Nicola Sturgeon throws Joanna Cherry under the bus

Appalling decision.

Awful, how would have decided that?

Shame! Oops

It’s such a

Here we go.

twitter.com/joannaccherry/status/1356233346565730304

Despite hard work, results & a strong reputation I’ve been sacked today from @theSNP front bench. My constituents & fellow party members who gave me a resounding mandate in recent NEC elections should rest assured that I will continue to work hard for them.

Westminster is increasingly irrelevant to Scotland's constitutional future and @theSNP would do well to radically re-think our strategy.

Exactly Nonnymouse1337, and this aspect of trust is also pertinent to the oft made statement that "we don't check people's pants at the door" and that therefore reinforcement of strict sex segregated spaces isn't possible (even if those making that statement were inclined to accept our point, which they don't).

It strikes me as odd that those making that statement think so little of people who identify as trans that only a "pants inspection" could posdibly keep them out of opposite-sex spaces and not their own common decency and willingness to abide by the rules.

The social taboo against males entering female-only spaces has been so strong, even domestic abusers remained outside - lest they be found out, of course, or challenged by men or women for seeking to enter.

And this social taboo has been invaluable to those who seek to help abused women. For midwives for instance, taking a pregnant woman she thinks is being battered to the ladies for a urine test offered a few minutes alone with the woman. Time in which the midwife could reach out and then offer help if the woman disclosed without her abuser knowing. This protected both the woman and the midwife.

Breaking this social taboo, which self-id aims to do, takes away not only a valuable safe space but also a valuable tool in supporting victims.

You can’t identify yourself into disability or race any more than you can into sex.

It’s a peculiar kind of magical thinking.

No one can 'identify' as disabled or black, asian etc. You either are disabled or from a racial minority ... Or you're not. You don't have to 'identify' as anything.

They think that because you can't ask someone outright to 'prove' their disability or race, it means the application process should be on the basis of 'self-identification'. This is nonsense.

Self-declaration, which is what should be used, operates on a framework of honesty and trust.
If a political party has special seats or categories for candidates based on disability or race, it trusts that only people who fit the criteria will apply on that basis.

The application form for potential candidates should ask 'are you disabled according to the Equality Act definition?' or 'are you from an ethnic or racial minority according to the Equality Act definition?'.

There's no evidence required upfront. Self-declaration puts the onus on the applicant that they will be honest in their answers.
The terms and conditions attached to such a declaration should say 'if there is reasonable doubt that any information you have supplied in this application is false or incorrect, you may be subject to investigation and possible disciplinary actions'.

It's like most other forms of applications - applying for a job or a travel visa. The self-declaration method means people can tick the relevant boxes and the authority in charge trusts people to be honest in how they fill out the form. If later on evidence comes to light that the person lied about their disability or race, then there should be procedures in place to remove them from their position and/or expel them from the organisation or take them to court etc.

This whole 'I identify as disabled / bame' is not needed otherwise it opens up protected characteristics to all kinds of grifters and careerists, especially as you're not allowed to challenge their 'identity'.

I think this was less leaked than whistleblown.

And yes, if you need to make use of the Equality Act as a disabled person, ie for HR/employment/benefits...

you absolutely have to be able to medically evidence your disability to the legal standards required. You can't just identify into it.

A disability should be diagnosed. In theory I have a disability but it impacts not a whit on my working capacity and very little on my life in general. It would be outrageous for me to claim I had a disability to go to the top of the list.

If disability can be self identified why do we have PIP assessors?

Emails sent

Read. It

Omg.

This thread has the detail.
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4152716-SNP-lists-attacks-on-Joan-McAlpine

Yes it looks like both are self identified.

According to wings blog, some individuals have recently started mentioning their disability and hope to be elected this way. Two people who plan to put themselves forward for these list places didn't recuse themselves for the vote and voted the policy through.

They had commissioned a report on whether the policy would be legal from a qc. The qc said it would not be legal and if challenged in court the SNP would likely lose, costing lots of money, but they voted through the policy anyway (just scraping through). There's lots on twitter saying its disgusting that someone leaked it, but not denying the accuracy.

Worth reading wings blog. If true I'm staggered.

Can you identify in to either of these ?

