Parliamentary enquiry into trans equality issues - call for evidence

[ArcheryAnnie]

The Women And Equalities Select Committee in the Commons has launched an inquiry into "how far, and in what ways, trans people still have yet to achieve full equality; and how the outstanding issues can most effectively be addressed."

Terms here:

www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/women-and-equalities-committee/news-parliament-2015/inquiry-into-transgender-equality/

(I know a couple of gender-critical trans women who are thinking of making submissions - basically along the line of "we want rights, sure, but not ones that explicitly shit all over women".)

I've just become more interested in Gender Critical thinking. Following various posts on MN and checking out various blogs, etc.

I do believe that, obviously, equality is important whether you present in a feminine way or not.

But surely the reason why trans people are discriminated against is because they present as the so called "lesser gender" and therefore the equal rights of women need to be addressed before anything can be done re "Trans" rights. If people see women as part of a meritocracy and less about how they present (feminine or not) then trans rights will sort itself out from that.

Interestingly, I've just finished reading a discussion by Trans people on how they view Male Privilege, some don't even believe that such a thing exists.
Here is a link if anyone is interested:
www.crossdressers.com/forums/showthread.php?230266-What-are-your-thoughts-on-male-privilege

I think there's quite a few posters on that thread who have no idea what male privilege really is.

But surely the reason why trans people are discriminated against is because they present as the so called "lesser gender" and therefore the equal rights of women need to be addressed before anything can be done re "Trans" rights.

While we have male bodied people, using their male privilege to push the idea of 'female brain' and gender 'differences' we have no chance.

Just having a read of the parliament thingy and saw that they want submissions about hate crimes and it reminded me, that I don't think that sex is something that can be used when saying something is a hate crime, so I checked:

"Crimes committed against someone because of their disability, gender-identity, race, religion or belief, or sexual orientation are hate crimes and should be reported to the police."

Women are frequently attacked, assaulted, verbally abused etc & so forth because they are women, but this is not considered a hate crime.

Why it's not is I guess interesting but a topic for another conversation.

Anyway, just an observation there.

It's a comprehensive list isn't it.

I don't know whether changing any laws or anything from that list might have positive impacts in terms of funding for stuff. What the actual effect is IYSWIM.

I think the idea of "we want rights, sure, but not ones that explicitly shit all over women" is great and also if given rates of suicide / mental health issues and so forth which are reportedly very high, something positive could be done in that direction to help people.

Oh or girls, on the hate-crime thing.

You could give a 12yo girl the most vile torrent of abuse using words explicitly related to her sex and that's not a problem I think, as it stands. Certainly I've had loads of men say / do stuff to me because I'm female and there are loads of words that are used specifically against females but this is not a problem in law at the moment.

Actually that's pissed me off now, I might start a thread about it some time!

It is incongruous isn't it.

If a trans woman gets beaten up because she has been spotted as trans then that's a hate crime.

If she gets beaten up and hasn't been spotted, she "passes" as a woman, and gets beaten up because she's a woman, then that's not a hate crime.

So who needs the same rights as who here?

It is interesting that equality laws have sex as a protected characteristic when it comes to supply or goods and services, and employment. ie there is recognition that discrimination happens against women because they are women. But this does not extend to the hate laws, and I suspect this is because a lot of the abuse which if directed at another group is obviously wrong and awful, when it's men doing it to women it's just "banter" or "high spirits" and when it's more severe (injury or threats are involved) then it's switch to victim-blaming mode (what was she doing to make them do that to her).

Sorry this has totally derailed but reading the list of things they want to consult on, reminded me of that inconsistency.

So we

Don't have the right to bodily integrity
Don't have protection if we are abused or beaten because of what we are

Any more?

YY of course it's because it's "normal" and so prevalent. The prevalence is part of the reason we are so strongly encouraged by society not to report anything, expect the most severe instances, and actually then it's only if a crime which is recognised as a crime is committed at the same time. So if you're raped, society says don't tell anyone, don't make a fuss, if you are raped and stabbed, then yes obviously you go to the police. (Or the hospital, YKWIM). And of course there is a sense that men attacking women is normal so they should only be punished for it if they "go too far". So you wouldn't want a man shouting at a schoolgirl that she was a bitch and a slut to be punished, because really where's the harm and what does she expect and she needs to learn to toughen up and get used to this stuff it's just the way of the world. Whereas using racist or homophobic or transphobic slurs to a person is considered (rightly obviously) to be a horrible, hurtful, damaging thing that our society does not want.

This is something I've been giving some thought to lately. Deride me, but occasionally I read a celebrity gossip blog with comments. One of the much featured stars is Kim Kardashian. They sure hate her for her plastic surgery, obession with her appearance and apparent poor parenting.

They love her er...stepmother though, despite her plastic surgery, obession with appearance and poor parenting record. One was born a woman, one is a manufactured representation of a woman who feels like a woman. The rules are different for them both, though.

I've found it very interesting but due to not liking being called transphobic, I have not asked why this is. Yet.

I fully understand the reasoning behind hate crime but aside from say armed robbery isn't all crime involving violence perpetrated on any person just for being that particular person motivated by hate?

