these understood meanings. It can incorporate them and anything else you fancy. The importance of this is that if the new term becomes legally disputed, there's much more scope for defining, that is changing, its meaning in the course of proceedings. In other words, the new term means things can be made up as you go along.

I wonder, was there a list of different developmental conditions and they looked through them all, and proposed a list of why and why shouldn’t they be included in hate crime legislation.
I’d also like to know if they really did just decide there’s so much hate crime against women we may as well not bother.

Very cunning to choose that as the umbrella term. It’s hinting there are sex-based legislations, without there being any. Hopefully enough for it to go under the radar. DSD is perfectly adequate, clear and self-explanatory, unlike intersex and even more so than variations in sex characteristics.

Here you go:

www.gov.uk/government/consultations/variations-in-sex-characteristics-call-for-evidence

Variations in sex characteristics is the umbrella term we have chosen for this exercise, but we are also aware that there are other terms in use, such as intersex and differences of sex development.

It looks like in the UK governments are using the term variations in sex characteristics to refer to intersex and DSDs. Obviously with such vague wording there's scope for mischief.

If it’s referring to DSD, then it should state it’s referring to DSD. I think sex characteristics it’s deliberately used to create confusion and hint towards there being some sex-based hate crime legislation.
I wonder, how can sexual orientation and transgender identity both be included in this? If a lesbian woman refuses to have romantic or sexual relations when she realises it’s a trans woman. Lesbian says I have a right to be a lesbian, I’ve done nothing wrong and they’re imposing themselves on my sexuality, trans woman says they’re hateful and they, as a human adult male, in women’s clothes or/and drugs is a lesbian and it’s a hate crime against not accepting their identity. Who is the victim here, legally speaking? What about that trans woman who filed a hate crime, because they were told they couldn’t have the female role in a porno? Would that be a hate crime?
We must ask questions. It’s vague, and it needs to be crystal clear.

I assume it was intended to refer to intersex APocketFullOfButtons. What it could end up covering is anyone's guess. We've got a history of well-meaning laws being drafted to be vague enough to cover a wide variety of bad stuff and then captured institutions waking up to the possibilities that all kinds of other stuff can be acted against to suited particular political ends.

@nauticant I wouldn’t assume that at all, my first thought was it’s a hate crime to say x has a small penis or y has a tiny breasts - Z’s are much better. It absolutely needs clarifying, it’s very ambiguous. So, the conclusion in Scotland is, women suffer such large volumes of hate crime it’s best not to bother? Sweep —women— it under the carpet?

How did things get so bad in Scotland that they are having to discuss sex being added as a characteristic??

I was aware from the work ofForWomen.Scotof just how strong the trans infilitration of goverment and "civil society" but never ever dreamed that sex was not accepted as a protected characteristic

You have misunderstood the existing law in Scotland and England and Wales.

Sex is a protected characteristic for the purposes of discrimination. You can't choose to select a man for a job simply because he is a man- or indeed you can't discriminate against a man simply because he is a man.

Sex is not one of the categories whereby a crime can be exacerbated simply because the victim is a woman or a man.

How did things get so bad in Scotland that they are having to discuss sex being added as a characteristic??

Wow. Ridiculous hyperbole.

I assume variations in sex characteristics is intended to refer to intersex. My guess is this is to create such an association between T and I that I cannot be mentioned without automatically implying the T.

The reason why sex isn't there is this risks creating a volume of offences the like which hasn't been seen before. You'd end up with the Police being deluged and then facing the prospect of either grinding to a halt in handling hate offences or dealing with hate offences based on sex by putting them in the bin without acting on them.

And yes, the primary goal is always the silencing and suppressing of women having or even being allowed to talk about, boundaries.