EHRC says no case for GRA reform re Scottish gov

[WarriorN]

According to fair play for women.

Awaiting confirmation via a link

Exactly.

Glorious detail of thread 🧵

twitter.com/labourmercedes/status/1486484078727774208?s=21

10/ The draft Bill proposes applicants:
1⃣ No longer need evidence of gender dysphoria.
2⃣ Only need to have lived in their acquired gender for 3 months rather than 2 years.
3⃣ Must still intend to live permanently in their acquired gender until death.

So the bill is for those with GD. But you can self diagnose GD, you know your own mind.

And you know you'll be like that till death.

How can you de medicalise a medical issue and still demand access to medicines?

But if it's not for people with gender dysphoria, who is it for? Transvestites? AGP? Men who just want to access women's spaces and rights? Who? Let's have a description.

Because if there's absolutely no criteria, then there is no barrier, not a single one.

I am certain this is not an original thought, but something I started to ponder after listening to that interview.

I believe that Maggie Chapman is technically correct in her assertion that the proposed changes do nothing to change the rights of women. Making Self-ID easier doesn’t actually make any changes to sex based rights in the Equalities Act, it just makes it easier to obtain a GRC.

However, it is somewhat disingenuous, as we already know that the Equalities Act is not being implemented properly. Stonewall have been misadvising most organisations, indicating that to not treat anyone who says they are the opposite sex as that new sex amounts to a discriminatory act. Everyone seems to be afraid of using the sex based exemptions in case they are seen as discriminatory… even though someone with a GRC could still be legally prevented from using a sex based service. The way it has been operating in practice, even a GRA is not required to access pretty much all services.

So… is the solution the following: let’s make obtaining a GRC as easy as possible. A statutory declaration is all you need. BUT: the sex based exemptions are mandatory. These would be clearly stated: e.g. changing rooms, toilets, hospitals, prisons, sports. Not only is the provider not discriminatory in keeping those single sex, but they are legally bound to do so.

I am sure someone more clued up on all of this will explain what the pitfalls are with this approach.. but it just got me thinking..

[quote WarriorN]Exactly.

Glorious detail of thread 🧵

twitter.com/labourmercedes/status/1486484078727774208?s=21[/quote]
She is saying that the single sex exceptions can be invoked, but not addressing the reasons why none of them are.

@Horizons83

I am certain this is not an original thought, but something I started to ponder after listening to that interview.

I believe that Maggie Chapman is technically correct in her assertion that the proposed changes do nothing to change the rights of women. Making Self-ID easier doesn’t actually make any changes to sex based rights in the Equalities Act, it just makes it easier to obtain a GRC.

However, it is somewhat disingenuous, as we already know that the Equalities Act is not being implemented properly. Stonewall have been misadvising most organisations, indicating that to not treat anyone who says they are the opposite sex as that new sex amounts to a discriminatory act. Everyone seems to be afraid of using the sex based exemptions in case they are seen as discriminatory… even though someone with a GRC could still be legally prevented from using a sex based service. The way it has been operating in practice, even a GRA is not required to access pretty much all services.

So… is the solution the following: let’s make obtaining a GRC as easy as possible. A statutory declaration is all you need. BUT: the sex based exemptions are mandatory. These would be clearly stated: e.g. changing rooms, toilets, hospitals, prisons, sports. Not only is the provider not discriminatory in keeping those single sex, but they are legally bound to do so.

I am sure someone more clued up on all of this will explain what the pitfalls are with this approach.. but it just got me thinking..

I agree. It's like saying, you know what, we'd rather you paid women the same as men, but really it's up to you.

The Maggie Chapman that students would rather vote a cat in for Rector of Aberdeen?
www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/aberdeen-university-rector-vote-buttons-cat-students-candidate-a8208456.html

From the article:
The campaign comes just two months after the university ratified a decision to scrap the rector election over allegations of “dirty tricks” by the campaign for Maggie Chapman.

A re-vote was called for after at least one other candidate wanted the Scottish Greens co-convener, the current rector, removed from the ballot in a row over campaign posters being torn down

Unfortunately Buttons wasn't allowed to stand and Maggie got in again.

Hats off to Nick Robinson. He did a great job this morning. we need more interviews like this and more honest debate on the subject.

So… is the solution the following: let’s make obtaining a GRC as easy as possible. A statutory declaration is all you need. BUT: the sex based exemptions are mandatory. These would be clearly stated: e.g. changing rooms, toilets, hospitals, prisons, sports. Not only is the provider not discriminatory in keeping those single sex, but they are legally bound to do so.

I'd be a-ok with people declaring whatever gender they wished and getting a framed sparkly certificate for it as long as it is absolutely clear that it is nothing to do with sex.

Yes datun.

And then we have the ceo of a rape crisis centre in Edinburgh showing everyone how single sec exceptions mean nothing.

