EHRC says no case for GRA reform re Scottish gov

[WarriorN]

According to fair play for women.

Awaiting confirmation via a link

And yet GCs are the ones who keep orchestrating coordinated attacks against women's services, rape crisis centres and cancer charities to the point where they're having to divert resources away from their vital work to deal with the onslaught. It's funny how often GCs are guilty of the very behaviour they accuse TRAs of.

Well that's an utter lie - the dead rat nailed to VRR's door, and the abusive graffiti wasn't done by GCs was it?

How about the people demanding that all the women's services are re-written to avoid using the word 'woman'? That's not GCs is it?

Or the people undermining women's services so women turn up and find themselves on a ward with a bloke? Was that GCs?

No. No co-ordinated 'attacks' just some very pissed off women making their feelings felt - generally through humour, ribbons and stickers.

@TheAbbotOfUnreason

Oops, Lia Thomas threads. I do keep getting William and Lia Thomas mixed up.

It's her JohnThomas that seems to be the issue.

@NecessaryScene

Longer term I think the Lottery etc will lose their importance to a large swathe of organisations like ours. There always was an inherent danger to having single donor support. We will have to go back to our grass roots supporters.

This is something for the EHRC/Baroness/whoever else to look at.

If large funding bodies like the Lottery/central government/whatever are insisting that ALL services need to meet one set of rules and cater to everyone, then they are undermining specialist services, and harming diversity.

Or, if they're permitting certain specialist services (eg trans) but not others (eg female), then they are discriminating.

I think they can be hauled over the coals for this if the funding is governmental or quasi-governmental. (Private funders can presumably do what they want, but the government has more equalities responsibility, right?)

Thank you, @SamphiretheStickerist, that is interesting, encouraging and infuriating.

I agree with @NecessaryScene - this is a big issue. I assume the different refuges and charities which are losing funding are in touch with each other?

Is there a way of using MN to pull info together? Reduce the workload for individuals - there must be a lot of wheel reinventing going on because none of the organisations have central funding or access to civil servant support.

In fact, I will start a thread.

Our founder is quite a mover and shaker and is in contact with the Baroness, amongst others. And yes, we independents at least, are in working together to report the changes and negative impact upon us. That too has been part of my remit, evidencing the changes with specific funding providers.

MPs etc have been roused, ours is with us, is probably tired of signing letters to me ,🙂

We are not going away quietly. Which is why I don't understand the public responses from some MPs. Surely their local shelters have also contacted them directly!?!?

Joanna Cherry in the National:

www.thenational.scot/politics/19880772.turning-point-reached-debate-sex-gender-identity/?fbclid=IwAR08M_nR9QCZq5Rsqis1twbIZFeQCzOduKadWBla-f5v9uTNV9Mx2hk2vlo

Thanks for link

Very sensible letter from the EHRC.

But trans can be fluid, can't it. Look at Pips Bunce and Eddie Izzard. You can be a boy one day and a girl the next. Or is she saying that those two people aren't trans?

It shouldn’t be about whether someone is ‘trans’ (whatever that means) or not.

It’s about whether someone is diagnosed with gender dysphoria by a psychiatrist and whether they are male or female, or rather whether someone is treated ‘as if’ they are male or female.

The reason - because they have likely been subject to various biopsychosocial factors that mean their gender identity and aspects of neural development result in their not being able to tolerate having a body or hormones of their birth sex and function better with these altered to a more appropriate beneficial configuration and social presentation.

The reason - because they have likely been subject to various biopsychosocial factors that mean their gender identity and aspects of neural development result in their not being able to tolerate having a body or hormones of their birth sex and function better with these altered to a more appropriate beneficial configuration and social presentation.

Nah.

Nah.

You’re probably out of sync with the majority of the mental health profession.

Prenatal sex hormones affect different areas of the body very clearly, even finger digit ratios. It’s likely that includes brain tissue and neural development. Particularly given how sensitive brains are to sex hormones.

Prenatal sex hormones affect different areas of the body very clearly, even finger digit ratios. It’s likely that includes brain tissue and neural development. Particularly given how sensitive brains are to sex hormones.

Do you have any evidence that distinct male and female brains exist? By distinct, I mean that if you were to analyse a brain you would be able to tell with certainty whether it was a male brain or a female brain?

