Scottish "research" was there a response to this?

[ExtraExtraMarge]

(Name changed) I've just been pointed by the Welsh government in the direction of this document produced by the Scottish government.

<a class="break-all" href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/foi-eir-release/2020/01/foi-202000011201/documents/foi-202000011201-document-5---earlier-version-of-literature-review/foi-202000011201-document-5---earlier-version-of-literature-review/govscot%253Adocument/FOI-202000011201%252BDocument%252B5%252B-%252BEarlier%252BVersion%252Bof%252BLiterature%252BReview.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiuotag7YbrAhVnUBUIHU-OBbQQFjAAegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw36SixuDG5KMZ4il-UNa1PR" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/foi-eir-release/2020/01/foi-202000011201/documents/foi-202000011201-document-5---earlier-version-of-literature-review/foi-202000011201-document-5---earlier-version-of-literature-review/govscot%253Adocument/FOI-202000011201%252BDocument%252B5%252B-%252BEarlier%252BVersion%252Bof%252BLiterature%252BReview.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiuotag7YbrAhVnUBUIHU-OBbQQFjAAegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw36SixuDG5KMZ4il-UNa1PR

There are... several things I find highly questionable about it. Does anyone know if there has been an official type response to it? I've googled and looked on forwomen but can't find anything?

I've not seen this before - it might be worth contacting murrayblackburnmackenzie.org/

What a load of absolute fucking wank.

It's not up to women (or ciswomen as they so helpfully refer to XX people) to prove that men shouldn't be allowed into their spaces.

The entire document is made up bollocks, all along the lines of "poor transwomen, those nasty ciswomen are being nasty to you".

I don't know who wrote it, but have my suspicions.

For example:

" Jones et al. suggest that no empirical research has yet identified the specific reasons for which men perform better than women in sport"

and, regarding rape crisis centres:

"the literature identified did not offer an explanation for why the different experiences of socialisation and oppression that trans women have experienced compared to cis women justifies their exclusion, while the differences in experience between women of different ethnicities, classes or sexualities does not."

Fucking racist wank.

And homophobic wank:

"... it is important to note that this kind of policing of womanhood leads to the exclusion of cisgender lesbians and anyone else who does not conform to societal perceptions of what a woman looks like.’"

That's all from a 30 second overview

I liked this bit- ‘... is more important than any commonality of experience they may currently share.’

Such as.....? Nice chats about lippy and heels, or maybe childbirth and gynae problems?
It can’t be thing like assault, cos transwomen are assaulted because they’re male, not because they’re female. So not much commonality there.

Sorry, I'm a bit cross.

'A rapid evidence review was undertaken' - this appears to be roughly equivalent to 'a quick google', is that right?

@JackiesArmy

For example:

" Jones et al. suggest that no empirical research has yet identified the specific reasons for which men perform better than women in sport"

and, regarding rape crisis centres:

"the literature identified did not offer an explanation for why the different experiences of socialisation and oppression that trans women have experienced compared to cis women justifies their exclusion, while the differences in experience between women of different ethnicities, classes or sexualities does not."

Fucking racist wank.

Dear God. How can people write that?

The suggestion that gay women or black women or poor women are somehow less than women is extraordinary. Women are not a belief. We're human beings, and scientifically we are on one size of a sex binary. And the demand women pretend otherwise, to our own detriment, just to placate males even over things such as sports, prisons, and rape crisis centres is one of the biggest proofs of male supremacy imaginable.

MALE PEOPLE ABUSE FEMALE PEOPLE. Not all, of course not, but every woman knows what it is to start watching where you go and what you do and who you see from very young, in order to avoid being vulnerable to unknown, or - worse - known men with malign intent. And crime stats bear that caution out as wise.

Women harmed by men need women only spaces, in most cases, to recover. That's why even teenage sons aren't able to stay in shelters beyond a set age. Transwomen remain male! This stuff would not be hard, in a world where anyone gave a shit about women.

As for the sport - what the hell are they talking about? Men average so much larger and stronger than women! Of COURSE they can run faster, hit harder, apply more force and exert greater reach. Male puberty confers that advantage and there's not much that you can do about that (in fact someone on here has commented that even without the puberty, there remains on average a male height advantage, though I don't know if that is so so can't assert it as fact).

The thing that blows me away about this whole debate: the reality that people must know that it's bullshit. They must. With sports, there is no possible way anyone can claim to be baffled by male sporting advantage. All you need to do is use your eyes.

I'm slightly relieved that other people are cross. Im not alone in finding it ridiculous. The very fact that women are framed as "cisgender" from the start tells me what I needed to know! 😂🙄

”opposition to the inclusion of trans women in women-only spaces tends to be based on insistence that trans women are not ‘real’ women,”

Insistence?

