31 Jan 15:15 Women & Equalities Committee - Scottish GRR Bill

[GreenUp]

Tomorrow 31st Jan at 15:15 the UK Government's Women and Equalities Committee are holding an evidence gathering session in relation to the Scottish GRR Bill. We can watch on Parliament TV live.

The witnesses are:
Naomi Cunningham Barrister and member of legal feminist
Dr Michael Foran, Public Law lecturer at Glasgow University.
Lord Charlie Falconer Barrister
Robin White Barrister

committees.parliament.uk/event/17258/formal-meeting-oral-evidence-session/

I was typing something when a fire alarm went off and I thought I had posted it but now cant see it.

So sorry if this is here and somehow not appearing but an intersting point made by Michael who I was originally so rude about.

SSE apply to "servcies" but not to "associations". He was talking about a group of women meeting informally to meet up and even act as a support group, could be challenged under gender recognition discrimination, but a service could not because they could apply the SSE.

Mentioning this as it has come up as a point of discussion.

I've just spotted an excellent Twitter hashtag called #TerfGogglebox.

Are we talking about Naomi Cunningham from Sex Matters? I'm not watching so I can't comment on how she's doing but she normally knows her stuff and I'm surprised to hear she's not performing well.

I think we need to be really careful when campaigning that we dont get carried away in create good sound bites, that actual harm others.

The SSE still exist, and have been acknowledged as such by both UK and Scottish Parliament.

And in fact, maybe even because at the time FWR highlighted Edinburgh RCC improperly advertising under the SSE, that some Scottish Women's Groups no longer invoke this.

Have posted an example of this here www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4730468-worker-resigns-from-scottish-womens-aid-over-concerns-about-safeguarding-and-introducing-self-id

If you click on the link again, the recording of the meeting is now playing. So you'll be able to watch it, if you fancy it.

Thanks but I can't watch at the moment!

Watched without making notes, so the following is from memory and I don't remember who said what:

Any halfway decent chair would have stamped on the TRAHR nonsense.

Very much enjoyed the calling out of whataboutery, and the repeated references to 'living in the acquired gender - whatever that means'.

Didn't dear old Isla-of-the-Leggings come along at exactly the perfect moment? Lots of mentions of 'as recent events have shown...'.

And I thought the point about single sex exemptions being permitted rather than mandated and maybe that should be reconsidered was very well made. Something I'd been pondering myself only yesterday.

I only caught about 10/15minutes but I thought Foran made some good points about same-sex direct and indirect discrimination, and comparators. I thought he was inviting the committee not to accept Haldane in its extreme form (IYSWIM).

Also good to see Rachel Maclean there. She seemed like she'd been reading up and was well-briefed, and on top of it.

RMW I thought was rude and kept butting in over Foran and Maclean, and chose to answer the question perhaps preferred, rather than asked. Maclean did well to keep it focused.

OK who put a hex on me?

Sometime trtranger tranger than even my mind could conjure.

So, I thought I'd listen/watch the women and Equalities commitee whilst I pootled and had a bath etc. Didn't look at who was on the committee.

So I run the bath, carefully prop the tablet snuggled in a pile of my clothes on the closed toilet seat so I could watch from the bath.

I'm listening along, doing what you do.

So imagine my surprise at 15.37.26 when I hear a voice I recognise, look up and there they are sitting on my toilet in my clothes.

Honestly I never want to see that in my bathroom on my toilet ever again.

Stranger that should say

Crikey just watched this. None of the lawyers agree (even those on the same side). How on earth are services supposed to navigate this when none of the lawyers can agree?

I am just watching this now. Anum Qaisar Has clearly observed and learned from Caroline Nokes’ playbook of disingenuous questions, insincere affections and smug fallacies. Did she school her directly, or did they both get trained by the same fool?

Naomi Cunningham on the other hand. Wow. So perfectly pitched - taking down each nonsense intervention without being belittling or patronising (in the way that they actually deserved - what grace!) and using the correct-sexed pronouns, so that the whole thing is as clear as day.

Anum Qaisar was clearly flustered, because whoever briefed her before the session, told her the demand for ‘evidence for thousands’ would be the gotcha that would have the whole thing done and dusted, but because she was clearly briefed by someone a bit dim, it didn’t go according to plan and she was left all at sea.

I guess it is now obvious that the interaction between the equality act and the gra is not clear and is contested which may provoke necessary reform

Look at their faces behind him whilst he talks absolute bollocks

And here's a laughing one

Yeah - that was a bit left field. 😂

The way he's holding his fingers/messing with his hands here shows he is very uncomfortable.

It's just got too much for Maya. She's having a fit of the giggles

Just got to "the law says if you don't have a GRC you are male"

Interesting. I wonder who doesn't have one and who does?

I feel swizzled out of something. We only got stirring cauldrons

using the correct-sexed pronouns, so that the whole thing is as clear as day

And nice simple 'man who thinks he's a woman'. No euphemistic messing.

At 49 mins is Maya cracking up because Helen showed her the #terfgogglebox pic?!

You what now?