Neither the girl nor the boy in this attack had any of the characteristics which are needed for a hate crime.

United in the name of tolerance

gu.com/p/xzf4v?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

What about Fiona Pilkington? Her daughter had one of the aggravating characteristics but Fiona didn't - was bullying and attacking her less evil?

Police errors contributed to suicide of tormented mother Fiona Pilkington

gu.com/p/2b5zq?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

It is trivial in comarison but one of my son's friends was assaulted for no reason other than he was wearing the uniform of a private school.

I thought someone would mention that lass.

Would you get rid of the concept of hate crime altogether?

I was thinking of men who are attacked because they have the wrong football shirt on, that sort of thing.

What about this one?
nilbymouth.org/
Mark Scott—a Glasgow schoolboy and Celtic F.C. fan—was the victim of a sectarian murder in 1995)

Would it be less awful if he had been an Aberdeen supporter and his killer a St . Johnston (Perth's team ) supporter?

It would have been less likely - neither team has a reputation for violence and neither has a sectarian following.

I don't know. The concept of hate crime clearly has a point but clearly other people are attacked for reasons solely related to who they are and which they cannot change, or which are causing no harm to anyone else.

Sorry massive derailing.

I'm not sure what you're saying lass.

I can see the point you're making (it occurred to me as well) but I'm not following whether you think that hate crimes shouldn't exist as separate crimes or they should but the line remains where it is, or what really.

I don't know the answer.

Drawing the line where it is leaves potentially large numbers of victims excluded from being seen as victims of hate crimes (and illogicallly excluded - a lesbian attacked for being a "lezzie" is, but a woman attacked for "being a slag" isn't ' - the Celtic supporter is, but the Aberdeen supporter isn't , but it's the state of being a woman or a supporter which provoked the attack)

But possibly not making the distinction is sending out the wrong signal to racists, homophobes, bigots etc.

Hate crime is a complicated area. As I understand it, it exists to say that not only is the crime wrong in itself, but that the crime was committed at least partly because of an attitude towards a particular group and that attitude is damaging to society. So the punishments are harsher because it's punishing the attitude as well as the criminal action.

Not sure I'm comfortable with the idea of the law being used to effectively punish a person's thoughts. Punish the crime by all means. But I'm not sure I'm comfortable with punishing what was inside the person's mind while they did it.

However, as hate crime does exist in law, it should definitely include all protected characteristics (such as sex) rather than a select few. Otherwise it's incongruous. It's saying that sexism is bad, but not as bad as (for example) racism.

Hate crime is a complicated area. As I understand it, it exists to say that not only is the crime wrong in itself, but that the crime was committed at least partly because of an attitude towards a particular group and that attitude is damaging to society. So the punishments are harsher because it's punishing the attitude as well as the criminal action.

Not sure I'm comfortable with the idea of the law being used to effectively punish a person's thoughts. Punish the crime by all means. But I'm not sure I'm comfortable with punishing what was inside the person's mind while they did it.

However, as hate crime does exist in law, it should definitely include all protected characteristics (such as sex) rather than a select few. Otherwise it's incongruous. It's saying that sexism is bad, but not as bad as (for example) racism.

Yes the inclusion of sex as a protected characteristic and then omission from hate crime is glaring isn't it.

On the other point, as I understand it, the person needs to have done something to show that the motivation, or part of the motivation, is one of the things on the list.

So if you attack a woman, you're just attacking a woman. If you shout oi you fucking dyke while you do it, then it's attacking a woman + hate crime. I think there needs to be a demonstration through word or action that the motivation / part of the motivation for whatever it was, was that the victim had characteristics on the list.

I don't think it's automatically a hate crime without evidence of that attitude IYSWIM.

"The operation of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and whether it requires amending"

Yes, it does. It needs to get a grip on the difference between sex and gender for a start.

So, trans people (women?) are potentially protected in terms of hate crime legislation when attacked, but women are not. Does that mean in all instances? Please tell me that if a transwoman is attacked it is not automatically treated as a hate crime.

Women are attacked because they are women across the globe every fucking minute of the day. And don't get justice in the main. Love to have another thing to nail on those bastards, but then again, we are simply born women...

Sorry for the double post! I blame the ipad.

whirlpool, I was assuming there was evidence of the attitude. Maybe the powers that be know the hate crime stats would go through the roof if sexist attacks were included.
soup I think that all attacks involving a transperson, a person from an ethnic minority etc have to include an investigation about whether it was a hate crime. But I don't know for sure.

Hate crime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime (Share from CM Browser)

Belgium seems to have the widest range. Its categories would cover attacks on women just for being women, Goths just for being Goths and even posh school boys just for being posh school boys. Although football supporters just being football supporters would need to found on another category.

Belgium's Act of 25 February 2003 (?"aimed at combating discrimination and modifying the Act of 15 February 1993 which establishes the Centre for Equal Opportunities and the Fight against Racism"?) establishes a penalty-enhancement for crimes involving discrimination on the basis of sex, supposed race, color, descent, national or ethnic origin, sexual orientation, civil status, birth, fortune, age, religious or philosophical beliefs, current or future state of health and handicap or physical features