Go Fund Me addiction part 2

[SophoclesTheFox]

The conversation is far from over on this...

link

You might want a strong drink to hand before reading Lily's latest tweet.

Wot? No passive aggressive emoji at the end? Must be very, very, serious tweet to be taken very seriously.

Is Maoist witch hunting that breaks data protection law acceptable within the Labour Party?

I did see a few tweet yesterday from those defending Labour against Transphobia, asking what all the fuss was about because Labour always organises like that to expel unwanted members...

Lily is a fucking troll

And all Lily's fucking handmaidens

"Oh lily, you're so brave, and so forgiving"

A 20-year-old biological male, not breaking the law, not saying anything rude, reacting, not generating.

Making women everywhere squirm with fury and outrage.

Its a fucking joke to think that the only reason we don't want men in women's spaces is in case they rape us.

I agree - people being kicked out of Labour is an internal Labour matter.

Whether or not self-identity trump's the sex based exemptions of the equality act has ramifications way wider than just the Labour party, and I'd hazard a guess that is why most people are donating

The problem is that this is starting to feel more and more like a mud-slinging match between VA and LM. Both claim that the other have organized supporters to harass them, and I’m sure that neither’s hands are completely clean. There’s an obvious lack of equity when one is suspended and the other isn’t, but fundamentally it looks less like a matter of principle and more like a private disagreement. The message is being lost .

Oh god, that made me lol. The audacity of it. When I first came across Lily I thought they were misguided and a bit thick but over the previous weeks I've really had my eyes opened to their vacuous, vicious nature.

It does show how going after VA to be the suspended person has been a highly effective tactic.

But that makes me think that getting drawn into that game and diluting the effort and money that can go into fighting self-ID in AWS is a really bad idea.

Agreed ChemistryGeek

Fact is though that Jennifer put paperwork about harassment in the hands of lawyers before Venice was suspended:
twitter.com/msjenniferjames/status/955260824976752641

This does little to progress our protection of the main legal rights for women.

ChemistryGeek

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm trying to work out what would be the conclusion of the test case.

Eg would it be the definition of transphobia? Because at the moment, transphobia is the word used when the equality act is breached. It's also the word used if you correctly identify biology.

At the moment, all women anything is based on sex discrimination. Which is covered by the equality act.

However, gender reassignment is also covered by the equality act and the two protected characteristics conflict.

So to decide if Venice was chucked out on the basis of transphobia, you would have to define transphobia.

Defining transphobia will clarify how transphobia breaches the equality act. Which will have to take into account the conflict between gender reassignment as a protected characteristic and sex as a protected characteristic.

Which directly feeds in to the basis on which we decide who can apply to all women shortlists and stem scholarships.

That's how I see it logically.

But I'm not a legal person.

Alright you lot, who made this edit on wiki?!

Datun I think you're a bit confused about the issue. As pointed out above this is an internal Labour party matter. VA does not have to have done something illegal to be expelled from the party, she just has to have broken the party's own internal rules.

Any legal challenge will be on the basis of whether or not the Party has correctly and fairly applied its own rules and procedures. Most likely the case will not touch on the Equalities Act or set any precedent related to it.

Datun First, I’m generally a lurker on these threads but hugely grateful for all your input - you’ve taught me so much.

But on your last point, doesn’t it depend on whether the people she’s accused of harassing have GRC’s? I thought that the way it worked was that if you publicly and intentionally called a biological man with a GRC a man then this was transphobia. Whether true or not (!), LM has claimed to have a GRC on Twitter. I would have thought it was only calling self-id TIM’s men that would lead to a legal precedent? Wouldn’t be at all surprised if I’m wrong, but that was my logic.

she just has to have broken the party's own internal rules.

As far as I know, the current rules are that all women shortlist are available to women. They've only recently specified self identified women.

Are you saying that the Labour Party can make up the definition of 'self identified woman'?

Does it have to have some kind of accepted definition, or can they decide, themselves, what it means?

Because if they can, then surely Jennifer James would have been told no, you cannot launch a legal case on the basis of what self identified woman means?

I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm finding, because the law contradicts itself in terms of the GRA and the equality act that things get very muddy.

@ChemistryGeek that was a very useful post, thank you.

ChemistryGeek

So would challenging the basis of all women shortlist need to define what women means?

Or have we gone too far in terms of equality law and the GRA for that definition to be immaterial?

Sorry I don't mean immaterial, I mean wrong.