Proposed Scottish Misogyny Law

[RebelliousCow]

Humsa Yousaf says TW will be protected by the proposed Scottish Misogyny Law:

"Humza Yousaf insisted that "anyone affected" by misogyny would be covered, whatever their biological sex"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cw59e7dg2nlo

Let me guess the rank misogyny of claiming that womanhood is nothing more than an internal feeling and dress sense won't be classed as a crime, but I bet calling a man a man and telling him to leave the lady's will be (aswell as a transphobic hate crime)

this will 100% be used by TW to come after actual women to accuse them of misogyny

yes. But we’ll have our heads collectively patted and told not to worry about it as It Will Never Happen, even as we ask how on earth they are going to define women and misogyny in this new law.

It’s all a posturing waste of time. What is the harm that this proposed law will address, that is not already covered by existing laws? Discrimination and prejudice is already not permitted with remedy available under civil law. Abuse, assault, rape and murder are already criminal offences. It’s just another step along the path of criminalising wrong opinions. If they were talking about strengthening the laws and sentencing for voyeurism or stalking for example then I might think they were taking women’s safety more seriously. But like the hate crime nonsense, simply being an offensive arsehole should not be criminalised, because laws can be written that defines any one of us as an offensive arsehole. Nobody is safe.

I'd be happy if they would just stop giving rapist diversions from prosecution and effectively prosecuted rapists personally

Great news

Article in the Times:

You are surely not serious?

So... let me try to figure this out... under the hate-crime legislation, it is the perception of the 'victim' that determines whether or not it's a crime [or whatever that non-crime thing is]; in the case of the proposed misogyny law, it is the intention of the 'perpetrator' that determines whether or not it's a crime..
Maybe it's me, but this sounds like a case of 'a woman's place is in the wrong'.

A propos - I think it was a different interview earlier today, I just caught a minute of it, sorry to be vague - the FM started his response to a question about gender/health/Cass with something like 'As Stonewall says....'
Talk about nailing your colours [pastel blue and pink] to the mast!

Isn't it the perception of the victim of the perpetrator's intent?

What do you understand "being GC" to actually mean?

You don't sound as if you're critical of the concept of gender, that set of stereotypes beloved by traditional religious conservatives and trans idealogues alike?

This is such a load of crap. I'm white with a foreign name, lost count of how many times people who haven't met me assume me to not be white. It means I've come across unpleasant racist people in the past.

How insanely inappropriate would it be for me to claim these incidents affected me the same as they would a black or brown person who has a lifetime of living in a society prejudiced against them, and for whom this incident might feel like the final straw?

Vanishingly few transwomen pass, therefore it's likely to be transphobia, sexism and homophobia that they experience. Is the law going to set out who passes and who doesn't? Or are we going to have to pretend all transwomen pass so they can claim to have experienced misogyny? (Don't worry, I know the answer already).

Isn't it the perception of the victim of the perpetrator's intent?

Of course! How could I have failed to understand that?
Heck, I guess that's what makes you ArabellaScott and me MarieDeGournay🙂

Actually, sorry, I think I've got that muddled. It's the victim's perception that counts for making a report/police report.

In law, in the Act, I think it's the 'reasonable person's' perception of the perp's intent.

Going to have a whole load of men bragging about the misogyny hate crime they've reported against themselves 🙄

Presumably we can't report TW for the pure misogyny that is the assumption that woman is a fucking costume??!

I'm so done

SNP are doubling down on laws to protect transwomen whilst blatantly taking the piss out of women and girls. Who is he kidding? There's no hope for Scotland with these people making up the rules.

Yet again the Scottish government show us what they think of women.

""When a trans woman is walking down the street and a threat of rape is made against them, the man making the threat doesn’t know if they are a trans woman or a cis woman. They will make that threat because the perception of that person [is] as a woman."

What planet is he on?

And fuck me, "cis". Can we complain about his misogyny?

I don't know if this article has been shared yet anywhere, I missed it when it was first published on Sunday.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/454effc6-b9a5-4580-ba63-0b8c7d70ead9?shareToken=55e87036310a233291a4c3e5e969a668

Thanks for that @Igneococcus .

