Tuesday 9th March - could be a big day

[Xanthangum]

1. Helen Staniland and Glinner giving evidence to the Commons

1. Fair Play For Women VS UK Statistics Authority at Royal Courts of Justice at 10am

1. The Court of Appeal and Harry/ We Are Fair Cop - The Court of Appeal will examine the validity of the College of Police Hate Crimes Guidance

I wanted to start a thread where any major decisions or outcomes and links to anyone live tweeting or online footage. See you back here tomorrow!

Thanks for that link to Glinner's coffee fund. What legends he and Helen are. I've not done a stroke of work today but still feel exhausted!

@FindTheTruth thanks!

We needed judgments like this and public scrutiny because without it things were sneaking in without consideration of the legal and other implications.

Guidance really does matter. Some of the covid 19 guidance has been at odds with the legislation. The people writing government guidance need to check what is being written with lawyers more often.

@gardenbird48

So mimmy has archived the old incorrect guidance and is encouraging her followers (which seem to be mostly born male) to fill in the Sex question in the way they see fit.

If they are hiding their trans identity (which seems to be the preferred option) - there will be fewer resources allocated for trans people (and more for women, with an inexplicable reduction in percentage birth rate due to some of the women not having the body type to enable gestation).

I don’t understand why they think this is a good idea. for Hamster - this must be so frustrating to watch as a trans person who understands the challenges this will create.

So she is encouraging people to commit a criminal offence?

Glinners statement is perfect!! Stonewall were asked repeatedly to help to take the heat and toxicity out of this discussion and they not only refused, they doubled down!

The new stonewall CEO who started last year stated publicly that she wanted to stop the toxicity - and yet a year on, they’ve done nothing at all to change how they conduct themselves. They’ve thrown endless petrol on the fire and still do not seem to understand or care the harm that they have done

Ta for the link, StPauls.

Oh yes 💐💐💐 and 🍸🍸🍸 and 🍰🍰🍰 for Helen too!

Yep Hamster nailed it earlier on the thread. Accurate data is so important for trans people, their needs will not be met if Government doesn’t not understand how many trans people they are. Mimmymum, again, is being hard of thinking here.

Just watched Glinner's speech and bought him a coffee. Amazing man. Amazing speech.

One of the men questioning gleaner seemed to load one of his comments. When he said how it was interesting how the platforms all came to the conclusion that Graham was hateful (paraphrase). Wonder if he is one of those supposedly 'captured' chappies who in fact really just enjoy being able to shout out their internal misogyny. In the name of righteousness, of course!

Not gleaner, Glinner.

On the BBC now...
www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-56338666?__twitter_impression=true

Thank you Graham and Helen

[quote ItsAllGoingToBeFine]On the BBC now...
www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-56338666?__twitter_impression=true[/quote]
I don't ruddy believe it!

So when is the guidance actually going to change? I'd have thought it should have been done straight away.

What mimmy is suggesting will harm trans people.

As pp have said, this is for policy making and stats.

They're very happy to pull out stats around suicide for their own ends but it's very silly not to see the importance of this in the context of what services trans people need.,

I found the implication that, if so many platforms have banned Glinner then he must be doing something wrong, particularly annoying as that was almost the whole point - SM platforms are ALL bowing to the pressure of mass reporting and the debate around trans issues is utterly silenced whenever possible. It is evidence that their policies make no sense, not that Glinner is wrong. He basically condensed several years worth of tweets into that speech. None of what he said caused them to pale in horror and throw him out of the meeting, did it?

The Gay issue was also a straw man and I wish Helen or Graham had actually been able to face it head on (I'm not surprised they didn't, though). The parallel is not a fair one and, actually, the more similar scenario would be gay men and lesbians being thrown off platforms while leaving up the homophobic bullying rather than what he was trying to suggest - which is banning the homophobes.

The issue is - again - definitions. If SM platforms don't get to the absolute definition of what constitutes real transphobia, then it is always open to interpretation and giving in to cries of hurt feelings.

They managed to touch on it at the beginning with the discussion about what real, actual psychological harm means. Helen was absolutely right in saying that it needs to be decided by independent psychologists (if such people exist) and not individual blue haired individuals crying to their Twitter mums that someone is being mean.

I have just bought Glinner a fair few coffees

The trending hashtag on twitter is pathetic. No argument, as per, just hastags, slogans and memes. Wow, I'm definitely persuaded of the error of my ways now

@testingmitb

Just heard his statement. Very clear and necessary.

Good for @Glinner and Helen - and thank you to both of them and I’m so sorry for what this has cost them personally.

@glinner on the question of a solution for 'hate speech moderation'

1. doing independent research with every user group would be a start. Find out where it's going wrong for each group and make recommendations.

2)One Mp suggested Psychological advice which seems sensible..

3. They also, to Helen's point, should treat people equally,!!!. The platform could do the equivalent of an Equality Impact Assessment EIA. on the guidance, moderation process and how it's applied. then keep reviewing it to keep it fair.

4. Parliament could suggest starting with Equal rights and equality law to all tech companies.

5. Helens suggestion of a regulatory body to report 'hate crimes' to rather than police is a good idea. Police aren't lawyers and it wastes police time and embarrasses them. A regulatory body could hire legal expertise and get a process in place.

6. the new body could also handle cases of mass reporting against people with protected characteristics, and play back the statistics to the platform and publish them for transparency

Well, what a day. Well done to FPFW, Glinner and Helen. ❤️

Did they mention what happened to Miranda Yardley? Was that all on SM?

@Xenia

We needed judgments like this and public scrutiny because without it things were sneaking in without consideration of the legal and other implications.

Guidance really does matter. Some of the covid 19 guidance has been at odds with the legislation. The people writing government guidance need to check what is being written with lawyers more often.

Absolutely- and it has been mentioned before that the census is taken as the gold standard for research on the population so if it is not acceptable to ask for birth sex in the census, that will be pressure for it not to be included in any other research. I think university researchers are already being prevented from including relevant sex questions in their research questionnaires, maybe this ruling will help strengthen their case.

Wait until a trans women gets prostate cancer and finds out that resources have been cut because there are less men. I don’t understand Their logic at all. Except to say that 30% of the pop are trans???

Helens suggestion of a regulatory body to report 'hate crimes' to rather than police is a good idea. Police aren't lawyers and it wastes police time and embarrasses them. A regulatory body could hire legal expertise and get a process in place.

I'm not sure about that one. Isn't that basically what they have in Canada and what Yaniv used to harass immigrant women with over a number of years?