Women & Equalities Commitee live today at 2.30

[ArabellaScott]

'The Women & Equalities Committee will hear from witnesses tomorrow 9/12 on Reform of The GRA at 2.30 pm. Witnesses include @Docstockk
@ProfAliceS
@GoonerProf
& Prof. Stephen Whittle, Alex Sharpe.'

(from Allison Bailey's twitter feed)

www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/dfc9f53e-2ac4-4c30-8712-e3df47938fd7

Another thread from Maya

twitter.com/MForstater/status/1359512083373637632

Apparently at the same time this meeting was happening there was another going on nearby called Queering the Equality Act

twitter.com/hatpinwoman/status/1359524987288367107

Thanks OvaHere, that last one is really excellent (tho pretty depressing) -

He’s talking about gay men in Northern Ireland now. It is fascinating to me that people who recognise the needs for protection of other groups within the equality act on the basis of sexuality dont see the problems with erasing sex entire.

She says we can carve out the nuance that someone providing services can offer services with a same sex space without it discriminating if it’s proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim.
But she doesn’t think it’s a legitimate aim to “exclude trans people” & just a moral panic.

So this is how the more measured voices will tackle our terrible belief in male violence and need for female protection. They will say yes, you have the right,if it’s reasonable but it isn’t

I watched this on and off and saw Robin's comments about using the ladies loos at the supermarket. Robin's sex is apparent. It really hit me just how selfish this is - selfishness on a colossal scale.
What Robin wants us to do is to groom our girls to have weaker boundaries.
Women know how vital boundaries are (most of us learned this varying degrees of the hard way) and want our daughters and all girls to grow up to have strong ones.
One example is that we tell girls that it's not OK for a male to be in the women's toilets and that they should tell someone if this happens. Robin wants us to tell girls 'yes, males shouldn't be in the girls toilets, except for some males who are special'.
I'm taken aback by the sheer brass neck of asking us to do this tbh.
What is a nine-year-old girl, a third of the size of an adult male, supposed to make of that? What if there is a male, but she doesn't know if it's a special one and doesn't want to get in trouble by reporting? She may think she is at fault for not being able to tell the difference and resolve in future just to let any males go where they like and do what they want unchallenged.
This is why I will never tell girls there are males who are exceptions.
No doubt Robin really, really really wants access to the women's toilets. But in many other contexts, we might really, really, really want something but learn that the cost is damage to someone else and realise that we will have to live without it.
In this case, the cost is curtailment of the lives of girls and women, with women as unwilling accomplices. The cost is a generation of girls growing up without the boundaries they need.
But Robin still wants it and considers that cost worth it. That's what I mean by colossal selfishness.

@severnboring

I watched this on and off and saw Robin's comments about using the ladies loos at the supermarket. Robin's sex is apparent. It really hit me just how selfish this is - selfishness on a colossal scale. What Robin wants us to do is to groom our girls to have weaker boundaries. Women know how vital boundaries are (most of us learned this varying degrees of the hard way) and want our daughters and all girls to grow up to have strong ones. One example is that we tell girls that it's not OK for a male to be in the women's toilets and that they should tell someone if this happens. Robin wants us to tell girls 'yes, males shouldn't be in the girls toilets, except for some males who are special'. I'm taken aback by the sheer brass neck of asking us to do this tbh. What is a nine-year-old girl, a third of the size of an adult male, supposed to make of that? What if there is a male, but she doesn't know if it's a special one and doesn't want to get in trouble by reporting? She may think she is at fault for not being able to tell the difference and resolve in future just to let any males go where they like and do what they want unchallenged. This is why I will never tell girls there are males who are exceptions. No doubt Robin really, really really wants access to the women's toilets. But in many other contexts, we might really, really, really want something but learn that the cost is damage to someone else and realise that we will have to live without it. In this case, the cost is curtailment of the lives of girls and women, with women as unwilling accomplices. The cost is a generation of girls growing up without the boundaries they need. But Robin still wants it and considers that cost worth it. That's what I mean by colossal selfishness.

Completely agree.

But she doesn’t think it’s a legitimate aim to “exclude trans people” & just a moral panic

i'm seeing this " moral panic" line cropping up more and more. I suspect it vis a way to try to align concerned voices with some imaginary 'right wing backlash'.

Women know how vital boundaries are (most of us learned this varying degrees of the hard way) and want our daughters and all girls to grow up to have strong ones.

One example is that we tell girls that it's not OK for a male to be in the women's toilets and that they should tell someone if this happens. Robin wants us to tell girls 'yes, males shouldn't be in the girls toilets, except for some males who are special'.
I'm taken aback by the sheer brass neck of asking us to do this tbh.

What is a nine-year-old girl, a third of the size of an adult male, supposed to make of that? What if there is a male, but she doesn't know if it's a special one and doesn't want to get in trouble by reporting?

She may think she is at fault for not being able to tell the difference and resolve in future just to let any males go where they like and do what they want unchallenged.

This is why I will never tell girls there are males who are exceptions.

This. Me neither.

Robin seems to be forgetting what stopped Robin using the womens toilets prior to transition. Why didn't they use those toilets prior to transition? Do those social rules still count even though Robin now has longer hair and wears a dress? And if not why? Does the rest of the people in the toilets not have a say on where Robin should pee?
We do not operate ina bubble. Our actions have implecations on the people around us.
One of the panellists pointed out that the law has done the heavylifting already on this topic, but it's been muddied by sex/gender conflation in law, badly written law and Stonewall training across every institution under the sun.

My question to Robin is, why can’t they use the facilities tax payer money has already provided for them, based on their sex? Why are women & girls not allowed single sex provision when current legislation has identified a clear need for single sex toilets to protect women & girls. I think Robin is a bit of an own goal....

Do you know if anyone has done some sort of summary of this and other sessions?

Just dont have time to read everything, but would like to know not only what has been said but responses / reactions to them.

Thanks

'm seeing this " moral panic" line cropping up more and more. I suspect it vis a way to try to align concerned voices with some imaginary 'right wing backlash'.

'Moral panic' is a coupling of the clear morality issues involved here with an unreasonably overemotional response to try and imply the former is negated by the latter. It's just the latest 'women are hysterical'.

Quite an interesting history of the term 'moral panic'

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_panic

From what I can tell, people seem to be suggesting that collective societal anger on an issue is classed as 'panic' and generally a harmful thing. Although the listing of 'mass shooters' as a subject of a moral panic seems reasonable to me - it is immoral that children/terrorists have access to guns and a society that makes it possible for mass shootings to happen repeatedly should outrage anyone, imo.

I note that there seems to be no notice given to collective non-violent, democratic change making, which could also be said to be driven by 'moral panic', surely?

People become aware of an issue, lobby govt and media for change, change happens. It's not just acceptable, it's an integral part of a functioning, healthy democracy.

Of course, not everyone will agree on what is and isn't acceptable. So label some causes 'moral panic' and some 'social justice activism' etc.

Not sure I find the concept that useful. Perhaps focussing on how to make sure that information is accurate, critical thinking is applied, and change is done efficiently, fairly and democratically would be more useful? Dismissing people's concerns as 'moral panic' seems defeatist, arrogant and judgemental, to me.

Transcript of the session here

committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/1693/default/