Go Fund Me addiction part 2

[SophoclesTheFox]

The conversation is far from over on this...

link

As people have said on other threads, obvious men in the women's loos get challenged usually. Penalties for disclosing individuals' GRCs are more draconian so I imagine people will be too scared to raise legitimate concerns.

Datun

What you need to understand - and I know there are a gazillion things all going on at once! - is that AWS are different to anything else. In the normal run of things, AWS would be illegal on the grounds they discriminate against men. But, EA2010 made a very specific exemption in the case of AWS only because female representation in politics was so woeful.

*The AWS exemption is for a limited time period only - up to 2030.

*It allows for AWS on the protected characteristic of sex.

*A GRC changes legal sex so women and GRC holding TW are eligible.

*After 2030, the limited time for improving female political representation will be over and there will be no more AWS.

AWS in this context relates to prospective parliamentary candidates only*. All women shortlists for other things are not covered by this exemption.

*It is currently illegal to allow self-ID in AWS for this reason. But self-ID in other areas depends upon entities invoking the other, more general, single sex exemptions in EA2010. Two different things.

*This is a completely separate issue and has no bearing on self-ID in other areas or on other single sex exemptions in EA2010.

Hope that helps!

Say that Labour change the AWS to self identifying women. How much, if any, precedence does that give a government, when changing the terms of GRA to say "well this is already working in principle"?

I'm not of a legal persuasion but I have this feeling that they need to get these changes practically applied before they legally apply them to either desensitize the population to the idea that women are anybody who says they are women or there are some legal technicalities that it will assist. I could be wrong and tin foil hatty in that.

LangCleg

Yes it does help. Thank you.

I'm finding it a minefield of what appear to be conflicting ideas and statements. But that's only because it's so unfamiliar to me.

AWS in this context relates to prospective parliamentary candidates only.

So Parliamentary candidate wouldn't cover women's officer? Or any of the posts they advertised as being for self identified women?

The other thing they can do is allow a simple self-ID to generate a GRC?

Ie. tick a box, print off your own certificate, sort of process?

The TRAs complain that to have a diagnosis of dysphoria/have to answer intimate medical questions/wait 2yrs, is demeaning for transpeople.

Personally - and I hate to sound down about this - I think we're fucked. One way or another, they will get this self-ID through. I think it'll be my daughter, or even grandaughter's generation that will fight back on this, once a generation of women & girls has suffered and lived through the results of this.

I agree Shoes. I think we are fighting a losing battle on this and it will go through. We just have to provide a consistent clear voice of opposition throughout the mess that will follow.

... because if so, what a previous poster said about labour being able to make up their own rules, makes sense. In terms of all women shortlist only being exempt for Parliamentary candidates, not for anything else.

Although apparently Twitter is saying that they have postponed their statement so they can decide what the term woman means.

If nothing else, I fervently hope that the media gets hold of this.

Apparently the NEC have pulled out of making a statement, on the advice of lawyers.

mobile.twitter.com/mayday4women/status/955799524521529344

Which has me even more confused, if all women shortlists cannot be upheld unless it's for a Parliamentary candidate?

Maybe public opinion has something to do with it.

So, I've noticed there's a little bit of a misconception going on about what's legal and not legal regarding the selection of candidates to stand in elections.

Just to help clear things up:

• (S)ection 104 of Equality Act 2010 (EA2010) allows political parties to draw up short-lists that discriminate in favour of any (including one or more) of the protected characteristics contained in EA2010 (the protected characteristics are found in s5 - s12 of the EA2010), provided that is not the only selection arrangements that the party employs.

e.g. The entirely fictional Disabled Persons Party is allowed to draw up a selection process that short-lists candidates for selection who are disabled, but only if they also allow separate selection arrangements that allows people who are not disabled to be placed on a list for consideration for selection.

*The only exception allowed to the above are discriminatory selection arrangements made in regards to sex. A party that provides a selection arrangement that discriminates in favour of sex does not have to provide any other arrangements for a member of the party to be selected if they don't meet the qualifying conditions of an All Women's short-list or a theoretical All Men's short-list, but may provide alternative selection arrangements if they wish.

• EQ2010 s104 applies to all candidate selections processes for (ss8):

(a) Parliamentary Elections;
(b) elections to the European Parliament;
(c) elections to the Scottish Parliament;
(d) elections to the National Assembly for Wales;
(e) local government elections within the meaning of section 191, 203 or 204 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (excluding elections for the Mayor of London).

