As I said in the OP this has happened because of women's groups and self appointed spokeswomen eg Joan Smith who aren't answerable to anyone.
Sometimes those on FWR need to look outside of this forum because a lot of women, not because they are TRAs, but have really bizarre ideas about feminism.
eg the one promoted by women's groups who put themselves forward as representative of women NOT because either the UK Parliament or the Scottish Government selected them.
And this was discussed at the time how this high profile (self aggrandising) women were selling us all out.
Their arguement was that because having a Hate Crime category for sex would not help women because the law never works anyway.
As many of us said, who tried to challenge this really back to front idea, them saying that was as banana as saying we shouldn't have a category of Hate Crime covering Race because as we all know it hasn't really helped.
Can you imagine saying as nothing will change so dont lets bother including the predominant cause of hate crime because institutions wont bother with it.
Even if for nothing else, by including a category, whether Race or Sex recognises that both of these groupings are subject to discrimination and worse, eg acts of hate.
And yet a certain group of women, who think they are the experts at wheeler dealering with politicians, and presume to know better than the not so self inflated egos of feminists, have sold us all out.
Again you could say, as with women's refuges etc., those of us who say we care about the issue are as much to blame for not being there, actively participating.
Wonderful as FWR it is now, more than it ever used to be, it is now a single issue forum, rather than a well rounded feminist forum where naturally the issue of sex and gender would be discussed as being part of feminism.
So of course the patriarchy listened to those who helped them, because lets face it if sex had been included under Hate Crimes, not just in Scotland but the UK wide law, the courts would be overwhelmed. eg domestic violence, rape, pornography. And Andrew Tate would have been a criminal from the start.
Women who say they are feminist, and as on this thread, are quoted and praised on other issues, are the ones who handed governments this easy way out.
Misogyny just as a title for the bill already waters down the concept of what the bill is compared to a Hate Crime bill. Misogyny is about a "predudice", hate crimes are about actual hostility.
What is a shame that getting caught up in the headline type responses nobody bothered with the fact that the Scottish law is in line with the existing UK wide one passed earlier.
And it would have been useful to have campaigned on how women as a sex had not been offered the same protection as other protected characteristic groups (not forgetting the disabled people are also not covered) and the negative impact of that, by how that has been working.
Underlying TRA activism is the fundamental platform that under pins it, ie the societly wide culture of MRAs.
If society as a whole respected women, obviously sex would have been part of both Hate Crime laws.
Not because of trans culture, but the pre existing and totally embeded culture that women are just lesser beings, and not worthy of consideration, let alone laws that treat them equally.
If society actually respected women TRAs would never have got the foothold they have.
They would have just been dismissed as delusionists.
And of course, by excluding sex as the basis on which a hate crime might be committed, also helps the rampant MRA culture we live in obscure the reality that women as a sex class are oppressed by the sex class of men.
Unfortunately there is no mechanism for saying, please dont listen to this or that group, and as we know, if we all wrote or emailed in as individuals the process would have automatically graded contributions from individuals as not being as relevant as from a "group" that claims it is representative of women.