Lucy Hunter Blackburn AT lucyhunterb
I am surprised to learn that up to October 2022 there was scope for normal rational discussion with the Scottish Government over the GRR Bill. It didn't feel like by [checks notes] the start of stage 2 of the Bill. This is just delusional. We were there.
On 6 Oct 2022 “any hope of finding common ground disappeared”?
This woman is on another planet.
We'd spent years trying to get something approaching a normal conversation with either the SG or the relevant Committee at that point.
Fortunately, there's a book about this.
Even if it's one that's not acceptable to Jenny Niven and the Book Festival.
Here's blog about how the SG changed nothing after its second consultation and continued to cite offensive articles, misrepresent the contents of others and ignore inconvenient evidence.
https://murrayblackburnmackenzie.org/2022/05/20/has-the-scottish-government-undertaken-any-further-analysis-on-gender-recognition-reform-since-2019/
Reading the blog, given Sturgeon comments I refer to these two paragraphs
Paragraphs 8 and 9 omit relevant evidence on the impact of reform on: single-sex exceptions; social conventions; self-exclusion from single-sex services; single-sex provision and fear of speaking out; and female prisoners and prison staff. Despite its clear relevance, the reference to freedom of speech in paragraph 8 is silent on Forstater v CGD Europe, in which the Employment Appeal Tribunal ruled that ‘gender critical’ beliefs (broadly, a belief that sex is binary and immutable and that a person cannot change their sex) are ‘worthy of respect in a democratic society’.
The framing in paragraph 10 is misleading: the key concern relates to the risks associated with males as a sex-class, no matter how they identify. Males have much higher levels of violent and sexual offending, including against women. However, the EQIA effectively concludes that this does not apply to a particular subset of males simply because they describe themselves as having a particular identity. The narrow focus on incidents of sexual violence against women also excludes relevant evidence of impacts on women’s privacy, dignity, and feelings of safety, and potential harms against children. Parts 2 to10 below discuss these points, and other significant ommissions in more detail.
The idea that women weren't raising these concerns back then, in a polite reasonable manner is absurd.
This is Sturgeon trying to rewrite history because the actual course of events makes her look terrible and like evidence was deliberately suppressed because it didn't fit the agenda of her government.
Whose responsibility is this ultimately?
Obviously JKRowling's and her toxic t-shirts which incited hatred. FFS.