Stella Creasey is on a guest post invoking SEX as a protected characteristic for legislation!

[BarrackerBarmer]

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/guest_posts/3355761-Stella-Creasy-guest-post-If-MNers-act-today-you-can-help-make-street-harassment-a-hate-crime

Right now!

Kate said she was off duty, IIRC. So it must have been another mod?

I don't know, the whole thing was so dodgy. Bad decisions made all round when the situation could have been much better handled.

Feminists are getting the blame for both the HNSPCC cancelling, and the Stella thread being deleted. Because we ask questions people don't want to answer. Its annoying as hell. If they just answered..surely things would be much easier. Though I see someone on the AIBU thread is claiming that answers were given. Which is absolute bullshit

I’m boggling. Stephiewoodcock showed up to berate mners? Stonewall were consulted on a misogyny bill? Stella CREASY (of the ‘boy wanking in girls shower is only inappropriate because of the wanking and the penis being in a schoolgirls shower is totes fine’ saga) is backing a misogyny bill? And maryz got banned?
I think I need a lie down.
SW is a fruit loop. I keep looking at that pp/mm pic and all it shows that SW is a creepy stalker, and some women look fab even after CS. The fact he popped up here to deliberately derail a thread and wasn’t instantly banned shows how far off the pulse mnhq are.
But I still haven’t got over chatting to SC on twitter about the shower thing, so it’s probably a good job I wasn’t aware of the guest post.
Can your next name change be ‘whatmarydidnext’ please? I am stunned at the shenanigans around your account. Hopefully they will email today.

SW was on ab out how they came on to make people think about the meaning of misogyny. Basically implying that the definition should be widened to include male people. I got deleted for replying to that. I said of course males should not be included and that I thought transactivists said 'trans-misogyny' was the word for them. They replied saying something along the lines of 'no, misogyny is the right word as I am female, hope that helps'

Just looked at the awful Twitter feed of 'Stephie woodcock'.

2 points

1. I am entirely unsurprised to see that 'Stephie' is also a huge antisemite.

2. does anyone else think that 'Stephie' has chosen a particularly horrible surname?

They said it was their real surname and that they were bullied for it at school or something.

I wouldn't believe a word that they say. Awful Jew-hating woman-hating bully.

It's a problem in scientific research - mice and rats behave differently when male researchers conduct experiments than when female researchers do.

Derail, but I love the random & fascinating facts that pop up on MN in the course of a discussion.

Long-time lurker here, . Just seen The Independent is asking for our letters on this initiative ;)

www.independent.co.uk/voices/letters/misogyny-hate-crime-women-change-theresa-may-stella-creasy-a8523876.html

Curious choice, listing the signatories alphabetically by first name (even though one is ‘Dr’ ) especially as it means the deputy Green leader is first...

2) does anyone else think that 'Stephie' has chosen a particularly horrible surname?

First name, and last name. Say it to yourself really slowly.

Yes of course a man with gender dysphoria will call them selves a hard 'wood' penis. Damn right.

@ShrodingersSturdyPyjamas yuk. I see what you mean.

OK so, I still don't know what the amendments to the upskirting bill are because they don't seem to be listed anywhere in plain English; and I'm not sure I support amending the upskirtuing bill at all.

We need to make upskirting a crime, because apparently just wearing clothes isn't enough in itself to guarantee your privacy under those clothes.
Changing the upskirting bill by adding to it gives MP's a get out clause for voting against it.

Have I got this right - Creasey is saying we now need the hate crime of misogyny in order to ban upskirting? And TW may be covered by this new law if it says characteristics of sex and not just sex.

But then that becomes challenge-able under sex discrimination laws as men who choose to wear skirts would not be covered by this law. What about Scotsmen visiting England?

As I understand it, the amendment uses the protected characteristic of sex but actually legislates for those "having or presumed to have" the protected characteristic of sex. Meaning you don't actually have to qualify for this protected characteristic to be included in the legislation.

See the problem? See why Stonewall backs it?

My sister lives in Creasy's consituency and is really involved in a local FB group of women fighting back against street harassment. According to sis, street harassment of women and girls is totally out of control and SC hasn't really done anything (apart from at one point asking members of the group of they would come with her to be filmed confronting harassers in the street IIRC - all smacked a bit of publicity for her).

So on the one hand it's good that she's finally taking this group's concerns seriously. On the other hand, I don't really get how a commitment to review hate crime legislation helps anyone.

As someone upthread said, hate crime is a bit of a dodgy concept in itself. It is galling that everyone except women seem to be covered by it though. But in practice what would it mean. My sister tells me that women and girls are facing constant harassment on the high street near her - cases of girls being followed, spat at, flashed at etc. Few women report to the police. Those who try to have apparently not been able to get through or in one case were treated really badly by operator who basically told her she was wasting their time. So how does making misogyny a hate crime help anyone? I would have thought more police on the beat would be a better starting point. More street lighting maybe?

Oh and sis also confirms that SC is hopeless on trans stuff and is a firm believer in the "Transwomen Are Women" mantra.

As I understand it, the amendment uses the protected characteristic of sex but actually legislates for those "having or presumed to have" the protected characteristic of sex. Meaning you don't actually have to qualify for this protected characteristic to be included in the legislation.

So does the EA by allowing discrimination/harassment to be claimed on the "grounds of perception" (mistaken). I agree it's deeply flawed.

As I understand it, the amendment uses the protected characteristic of sex but actually legislates for those "having or presumed to have" the protected characteristic of sex. Meaning you don't actually have to qualify for this protected characteristic to be included in the legislation.

So does the EA by allowing discrimination/harassment to be claimed on the "grounds of perception" (mistaken). I agree it's deeply flawed.

As I understand it, the amendment uses the protected characteristic of sex but actually legislates for those "having or presumed to have" the protected characteristic of sex. Meaning you don't actually have to qualify for this protected characteristic to be included in the legislation.

So does the EA by allowing discrimination/harassment to be claimed on the "grounds of perception" (mistaken). I agree it's deeply flawed.

Apologies train connection

The big problem here is that not just passing MTFs are covered by "perception" which is understandable as a logical framework, but any man as the protected characteristic of female sex also covers approx 3k males with a GRC. And potentially many more if self ID passes.

So once more we have an interplay with the GRA. Don't ever let anyone say, "move along, nothing to see here, it's just admin, it has nothing to do with you".

This. Squatters rights is a great analogy. Or when you use a bit of someone's land as a footpath and no one challenges to you and you can make a legal claim that you are entitled to do so after a certain amount of time.