Humza Yousaf baffling tweet (TW: about s*xual assault)

[ValerieDoonican]

He can't really believe this can he?https://x.com/HumzaYousaf/status/1780538428158836800

It is good that he has apparently acknowledged that people suffer discrimination and abuse because of other people’s perceptions, and that this has absolutely nothing to do with feelings of identity.

@CantDealwithChristmas that is an interesting point about mosques. Are they allowing men who call themselves women to pray with the women?
And if not is this subject to prosecution in Scotland?

I understand his tweet perfectly.

He isn’t talking about actual a rape, but the threat to do so.

It’s criminal to threaten to rape a person, regardless of their sex.
If they actually penetrated an orifice with their penis, then it would still be rape, regardless of sex.

Male on female or male penetration with a penis is still rape.

If the man threatening rape thinks he is threatening a woman, then that is driven by misogyny because he is acting on the basis of his perception.

I am interested in whether he would use the ‘nobody knows, you can’t possibly tell’ line in this instance.

In fairness, I suppose if a TW is presenting as a woman on twitter then he may receive misogynistic messages online from men who don't realise.

Less likely to happen in person though.

He could say ‘this is in line with perceptive discrimination laws’ without suggesting that somebody who identifies as a woman is as likely to be threatened with rape as somebody who is a woman.

How has he suggested they are equally likely? In fact, by listing born a woman first, he is suggesting that is more likely than the second scenario; threatening rape to someone passing that was born a transwoman(male).

Have you not read the tweet? He said it was unlikely that a man would know the difference. He didn’t mention passing.

Only if they are passing would it be unlikely.
If they aren’t passing, then it wouldn’t be unlikely would it?

I’m interested to know why a threat to rape would need to be specifically included in a misogyny law. Would that make it more serious if threatened against a woman/girl than a man/boy?

Hw didn’t make that distinction at all.

No, I used logic to deduce it.

Perceptive discrimination isn't necessarily a stupid idea. I'm not Jewish, but sometimes people think I am, and if an antisemite assumes I'm Jewish then I'm not going to bother to correct them.

It's at least theoretically possible that I could be subject to antisemitic discrimination or harassment despite not having the protected characteristic - because the perpetrator thought I did.

What is stupid is Humza creating Schrodinger's TW, where he's just brought in a hate crime law to protect them on the basis of their trans status, but also wants them included in the proposed misogyny law, and justifies that by saying that nobody can possibly tell their trans status.

@KestrelMoon Your deduction is irrelevant here - HY was quite clear in what he said. If he meant something else then he should have been more explicit.

Perceptive discrimination isn't necessarily a stupid idea. I'm not Jewish, but sometimes people think I am, and if an antisemite assumes I'm Jewish then I'm not going to bother to correct them.

It's definitely not a stupid idea and is well established in law already.

I agree he was quite clear in what he said.

I disagree with the illogical deduction that he was suggesting the two scenarios are equally likely.

It is far more logical to deduce that the use of “unlikely” is setting a baseline of him talking about everyone who passes for a woman and is thereby a potential victim of misogynist rape threats.

After all, if a transwoman isn’t passing as a woman, then misogyny is not applicable at all. So he cannot be including anyone who doesn’t pass for/isnt perceived as a woman.

You seem to be saying that only TW who 'pass' (the very few...) can be said to be on the receiving end of misogynistic attacks and those who don't pass (the vast, vast majority) can't be - have I got that correct? If so, HY doesn't say that - he's very clear that TWAW (apart from the odd rapist who's at it, when pushed on the issue).

He did say it in his tweet. Furthermore all hate crime law says it too.
Hate crimes are based on the perception and intent of the perpetrator, not the actual identity of the victim.

So you think he meant to explicitly tweet

‘Trans women who do not pass are not covered by this law’.

interesting interpretation, but not one I agree with.

Where did he explicitly say the bill will only cover the tiny handful of TW who 'pass'?

Example, you are an Islamaphobe and you attack a woman wearing a head scarf, ripping it off because you think it is a hijab.

Lo and behold, the victim is a woman with alopecia and isn’t Muslim.

You are still guilty of an islamaphobic hate crime, because you perceived her as Muslim and your intent was to attack a woman for being a Muslim.

Hate crimes are always based on the victim being perceived as or passing as a vulnerable group.

If the person isn’t perceived as or passing as a member of the vulnerable group, then that type of hate crime cannot be applied.

They wouldn’t be. Misogyny as a hate crime would be treated the same as all other hate crimes in the law books.

So why not tweet ‘as with existing laws on discrimination anyone, male or female is included in this law, regardless of how they identify. All that is relevant is the perception of the perpetrator’.

I agree that would have been a better tweet. It’s not helpful to be unclear when discussing legislation.

I’m just trying to understand what you think he said.

You, a woman, smack a brunette woman in pub. You have no idea she identifies as Black because she is 1/4 black mixed race, she looked white to you. You cannot be found guilty of a racial hate crime, because without perceiving her as Black it is impossible to have intent to commit a racially based hate crime. All you have done is common assault.