Even if there were a test to prove the pre natal sex hormones theory it doesn't change that a person is male or female
It doesn't change that we have male persons wanting to access female only spaces and rendering them unisex spaces
I'm all for letting anyone change gender as long as birth certificates are not falsified and as long as spaces are strictly male or female with a third gender neutral space for those who choose to use it
Same for sport. Its the only way rights are not trampled on

It's very common for teenage girls to find their sexed body and hormones intolerable

Growing up can be very hard

Also there is no need to actually have a gender identity aligned to sex

Prenatal sex hormones affect different areas of the body very clearly, even finger digit ratios. It’s likely that includes brain tissue and neural development. Particularly given how sensitive brains are to sex hormones.

Aha! This is a case for....

Rippon and Fine!

sfonline.barnard.edu/neurogenderings/eight-things-you-need-to-know-about-sex-gender-brains-and-behavior-a-guide-for-academics-journalists-parents-gender-diversity-advocates-social-justice-warriors-tweeters-facebookers-and-ever/

@Fieldofgreycorn

Nah.

You’re probably out of sync with the majority of the mental health profession.

Prenatal sex hormones affect different areas of the body very clearly, even finger digit ratios. It’s likely that includes brain tissue and neural development. Particularly given how sensitive brains are to sex hormones.

Your sex is a description of reproductive potential.

Not a brain in the wrong body. That's Freaky Friday territory.

Men displaying 'feminine' traits just means they're socially determined. If a man has them, he's a man with them! So they're not exclusively female.

Sexist claptrap.

"Longer term I think the Lottery etc will lose their importance to a large swathe of organisations like ours. There always was an inherent danger to having single donor support. We will have to go back to our grass roots supporters."

Yes I think we will. As someone pointed out ages ago, what will happen is women will leave the rooms and TW will be left behind.

It is a shame, because if TW activists had recognised that women are uncomfortable (at the very least) with mixed sex spaces, and respected that, women could have used our (looong) experience in getting our needs met, to support their need to be for separate spaces so they feel safe from predatory men.

But no. Own goal or what?

Sorry for the typos

Janice Turner's weekend comment is about the EHRC:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/8141114c-8071-11ec-8532-85a58274df7c?shareToken=9552ea354c73bee6281f6676d8a92b27

Janice spells out the really scary parts:

Grassroots groups like For Women Scotland struggle by on donations, while the main LGBT charity Equality Network is 90 per cent state-funded. Feminists have no governmental champion, so they’re grateful for the doughty Falkner.

And then

Asked what extra rights a GRC would grant, the SNP had no answers. But we do know from a recent judicial review that a biological male prisoner with a GRC, even if this was acquired after violent or sexual assaults on women, will be housed in a women’s prison

Tell us again who is the vulnerable group?

Thanks for the link Ig

@Fieldofgreycorn

Nah.

You’re probably out of sync with the majority of the mental health profession.

Prenatal sex hormones affect different areas of the body very clearly, even finger digit ratios. It’s likely that includes brain tissue and neural development. Particularly given how sensitive brains are to sex hormones.

Nah!

That's a flight of fancy taken from some extremely nascent research that also covers same sex attraction and being fat. And, as usual, the only thing inferred is a predisposition, no causality.

I've seen this spouted a few times and it relies very, very heavily on wishful thinking that stems from those two words seems likely.

It is way, way too early to assume and direct causality. There isn't even any current research into any correlation. It's theoretical. A working hypothesis.

But that doesn't seem to stop those wanting proof of the ineffable.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/police-interview-charity-chief-nicola-murray-after-tweet-ending-referrals-to-edinburgh-rape-crisis-centre-plwgxfjfv

Does anyone have a share token for the above article in Times today?

Here you go:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b14bcfe6-8092-11ec-8532-85a58274df7c?shareToken=e250135a7d312e2f04db8d99f0e79b8e

I haven't got a token so I can only read the start, but this sounds chillingly Orwellian: 'We need to speak to you to ascertain what your thinking was behind making your statement'

archive.fo/2022.01.29-000807/www.thetimes.co.uk/article/police-interview-charity-chief-nicola-murray-after-tweet-ending-referrals-to-edinburgh-rape-crisis-centre-plwgxfjfv