I think it will depend on how they define "misogyny" and "woman". If the law is clear that the offense is based on sex and not gender, I don't see the problem with protecting trans women who are attacked bc the attacker thinks he's a natal woman. That's what most laws dealing with discrimination or prejudice say. If someone denies me a job bc they think I'm Jewish, it's antisemitism even if I'm not. If they won't rent to me bc they think I'm disabled, it's a violation even if I don't have whatever disability they think I have.

E.g., based on Scotland's Offence of racially aggravated harassment, the statute might read:

A person commits an offence if the person—

(a)pursues a[n] racially aggravated course of conduct which amounts to harassment of another person on account of misogyny and—

(i)is intended to amount to harassment of that person, or

(ii)occurs in circumstances where it would appear to a reasonable person that it would amount to harassment of that person, or

(b) acts in a manner which is raciallyaggravated by misogyny and which causes, or is intended to cause, another person alarm or distress.

(2)A course of conduct or an action is racially aggravated by misogyny if—

(a)at the time of carrying out the course of conduct or action, or immediately before or after doing so—

(i)the offender demonstrates malice and ill-will towards the victim, and

(ii)the malice and ill-will is based on the victim's membership or presumed membership of a group defined by reference to the female sex, or

(b)the course of conduct or action is motivated (wholly or partly) by malice and ill-will towards a group of persons based on the group being defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship), or ethnic or national origins the female sex.

Misogyny should be defined as malice or ill will based on membership in the female sex class, not gender.

This would make it clear that it doesn't apply to someone calling a trans woman a man bc they clearly don't think that the transwoman is a member of the female sex class. It wouldn't apply if someone harassed a trans woman bc he was trans or not a woman (though laws that prohibit discrimination bc of trans status might).

It wouldn't be appropriate to claim it affects you the same as someone who isn't white. But if the behaviour would have been criminal if you weren't white it would be just as appropriate to prosecute because the criminal intent of the perpetrator is what counts and if you can get them for this crime that makes it less likely they'll manage to repeat the crime on someone else (who probably wouldn't be white).

If you were talking about suing in civil court for damages, the fact you're white would be far more relevant. But criminal law is much more about the criminal intent of the accused, not the damage done to the victim. Hence why you can be prosecuted for attempted crimes or conspiring to commit crimes.

Thank you for this. Your explanation is clear and makes sense. I don't have a great deal of faith in the Scottish Government that they will define on sex rather than gender.

I don't have a great deal of faith in the Scottish Government that they will define on sex rather than gender.

Nor do I. As typical for a politician, Yousaf's statements seem intentionally vague and ambiguous. What he said could apply whether the law was based on sex or gender. We need to watch this legislation carefully to make sure it's directed at hatred or harassment based on the female sex class. It wouldn't hurt to have that defined as well.

You're welcome and I'm glad my post was helpful.

I saw someone make an excellent point on Twitter yesterday.

The people who make outlandish claims about humans not being able to tell what sex other humans are, or that we've used toilets and changing rooms next to hundreds of trans women without being aware of it because they pass, are the same people who want us to respect preferred pronouns.

The only reason preferred pronouns exist is because we can all see what sex someone is.

Most of us use sex based pronouns 99% of the time. We don't have to ask what sex based pronouns to use because we can see what sex they are and so we assume we are using sex based pronouns unless someone tells us otherwise.

If you actually looked like a they/them instead of a she/her, or a she/her instead of a he/him, you wouldn't need to ask people to call you that.

What about autogynephiles? They fetishise women's oppression.

Paris Lees says being treated like a piece of meat is hot. Or what about Andrea Long Chu "getting fucked makes you female because fucked is what female is".

These men positively court misogyny as validation. It arouses them.

And now they can get turned on and have women arrested for doing it.

A law against misogyny that actually enables it.

SG trying once again to shoehorn self id into the law.
Spanish women already suffering because of it.

https://reduxx.info/spain-men-charged-with-violence-against-women-using-transgender-law-to-change-legal-sex-access-shelters-where-their-victims-are-housed/

All of which was predicted would happen with selfID. Concerns dismissed as transphobia. How could people be so naive to thi k men would not abuse such a system?