Joani Walsh

[vivariumvivariumsvivaria]

Joani Walsh seems to have gone from twitter - after posting this two days ago.

Anyone able to guess what happened in 2009?

And why her twitter account might not exist any more?

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1185980119812333569.html?fbclid=IwAR0k4mkx_3Pd0G3x4zdfNGqcAZNNoQJfFCmsUOfh9UI1Fx-pmA8cD4QC-xI

She's probably been dragged kicking and screaming to a re-education centre.

She turns her Twitter off regularly - I normally assume it's because she's on a deadline.

I think she deactivates Twitter from time to time to focus on work. I imagine she'll be back.

Oh, that's a relief!

Anyone able to guess what happened in 2009?

This report on 'Human Rights and Gender Identity' was published by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights in 2009.

rm.coe.int/16806da753

It followed the publication of the Yogyakarta Principles in 2007.

yogyakartaprinciples.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/principles_en.pdf

Lobbying by TRAs has meant that politicians and government bodies view documents such as Yogyakarta and the Council of Europe report as legislation or 'international best practice' rather than what they actually are: opinion and (sometimes biased) recommendations.

She doesn't look gone from Twitter to me. Thanks for the pointer though, I only learned about that Leicester Sq attacks/ BTP case from the "loose threads" er, thread on here.

Lansley didn't change the single sex policy to single gender.

It WAS single gender already.
He just declared it should be ANNOUNCED as if it was single sex.
And the NHS team argued that people should be told it was actually segregated by gender.
The department of health overruled the NHS team.

I know because I wrote about it in 2018 when I spoke to the leader of the NHS team who told me exactly what Lansley said, and what the NHS team said.
And I have the meeting minutes.

I submitted a FOI in 2016 which revealed the Met police have been recording by self ID since 2009.

The same groups that were lobbying for the EA2010 to protect 'gender reassignment' on the basis of 'proposing to undergo etc' were already lobbying the NHS and the police in 2009 to behave as if GRCs were already defunct and self-ID trumped sex.

They use the same or similar wording in policy documents, and the original 2009 NHS ward policy (which is almost identical to the September 2019 reissued one making the news) actually has a GIRES link in the middle of it. You can perceive the obvious tone of voice change where the original NHS document suddenly has the GIRES appended to it.

They simply pushed through unopposed policy change in our biggest civil institutions at the same time as they pushed through legislation that subsumed sex beneath gender.

It's simply taken a while for people to realise.

And I should clarify further: in 2009, it wasn't just the DOH pushing for Gender to be the criteria for ward segregation.
The NHS info standards team were also in favour of treating women like validation tools for men's egos.
That was painfully apparent from the conversation I had with the head of the NHS team.

However, being info geeks, and fully understanding the enormity of the difference between sex and gender, the NHS data team wanted to be transparent about the decision to place male sex people on wards with female sex people and record it as "same gender = no breach"

I hope she's taking a little break, her obsession with denouncing Jean Hatchet for anything and everything seemed to have got quite intense.

Barracker I was just thinking of the piece you wrote, is it still up somewhere?

I found this:

<a class="break-all" href="https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/www.dh.gov.uk/en/Managingyourorganisation/Equalityandhumanrights/Sexualorientation/DH_4136008" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/www.dh.gov.uk/en/Managingyourorganisation/Equalityandhumanrights/Sexualorientation/DH_4136008

The Department of Health has made a series of new appointments to its Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Advisory Group. This Group has been appointed for a year from 1 September 2008 to advise the Department on issues affecting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people working in and accessing health and social care services.

First name on the list is Nigel Arnold:

Nigel was the national police service lead for LGBT and was the first chief constable to march in uniform at the London Pride March. He was responsible for the publication of national police service guidance following the introduction of the Gender Recognition Act. He is a member of the Association Of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and currently works in London.

Also on the list are Christine Burns and Ruth Hunt.

Here is some 2008 NHS guidance written by GIRES:

data.parliament.uk/DepositedPapers/Files/DEP2008-2595/DEP2008-2595.pdf

Whatever their medical needs, trans people (trans men, female to male/FtM; and trans women, male to female/MtF) should be addressed and accommodated according to the gender in which they present, unless they specify otherwise.

JW's Twitter is up now. She retweeted goinglikeelsie, apparently news imminent re wax my balls.

JY lost!!!!!!!

Barracker Not wishing to derail thread from Joanie but that info about single gender not sex wards is very interesting.

It is clear now that certain individuals and organisations have been incredibly powerful in influencing policy.

It is clear now that certain individuals and organisations have been incredibly powerful in influencing policy

It's chilling, really, how little critical thought has gone into this. It's honestly like "Oh shit, trans, accommodate everything!"

She's an odd fish. She once tweeted asking for clarification as to what constituted hate crime; argued when I provided it (I used to train police officers, I know teach on Policing degree courses, I know this stuff) and when I clarified again (politely, and in response to her request of amirite?) she blocked me. From what I've heard since about her behaviour towards other GC women on Twitter that's probably a blessing.

*now

I’ve never really heard a sensible definition of hate crime.

I followed her after she reported on the Miranda Yardley court case. Then unfollowed after she said some troubling things. Agree that she’s an odd fish.

Most people misuse the term and actually mean hate incident. A hate crime is any offence that appears to be motivated or aggravated by hatred (bigotry) towards a protected group. Me spraying 'wanker' on your front door in spray paint is a crime. Me spraying a swastika on the front door of a Jewish family is a hate crime. It should be taken into account by courts in sentencing (sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't) and result in a longer or more punitive sentence.

...'Protected group' is itself contentious. The powers that be are selective as to what groups count and what don't, even if they have protected status within other legislation. Crimes motivated by misogyny for example are not hate crimes, because sex is not included within the protected characteristics linked with the legislation. But gender is included. So essentially the only group who can complain of experiencing misogyny are men in woman-face who percieve their victimisation to be motivated by bigotry towards their gender presentation. What a world, eh.

I expect those who pushed these changes through relied a lot on the claim that transgender people are a minute minority - practically invisible.

Now that self-id is being widely accepted, without any change in the law, that argument is void.

the only group who can complain of experiencing misogyny are men in woman-face who percieve their victimisation to be motivated by bigotry towards their gender presentation

GOOD GRIEF

3 dead women a fucking week, and misogyny is not a hate crime that applies to actual females?

Trans people are not the most abused in our society. 3 dead women a week are the evidence for that.