Joint note from 9 organisations on Scottish Gov's gender reforms

Thank you for the information Magnolia. It’s very useful. 💚🤍💜

The next hearing is on Tuesday and the panel have invited representatives from Church of Scotland, Catholic Church, Christian organization and Humanists but no representation from Jewish & Muslim organizations.
It’s a ridiculous situation that those faiths have not been involved or included in these hearings.

Thank you to all the GC organisations taking part, who have spoken up for women and children. The transcript makes very interesting reading and can only hope that our concerns are taken more seriously than before, especially as the situation is so dire. Can anyone fill us in about the other sessions of the committee covering this?

Shocking. 'The Tribunal concluded: “The disciplinary hearing was not fair. Further, the presence of Ms Brindley at every stage of the proceedings reinforced the Tribunal’s view that the dismissal of the claimant was predetermined. Ms Brindley was aware of the grievance raised by the claimant and the outcome and recommendations which had been made. However, she did not raise this with the disciplinary hearing as an alternative potential outcome, which the Tribunal found very surprising.” '

Thanks, BetsyM00!

Thanks, it's much faster to read than watch.

The CEO of Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre is a trans identifying man ( without a GRC) and was present at Tuesday’s hearing.
This person was given a post exclusively meant for a woman under the equities act.
Sandy is a liar and a proven bully.

The women, and Malcolm, who spoke are working incredibly hard to preserve the rights of women and children.

Official report now published: www.parliament.scot/api/sitecore/CustomMedia/OfficialReport?meetingId=13796

Video: www.scottishparliament.tv/meeting/equalities-human-rights-and-civil-justice-committee-may-31-2022

Thank you @OldCrone . It's more complex and more hopeful than I thought!

Here you are @AmaryllisNightAndDay

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/22

Is there a transcript available for this meeting?

Thanks @OldCrone I'll look forward to it.

And no-one else has the right to reveal that either, so even if someone knows or suspects that a transwoman is male they can't legally say so. Yhey're guilty of discrimation for doing it. Unless I have badly misunderstood that is the law with the current GRC, and it's supported by bodies such as the European Court of Human Rights.

I don't think that is right. If someone in an official capacity has acquired information about a GRC holder, they cannot disclose this except in some very limited circumstances (eg prevention or detection of crime). Otherwise there are no reasons not to disclose that information.

If you find out your friend has a GRC because he tells you he does or another friend tells you, you can tell anyone you want to. Just like any other information. (Unless you're his employer, or doctor etc and this was disclosed as a result of your professional status.)

It's in the GRA2004. I'll try and find the exact reference later.

Well done to all the speakers, so appreciate all the hard work being done on behalf of women and children. We can see what you're up against.

The committee hearing got covered in The Guardian: www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/01/scotlands-gender-recognition-reform-is-a-recipe-for-bad-law-say-campaigners

PS If I've got this wrong then I'd really love someone to tell me! it would cheer me up.

@NecessaryScene from listening today the legal position in the UK is worse than that now. Even under EA2020 and going all the way up to the European Court of Human Rights, trans rights to privacy legally trump women's rights to protection and autonomy.

Trouble is, privacy to the point of total secrecy about gender transition is seen as a key human right. And breaking that secrecy to require transwomen to reveal they are physically male with a GRC is direct discrimination. Sex is also a protected characteristic under EA2020 but if women don't use services such as Rape Crisis or refuges because they are not women-only then that is only indirect discrimination. And direct discrimination trumps indirect discrimination.

In the same way, women do not have the right to insist on a female doctor for an intimate examination or even to know they are examined by a male doctor unless the doctor voluntarily admits they are male. A transwoman doctor who has a GRC can legally claim to be a woman and does not have to reveal that they are male or that they have a GRC. It's not a crime for a transwoman doctor to go ahead and examine a patient who says she only wants to be examined by someone female.

And no-one else has the right to reveal that either, so even if someone knows or suspects that a transwoman is male they can't legally say so. Yhey're guilty of discrimation for doing it. Unless I have badly misunderstood that is the law with the current GRC, and it's supported by bodies such as the European Court of Human Rights.

Which is worrying for @IamSarah's rape crisis case in Sussex.

Or to put it another way, we've been all done up like a kipper!

And the Amnesty International woman conflates the religious pc with a racist not wanting to see a non-white doctor! FFS!

As if they have any moral high ground on that sort of comparison - they want discrimination by gender, so a "transwoman" can refuse to go in with "men", and be put in with "women".

They're not advocating "mixed-gender" scenarios to end "gender discrimination".

Yes - we are advocating for discrimination by sex in some scenarios and we justify that by actual sex differences. We think that's acceptable because the benefits outweigh the costs, because sex is real, objective, easily detectable, and it has huge effect.

Whereas discrimination by gender - what they advocate - should be as unacceptable as racism, religious discrimination etc, because there's no valid reason to treat people of different genders differently. Because there's no inherent difference between people of different genders (assuming their sex is the same).

(As the EA2010 effectively acknowledges - there are lots of sex-based exemptions to permit sex discrimination where legitimate. There are no gender-reassignment-based exemptions to permit gender-reassignment discrimination).

It was sobering watching this as seemingly many women in high positions are pushing for the reform, even as recent information is coming out that the true impact on women wasn't properly taken into account in the first place. What is wrong with all these women?

Extremely frustrating as we know it'll have ramifications for the UK. I hate to say this but independent Scotland anyone?