It's like suggesting that we mend holes in steel buckets with cotton wool.

@jellyfrizz

So… is the solution the following: let’s make obtaining a GRC as easy as possible. A statutory declaration is all you need. BUT: the sex based exemptions are mandatory. These would be clearly stated: e.g. changing rooms, toilets, hospitals, prisons, sports. Not only is the provider not discriminatory in keeping those single sex, but they are legally bound to do so.

I'd be a-ok with people declaring whatever gender they wished and getting a framed sparkly certificate for it as long as it is absolutely clear that it is nothing to do with sex.

If this is what they're saying, WHY are they so angry.

@WarriorN

Maggie has re tweeted a thread that clearly sets out what the proposals say.

One key one is that after quicker access to transition they "intend to be trans till death."

What happens if you transition? Do we make those promises in other situations? Marriage is supposed to be to death but we all know what divorce is for.

Where do children fit in if they can't properly explore who they are?

God they're idiots

They want to offer it to 16-17 year olds. Is there any 16 year old on the planet who knows for certain what they want for the next 70 odd years?

What if said 16 year old decides at 20 they don't want it any more? Are there putative consequences?

Probably not so why say it? It's just sop to the average person who thinks this is all very badly thought through nonsense.

*punative

@jellyfrizz

So… is the solution the following: let’s make obtaining a GRC as easy as possible. A statutory declaration is all you need. BUT: the sex based exemptions are mandatory. These would be clearly stated: e.g. changing rooms, toilets, hospitals, prisons, sports. Not only is the provider not discriminatory in keeping those single sex, but they are legally bound to do so.

I'd be a-ok with people declaring whatever gender they wished and getting a framed sparkly certificate for it as long as it is absolutely clear that it is nothing to do with sex.

We already have this function in the form of social media profiles.

It is untrue to say it doesn't affect the EqA because single sex spaces exemption. The act doesn't just cover single sex spaces even if that was applied. It also covers all other aspects of discrimination and relies on data collected by sex to prove sex discrimination. If we look at the IT industry - few women, quite a lot of TW. It doesn't take many male employees to be counted as women before you distort the data and start to hide discrimination against women. Same with boardrooms/senior staff. This includes pay, terms of service, provision of services to the public, access to justice, treatment of victims. All affected by counting men as women.

Cautiously optimistic

Ova, it's really very offensive to those who have detransitioned.

If therapist aren't allowed to fully explore gender identity issues with a teen, they've even less chance of being sure.

You're right ricepud.

Also, by shutting down debate we cant discuss these issues.

This is the 'problem' (for TRAs) when a movement which is absolutely reliant on obfuscating language and making definitions meaningless butts up against an objective legal process, which is equally reliant on words having precise and clearly-defined meanings. When you have made it so that 'woman', 'transgender', 'gender identity' and everything else can mean whatever you want it to mean to suit your super-special-unique feelings (and/or misogynistic agenda) and pushed on apace on that basis, it must be like receiving a bucket of cold water in the face to discover that the legal world uses facts, precise definitions and careful consideration to naming and balancing conflicts and all you're left with in response are empty insults and hyperbole which expose the paucity of your critical thought processes.

If the GRC is for life surely we need a definition of living as a woman or living as a man. Transmen that have babies should lose their GRC or it is a joke

Good to see Maggie Chapman being pushed by interviewer on Today programme. She really doesn't do well when challenged as in this great clip featuring the wonderful Joan McAlpine

mobile.twitter.com/scotlandtonight/status/1131668625541214210

I’m finding it incredible seeing supposedly senior lawyers saying the EHRC is not fit for purpose and isn’t upholding rights when it’s statement said it wanted to protect trans rights but needed to protect women too, and more clarification about the term “trans” and “conversion therapy” is needed as well as a discussion about why the GRC should be even available to people who don’t have dysphoria. It seems that anything other than 100 percent agreement is perceived as bigoted.

Maggie Chapman being interviewed this morning.

@VeryLongBeeeeep

This is the 'problem' (for TRAs) when a movement which is absolutely reliant on obfuscating language and making definitions meaningless butts up against an objective legal process, which is equally reliant on words having precise and clearly-defined meanings. When you have made it so that 'woman', 'transgender', 'gender identity' and everything else can mean whatever you want it to mean to suit your super-special-unique feelings (and/or misogynistic agenda) and pushed on apace on that basis, it must be like receiving a bucket of cold water in the face to discover that the legal world uses facts, precise definitions and careful consideration to naming and balancing conflicts and all you're left with in response are empty insults and hyperbole which expose the paucity of your critical thought processes.

Yes, and we see that played out here in microcosm.

Arguments for the denial of reality deflected by cold hard facts, and subsequent posts degenerating into insults and ridiculous rhetoric.