That is some of the most biased language I’ve seen used on this issue. I am not “insisting they are not real women”. I state the fact that biologically they are men.

Sorry, also angry! On one SIDE of a sex binary.

(I look forward to someone earnestly explaining that the bipotential primordium means we are not. Apparently, the meaning of bi escaped them.)

Oh and of course...

It's not up to women (or ciswomen as they so helpfully refer to XX people) to prove that men shouldn't be allowed into their spaces.

Absolutely this, with bells on. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

What should have been done, at the time they began to shove men into our spaces, was put in place measures to assess the impact on women. Instead they removed many of the tools that could have usefully been used, including removal of all police evidence that could have been gathered, had they noted both sex and “gender presentation”.

I dare say this was probably no accident. Given the 2012 study that suggests men still offend at male rates, despite going through a significant transition process, I think the results would have shown there was a negative impact on women, albeit small as so few men were taking advantage at that time.

This document was part of the FoI response that was prompted by the revelation that the Scottish Government had included the Dunne paper as 'evidence' in the impact assessment regarding GRA reform. You'll remember that paper - it tried to say that a transwoman (with a penis) was no more offensive in a women's changing room than a woman who had mastectomy scars.

Scot Gov really dredged the bottom of the barrel to try and somehow show that women were wrong.

The Scottish Govt are particularly bad at Equality Impact Assessments the one for Gender on Public Boards was particuarly shit

You might want to check out this threat about the Welsh Assembly and "THE LOST EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT"

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3652524-Welsh-Assembly-and-the-lost-equality-impact-assessment

(There was no EIA and it was all swept under the carpet)

sorry - thread

yes that rings bells I can remember so utterly FURIOUS Welsh feminists on twitter

I think the FoI was requested by MurrayBlackburnMacKenzie. Have a look at section 10 in their submission to the GRA consultation, which looks at the poor evidence in the EQIA:
mbmpolicy.files.wordpress.com/2020/03/murrayblackburnmackenzie-gra-consulation-response-final-copy-16-3-2020-2.pdf

So basically, get a load of inconclusive articles, put them together in such a way that they mean nothing, start from the premise that TWAW and women are cis and nasty, then conclude that there are no problems.

And call it an impact assessment (or a reason for not needing an impact assessment).

I'm continuously baffled by this. If a schoolchild used this sort of research/argument a sensible teacher would take them to task, show them how to check facts, advise them not to rely on secondary sources via google/wikipedia, and get them to redo it.

But in real life, just get someone, anyone, to write a load of unproven bollocks, and then quote that forever as proof of whatever you want it to prove.

'We are satisfied that these search terms returned a good selection of useful literature, however we welcome any reflection on other search terms that might usefully be used or indeed any other references to useful literature.'

I wonder if anyone made any suggestions? Where was this doc, OP?

• sorry, I posted and the thread had updated in between cooking dinner! I see the answer upthread.

JackiesArmy Yep, that does seem to be about the level that Scot Gov 'works' at these days. Sorry we seem to be setting a bad example for the Welsh Gov to copy!

This is the link to the guidance from Women and girls Scotland on how to answer Question 5 ( subject Impact Assessment) in the consultation on the GRA.

wgscotland.org.uk/

It should be pointed out that the Gottschalke report is totally misrepresented in the Scot Gov document and is based on cherry picking a couple of sentences. The other report is to say the least a tad partial. The whole tenor of the EIA was based on the assumption that women don't pose a threat to other women and as Transwomen are women...they can't be a threat can they?

I've found the FOI request that this was taken from here.

www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202000011201/

They include a later draft of the same document in which these 3 paragraphs have been omitted from the Key Findings section:

Much of the literature suggests that there is inadequate justification for a blanket exclusion of trans women from services or spaces, and that while there may be justification for basing access to some services on legal gender, conducting individual assessments and adapting services for each individual’s needs can oftenreplace the need for this.

Opposition to the inclusion of trans women in women-only spaces tends to be grounded in a belief that trans women are not ‘real’ women, and that the difference in their experiences as trans women (and as people who have to a greater or lesser extent been socialised as male), rather than women assigned female at birth, is more important than any commonality of experience they may currently share.

There is limited research from which to draw any conclusion about whether or not transgender people have an athletic advantage in competitive sport.

FOI-202000011201 Document 6 - Later Version of Literature Review

The later version is quite a bit shorter (8 pages instead of 11), so there are obviously other parts which have been removed/edited (I haven't read the whole document).