Intellectual Dishonesty

[MsBeaujangles]

Yesterday, there was an article on the radio where the case of the women being forced to remain married was being discussed. A women MP who used to be a barrister was talking about the legal ins and outs and spoke for a while about intellectual dishonesty.

For me, this resonates with the TWAW argument. Saying TWAW is a form of intellectual dishonesty. People twisting and manipulating concrete facts to suit a particular world view.

In terms of discussions with MPs and responses to the GRA, perhaps discussing the merits of finding ways forward that involve intellectual honesty might be helpful?

Here are some features of intellectual honesty, as stated on Wiki

▪	One's personal faith does not interfere with the pursuit of truth;
▪	Relevant facts and information are not purposefully omitted even when such things may contradict one's <a class="break-all" href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">hypothesis</a>;
▪	Facts are presented in an unbiased manner, and not twisted to give misleading impressions or to support one view over another;

Old Crone
If we end up with self-ID in the GRA, with everyone free to choose their own legal sex, then won't the protected characteristic of sex effectively cease to exist? If anyone can identify into the sex of their choice, then the category of sex will become meaningless.

This could well be the logical conclusion. I think some (Stephen Whittle, for example) want to change the protected characteristic to gender instead of sex. Which would be just as meaningless imo.

This could well be the logical conclusion. I think some (Stephen Whittle, for example) want to change the protected characteristic to gender instead of sex. Which would be just as meaningless imo.

Yes. If they change 'gender reassignment' to 'gender identity', and 'sex' and 'gender' are seen as synonymous, then you have two protected characteristics which seem to be the same, so you only need one of them.

That requires a change in the Equality Act, though. Just making everyone's legal sex a matter of choice for the individual, which is what self-ID would do, removes the PC of sex without making any changes to the EA. TRAs say we're all silly women who don't understand that the EA is not going to be changed, so there's nothing to worry about, knowing that changing to self-ID changes the EA by the effective removal of the PC of sex.

Well done for SarahAr the troll, manged to sneak in, write a bunch of offensive nonsense and then sneak out. Fwiw - "depends how you define woman" is intellectual dishonesty right there. Everyone here knows there is a definition. It's not "depends", it's "if we expand". The problem is, by expanding it, it becomes meaningless, as there is no objective criteria anymore but only subjective 'feelz'.

Everyone here knows there is a definition. It's not "depends", it's "if we expand". The problem is, by expanding it, it becomes meaningless, as there is no objective criteria anymore
This

I asked her to define woman in that case.

Crickets.

Old Crone
That requires a change in the Equality Act, though. Just making everyone's legal sex a matter of choice for the individual, which is what self-ID would do, removes the PC of sex without making any changes to the EA. TRAs say we're all silly women who don't understand that the EA is not going to be changed, so there's nothing to worry about, knowing that changing to self-ID changes the EA by the effective removal of the PC of sex.

Absolutely, yes. I can't see an actual amendment to the EA any time soon - changing primary legislation is costly and time consuming.

However I don't think the EA needs to be changed to have the effect that sex is removed as a meaningful characteristic.

There are various things which I can see could lead to this result:

• self ID, as I've already discussed

• the poor drafting of the EA guidance, which says some weird stuff like (paraphrasing) if someone passes treat them as the opposite sex (this is not the effect of the words in the Act in my view).

• the refusal of organisations to make use of the single sex exemptions that exist, for example all women short lists can remain all women and do not have to include TW, but it seems likely that political parties will choose to accept TW on all women short lists.

• the conflation/confusion of sex and gender both in the EA (and GRA) and in the policies and procedures of organisations.

Probably other things too, put all this stuff together and it makes for a perfect storm where the protected characteristic of sex is to all intents and purposes removed.

Probably other things too, put all this stuff together and it makes for a perfect storm where the protected characteristic of sex is to all intents and purposes removed.

So to get back to the issue of intellectual dishonesty, it's dishonest to say that the changes to the GRA won't affect the Equality Act provisions.

Old Crone
I’d say it is straight forward dishonesty to say changes to the GRA won’t make a difference. That or wilful ignorance.

So to get back to the issue of intellectual dishonesty, it's dishonest to say that the changes to the GRA won't affect the Equality Act provisions.

Yes. I think it is self evident that the operation of the EA will be affected. I'd love to hear the contrary view from a lawyer who supports self ID, if there is one. But not one has offered me a convincing argument that I am wrong.

Placemarking.