Interesting this. Also from forewomen

Just had an email from forwomen Scotland. Pasting contents here, hopefully that's okay:

The Committee are meeting on Tuesday 2nd February to debate and vote on various amendments that have been proposed to the Hate Crime Bill.

There are several amendments that we think are vitally important to protect women and our free speech. Please take a few minutes to email the MSPs who sit on the Committee and ask them to back the following key amendments:

Amendment 31 by Johann Lamont to add sex as characteristic to Part 1 of the Bill (aggravation of offences by prejudice). This protection was recommended by Lord Bracadale and the Bill should not proceed without its inclusion. This does not stop any work by the working group on misogyny.

Amendment 89 by Johann Lamont to add the definition of sex which reflects that used in the Equality Act. Even if sex is to be added to the legislation at a later date it is important that the definition is laid down now to protect against subsequent redefinition.

Amendments 90, 91, 99B and 99C by Johann Lamont to ensure clarity on the definition of sexual orientation. Using 'opposite' instead of 'different' sex brings it in line with the Equality Act 2010 and the Offences Act 2009, and does not give the impression that there are more than 2 sexes.

Amendments 106, 108, 111 and 116 to change 'variations in sex characteristics' to the more accurate 'differences in sex development'.

Amendments 104, 107, 109, 113 to change the undefined 'transgender identity' to 'gender reassignment' to bring it in line with that defined in the Equality Act 2010.

Amendment 17 which would remove Part 2 of the Bill. The reaction from trans campaigners to the Government's Amendment 82 can leave no doubt to their intention to use the Hate Crime Bill to restrict women's free speech on advocating for their rights or to be critical of transgender ideology. We cannot see a way of avoiding this and therefore strongly believe the stirring up offences should be removed from the Bill in their entirety.

Amendment 82B will give the best protection to women's free speech should the Bill continue with Part 2.

Amendments 112, 103 and 82 would also be welcome as protection to our freedom of expression.

Please also ask the Committee MSPs to support:

Amendments 39A and 40A to remove the term 'abusive'.
Amendments 41, 44 and 84 to provide a 'dwelling defence'.
Amendment 55 to require the consent of Crown Counsel to any prosecution.

Anyone can contact the nine MSPs who sit on the Committee, you do not have to be a constituent. Their email addresses are:

[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

Please make sure your emails are sent before Tuesday! Thank you.

Yes, there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of who needs to have their identity defined and protected. Activist types seem to take the view that only minority "identities" need protected not majorities as being in a majority magically confers protection and privilege. However nobody lives they lives solely in the bubble of they particular category. If I'm one of a handful of women in a male workplace i am not protected from sexism in that context unless i can define my identity accurately. Your so - called privilige can disappear as you walk from one room to another!
This is why identity politics is bollocks!
I know I'm preaching to the converted here, just practising my arguments for when this comes up in real life.

BUT there were elements within SNP and Labour that clearly wanted to give women a good bashing, and it maybe depends on how much attention is diverted or needing diverted by all the various other issues currently brewing and spilling over.

Here's a recent FOI on definitions, which grudgingly, fudgingly admits humans are dimorphic and sex is real:

www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202000116322/?fbclid=IwAR0jC2Z9je6WH-iF_s6eN4ymHWOqq49rWQyXw5-nxmjeyIyo4lIX6EL4-jU

So, if this leads to Cherry and McAlpine being chucked out the SNP and we have Andy Whightman roaming around as an independent - would they join forces?

They are three exceptionally bright and fair politicians - if they could find a way to work together, well,

Love Alex Massie and it was a poor line in an otherwise great article. It is so easy for someone to agree to an unreasonable demand when it doesn't effect them.

I think he wouldn't feel the same if someone said "from now on, the word nazi isn't nazi, it is alex. You ok with that?"...

I could see the point he was making but it is a clumsy in saying it.

If we concede the word to describe us in anyway shape or form then we lose what we are. So no transwomen are not women, they are transwomen or males who identify as trans.

Thanks for sharing

Yeah, as soon as you say TWAW, even with reservations, you are insulting women.

I completely agree.

I'm glad quite a few comments are pulling him up on the'TWAW' bit.

However, I didn’t read it that way - particularly in the context of the article. He clearly doesn’t believe TWAW - I read this as a statement aimed to the believers/adherences of the mantra to prove how exactly are TW women like our mothers

Although it is a shame he missed out the obvious that many TW are fathers.