Hope this helps

Oh I hope labour are able to decide what the term woman means very soon. I really want to find out whether I am a man or a woman or perhaps something else, I mean really the possibilities are endless.

Which has me even more confused, if all women shortlists cannot be upheld unless it's for a Parliamentary candidate?

The long and short of it is that they want to allow self-ID for AWS but their lawyers are telling them they can't legally do it. My guess is they are now desperately looking for a loophole to allow self-ID to go ahead.

Which has me even more confused, if all women shortlists cannot be upheld unless it's for a Parliamentary candidate?

Assuming the statement is correct, I suppose the Labour Party didn't want to be put into the position of having to confirm that self-ID won't get someone onto an AWS for a "relevant election". I think they will try to distance themselves as much as possible for having any established position at all, except a vague trans-friendly one.

HaruNoSakura

So a self identified woman (no GRC), would be excluded on the basis that they don't meet the criteria of women, but they would have to be able to be selected on a different basis, i.e. gender reassignment?

Would that mean a different list ?

"The long and short of it is that they want to allow self-ID for AWS but their lawyers are telling them they can't legally do it. My guess is they are now desperately looking for a loophole to allow self-ID to go ahead."

That's my interpretation too, notdavid

Although apparently Twitter is saying that they have postponed their statement so they can decide what the term woman means.

That's really interesting. I have long thought that the key to winning this debate is to force trans activists and their unthinking allies to define terms. Nothing exposes the incoherence of trans ideology as simply and effectively as asking trans activists to define 'woman', 'man', girl and 'boy' (and for that matter, 'sex' and 'gender'). Which they manifestly can't do, without resorting to sex-role stereotypes or circular definitions.

I suspect that whatever definition of 'woman' the Labour Party comes up with will fall into the latter camp ('A self-defining woman is a person who self-defines as a woman'), but it's good that they are being forced to tackle this anyway. IMO when it comes down to it, feminists are going to have to formally challenge government organisations and major institutions across the world to define 'woman' in an objective way, and we may eventually have to take this question to the courts too. But in the meantime, it's good to simply point out the need for clear definitions whenever we get the opportunity, as it forces people to grapple with the (non)logic of trans ideology.

"The long and short of it is that they want to allow self-ID for AWS but their lawyers are telling them they can't legally do it. My guess is they are now desperately looking for a loophole to allow self-ID to go ahead."

One would think they would have consulted lawyers on the whole thing before now? Seems a bit late to be pulling out of the statement, hours before its due

It could be a gift to a cheeky newspaper article:

Labour Party meeting ends in failure: we don't know what a woman is!

Labour Party meeting ends in failure: we don't know what a woman is!

OMG. Where is the Daily Mail when you need it!

That would be the headline to end all headlines.

Vicxy, they've probably been taking legal advice from the same TRAs who keep stating that collating public information doesn't break the DPA...!

So Parliamentary candidate wouldn't cover women's officer? Or any of the posts they advertised as being for self identified women?

No, it wouldn't. As HaruNoSakura has kindly expanded upon.

Vicxy, they've probably been taking legal advice from the same TRAs who keep stating that collating public information doesn't break the DPA...!
Yeah probably. Who needs to actually check facts and the law when you can rely on violence, blackmail and emotional propaganda

I was actually accused of purposely making the DPA breach out to be worse than it is yesterday on twitter by a TRA (which was a surprise, I thought they all had me blocked)

Apparently they did nothing wrong at all. And I was simply annoyed by it as it showed up how illegal the gofundme campaign is?! Oh, and that Labour members being ousted is totally irrelevant and its petty to complain about it, where the likes of deadnaming on the campaign cause severe lifelong consequences

They don't even attempt to be coherent and make any sense

Although apparently Twitter is saying that they have postponed their statement so they can decide what the term woman means.

If nothing else, this is showing up everyone in any degree of authority in the Labour Party as seriously lacking the competence to govern.

AWS are not, and have never been, anything to do with a definition of woman. They are about the definition of LEGAL SEX. People who are legally of the female SEX are human females (call them women if you like) and human males in possession of a GRC (who have been granted the legal fiction that they are human females).

If I can understand this, why can't they? How can Dawn Butler be Shadow Minister for Equalities when she doesn't even have the most basic grasp of the primary legislation in her brief?

I'm Labour through and through. But, I'm telling you, this degree of utter stupidity and incompetence is staggering to me. Regardless of anybody's position on what SHOULD happen vis a vis trans issues, senior politicians should at least know the friggin' law.