EHRC says no case for GRA reform re Scottish gov

If the GRC is for life surely we need a definition of living as a woman or living as a man. Transmen that have babies should lose their GRC or it is a joke

This is the 'problem' (for TRAs) when a movement which is absolutely reliant on obfuscating language and making definitions meaningless butts up against an objective legal process, which is equally reliant on words having precise and clearly-defined meanings. When you have made it so that 'woman', 'transgender', 'gender identity' and everything else can mean whatever you want it to mean to suit your super-special-unique feelings (and/or misogynistic agenda) and pushed on apace on that basis, it must be like receiving a bucket of cold water in the face to discover that the legal world uses facts, precise definitions and careful consideration to naming and balancing conflicts and all you're left with in response are empty insults and hyperbole which expose the paucity of your critical thought processes.

Cautiously optimistic

It is untrue to say it doesn't affect the EqA because single sex spaces exemption. The act doesn't just cover single sex spaces even if that was applied. It also covers all other aspects of discrimination and relies on data collected by sex to prove sex discrimination. If we look at the IT industry - few women, quite a lot of TW. It doesn't take many male employees to be counted as women before you distort the data and start to hide discrimination against women. Same with boardrooms/senior staff. This includes pay, terms of service, provision of services to the public, access to justice, treatment of victims. All affected by counting men as women.

*punative

What if said 16 year old decides at 20 they don't want it any more? Are there putative consequences?

Probably not so why say it? It's just sop to the average person who thinks this is all very badly thought through nonsense.

So… is the solution the following: let’s make obtaining a GRC as easy as possible. A statutory declaration is all you need. BUT: the sex based exemptions are mandatory. These would be clearly stated: e.g. changing rooms, toilets, hospitals, prisons, sports. Not only is the provider not discriminatory in keeping those single sex, but they are legally bound to do so.

I'd be a-ok with people declaring whatever gender they wished and getting a framed sparkly certificate for it as long as it is absolutely clear that it is nothing to do with sex.

Hats off to Nick Robinson. He did a great job this morning. we need more interviews like this and more honest debate on the subject.

The Maggie Chapman that students would rather vote a cat in for Rector of Aberdeen?
www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/aberdeen-university-rector-vote-buttons-cat-students-candidate-a8208456.html

From the article:
The campaign comes just two months after the university ratified a decision to scrap the rector election over allegations of “dirty tricks” by the campaign for Maggie Chapman.

A re-vote was called for after at least one other candidate wanted the Scottish Greens co-convener, the current rector, removed from the ballot in a row over campaign posters being torn down

Unfortunately Buttons wasn't allowed to stand and Maggie got in again.

[quote WarriorN]Exactly.

Glorious detail of thread 🧵

twitter.com/labourmercedes/status/1486484078727774208?s=21[/quote]
She is saying that the single sex exceptions can be invoked, but not addressing the reasons why none of them are.

I am certain this is not an original thought, but something I started to ponder after listening to that interview.

I believe that Maggie Chapman is technically correct in her assertion that the proposed changes do nothing to change the rights of women. Making Self-ID easier doesn’t actually make any changes to sex based rights in the Equalities Act, it just makes it easier to obtain a GRC.

However, it is somewhat disingenuous, as we already know that the Equalities Act is not being implemented properly. Stonewall have been misadvising most organisations, indicating that to not treat anyone who says they are the opposite sex as that new sex amounts to a discriminatory act. Everyone seems to be afraid of using the sex based exemptions in case they are seen as discriminatory… even though someone with a GRC could still be legally prevented from using a sex based service. The way it has been operating in practice, even a GRA is not required to access pretty much all services.

So… is the solution the following: let’s make obtaining a GRC as easy as possible. A statutory declaration is all you need. BUT: the sex based exemptions are mandatory. These would be clearly stated: e.g. changing rooms, toilets, hospitals, prisons, sports. Not only is the provider not discriminatory in keeping those single sex, but they are legally bound to do so.

I am sure someone more clued up on all of this will explain what the pitfalls are with this approach.. but it just got me thinking..

But if it's not for people with gender dysphoria, who is it for? Transvestites? AGP? Men who just want to access women's spaces and rights? Who? Let's have a description.

Because if there's absolutely no criteria, then there is no barrier, not a single one.

One key one is that after quicker access to transition they "intend to be trans till death."

But trans can be fluid, can't it. Look at Pips Bunce and Eddie Izzard. You can be a boy one day and a girl the next. Or is she saying that those two people aren't trans?

You can also be trans without any modification whatsoever. So how's that going to work?

And can you imagine telling a child that unless they carry on being trans for the rest of their life, they will be prosecuted.

Not just idiots, they're absolutely dangerous.

Increasingly, when TRAs throw what are effectively tantrums, I’m reminded of Britten’s Hymn To St Cecilia - the second section, that sounds like a game of tag between sopranos & tenors over Sensible Adult Movement by altos & basses; singing about a refusal to grow up or change, demanding to be loved - & denying their behaviour could hurt others. The third section, though? That’s what I’m hoping we’re on the brink of. Growing up & the consequences of that - eg the “ruined languages”. Oh dear goodness I’m ready for “a world of truths that never change”* & all the rest a bare minimum of textual analysis of Auden’s words suggests could be ours.

And after that musical interlude

Stonewall were trending on Twitter last night with their utter outrage at the EHRC producing a balanced response & pointing out women have rights. Mind you, within the trend was a tweet from one of their staff about “transphobic language” on the BBC - said language being a doctor saying “women” instead of “people with uteruses”. Apparently they did so repeatedly after using “people with uteruses” once. This trans-erasure means it is no longer safe to listen to the station in question, apparently. It is so very adolescent - in the worst of ways, & NAAALT - to demand people’s feelings about their identity be privileged over making healthcare messages accessible to as many women as possible. Privilege & luxury beliefs again, I suppose.

The constant refrain all trans people have experienced trauma is of huge concern. I don’t doubt in the slightest that there are trans people who have experienced trauma - but when words are “literal violence” & stickers on lampposts are hate-crimes impelling their safety, it becomes worryingly easy to dismiss the entirety of “trans people are so dreadfully oppressed & constantly under threat & undergoing traumatic experiences” because of the hyperbole. Calling a bit of ribbon near your workplace a hate-crime, for example, absolutely risks a boy who cried wolf situation: Stonewall et al (including the police services who essentially act as their enforcers) are failing the T here as well as the LGB because when it all falls apart there will be real victims left unsupported.

• not in sense rejecting scientific advances etc, but no more “sex is a spectrum” and the like

[quote delurkasaurus]@JustSpeculation they both are?

www.gov.uk/government/people/mike-freer

www.gov.uk/government/people/kemi-badenoch

www.gov.uk/government/ministers/minister-of-state-minister-for-equalities[/quote]
Looks that way. I would imagine a Minister of State outranks a mere Minister, so they aimed low?