Law Commission Reviewing Hate Crime Law - Sex or Gender?

[gardenbird48]

hi all, I could have sworn that there was a thread on this already with lots of useful points but can't find it atm - either my search skills or deleted?

Anyway, the Law Commission are consulting on this (I'm so sure there is a thread - can anyone point me to it please) and are considering putting Gender in place of Sex. Apparently they note that the public want Sex not Gender and that it has been strongly argued that violence against women and girls is strongly connected to the biology (no shit) BUT.....

the provisional view is that Gender is the 'more inclusive term'. They also note elsewhere that transwomen face unique transphobic discrimination. If that is the case, why can't women face unique misogynistic discrimination?

I remember one of the points on the old thread being that transwomen can face violence as would be directed at women but it is only because they resemble a woman and not actually because of their sex. It would be interesting to get some more thoughts on how using Gender instead of Sex will disadvantage women in this matter - can any of you amazing thinkers help please? I'm at the point where I know it feels very wrong but can't articulate why.

consult.justice.gov.uk/law-commission/hate-crime/

Just discovered Maya's case is being quoted in relation to the Grainger test.

14.169 Importantly, Grainger held that the requirement that a protected belief be “worthy of respect in a democratic society and not incompatible with human dignity or in conflict with the fundamental rights of others”,
197 necessarily excludes “objectionable” political philosophies.

198 The ET (Employment Tribunal) stated this criterion would exclude protection of “racist or homophobic political philosophy” and more recently, “absolutist” views of sex.

I feel this is dubious because it's heading for appeal.
Maybe we need to address this question on philosophical belief as well.

Consultation Question 20.
14.217 We invite consultees’ views on whether “philosophical beliefs” should be recognised as a hate crime category

Judge: we believe you hit that woman because you hate her gender.
Defendant: I don't believe in gender
Victim: I have a sex, not a gender
Judge: oh ok, no hate crime here because sex isn't a hate crime characteristic. Case dismissed.

@gardenbird48

I like the idea of a resource thread - is there any special status for setting one up or is it just a named normal thread?

No special status - just as MNHQ to amend the thread title to draw attention to this being the resources thread.

Linking to a thread where I am posting my notes from the Webinar, what I got to attend anyway...

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4098335-Law-Commission-Q-A-on-reforming-hate-crime-laws-10-Dec-14-00-15-30-GMT?watched=1&msgid=102566307#102566307

Linking to latest from @NonnyMouse1337 as excellent points made re Scottish bill that could be applied in general to hate crime.

Scotland - Ask your MSPs to call for more changes to Hate Crime Bill before debate on Tuesday 15 December www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4103821-Scotland-Ask-your-MSPs-to-call-for-more-changes-to-Hate-Crime-Bill-before-debate-on-Tuesday-15-December

"the provisional view is that Gender is the 'more inclusive term'. They also note elsewhere that transwomen face unique transphobic discrimination. If that is the case, why can't women face unique misogynistic discrimination?"

As I noted in the thread on boundaries and inclusion/exclusion, the idea that being "inclusive" is necessarily a good thing or desirable is itself a value judgement, not an automatic truth.

Why would we want the category of "the female sex" to be "inclusive" of some men (or potentially all men, if self-ID is used)? The category by definition is exclusive, it is designed to define and protect an oppressed group, women. There is no more need for women to include any of the oppressor group in the category " women" than there is for black people to include white people in the category "black".

Where did this idea that women were not allowed to have any boundaries, and indeed that women having boundaries is hateful, come from??

On the contrary, women are allowed to have boundaries and say who they wish to include in their spaces, share their sex-specific rights with, etc.

Even if some women are OK with throwing the door open to all and sundry, that does not mean that the category is therefore negated and the boundary thrown down, because there are still huge numbers of women who want and need that boundary to remain.

I would be challenging why they think "inclusive" = de facto a good thing, and what evidence they have that including biological males in the category of biological females is going to be effective in reducing sex discrimination or attacks on women. If they are going to suggest something so ludicrous, they need to explain precisely why they only think attacks on transwomen matter but attacks on women and women's rights to have boundaries don't.

I was about to say I have a deep-rooted philosophical belief that people cannot change sex.

It shows how far down the rabbit hole I am. What I should say is my understanding of science and biology is that people cannot change sex.

Interesting but long report by Joanna Williams which might be useful for anyone like me still procrastinating. I particularly like the concept of Hate Crime Entrepreneurs for groups that have a vested interest in increasing the protected categories like Stonewall etc. It's quite easy to navigate and pick what's relevant.
www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/Policing-Hate.pdf