Read on Twitter
So, the committee hearing went I think very well. Most of the questions were relatively open and respectful.
At his point, however, we get more evidence of the way in which the presumption of the importance of trans people's
http://Parliamentlive.tv https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/dfc9f53e-2ac4-4c30-8712-e3df47938fd7?in=16:30:22
At his point, however, we get more evidence of the way in which the presumption of the importance of trans people's
http://Parliamentlive.tv https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/dfc9f53e-2ac4-4c30-8712-e3df47938fd7?in=16:30:22
people's needs and feelings over against women's interests is underlying the present problem, and the toxicity of the debate in general, which was discussed.
We made good points. To reiterate.
1. There is some data which indicates that offending rates do not change by gender
We made good points. To reiterate.
1. There is some data which indicates that offending rates do not change by gender
identification. There is some dispute around these, obviously, but it is the only data we have at present.
Which brings us to:
2. There needs to be more data on this, especially given the claim that anyone should be able to ID as a woman, https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885
Which brings us to:
2. There needs to be more data on this, especially given the claim that anyone should be able to ID as a woman, https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885
and given the current climate, no data is being produced.
3. There is no reason to believe that gender identification should change male pattern offending. It's a really improbable assertion. You need to prove it.
4. We have plenty of evidence of single instances in which male
3. There is no reason to believe that gender identification should change male pattern offending. It's a really improbable assertion. You need to prove it.
4. We have plenty of evidence of single instances in which male
pattern offending is clearly evident. Again, if you want us to think these are outliers, you need to prove it.
5. As the GC women articulated here, this goes against the whole general structure of the precautionary principle and burden of proof. If you want to do something that
5. As the GC women articulated here, this goes against the whole general structure of the precautionary principle and burden of proof. If you want to do something that
changes current practices, in a way that to many poses an obvious risk, the onus is on you to demonstrate that it's not a risk. Calling women hysterical won't cut it. You need to prove it. Otherwise you are running a massive social experiment with women's safety. Unacceptable.
6. The whole 'you're calling us all predators and demonising us' gambit is just another version of NAMALT. No one said they were. What you are saying is that there should be a group of males who are a priori immune from being suspected of being a possible threat to women and
children. No society that takes the safeguarding of women and children seriously should do that. EVER.
And then, right at the end, we get the egregious, 'SAY THE CATECHISM YOU MEAN BITCHES' move.
https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/dfc9f53e-2ac4-4c30-8712-e3df47938fd7?in=16:37:33
And then, right at the end, we get the egregious, 'SAY THE CATECHISM YOU MEAN BITCHES' move.
https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/dfc9f53e-2ac4-4c30-8712-e3df47938fd7?in=16:37:33
SMUG DUDE KLAXON.
This is actually fucking outrageous.
There is a whole effort here, some of which I think is genuinely intended, to sort out this egregious toxic mess. The GC women outline very clearly what has made this so fraught... and a lot of it, as @ProfAliceS
This is actually fucking outrageous.
There is a whole effort here, some of which I think is genuinely intended, to sort out this egregious toxic mess. The GC women outline very clearly what has made this so fraught... and a lot of it, as @ProfAliceS
makes very clear, comes down to the fact that government has not stood up for the rights of women to assert their own interests, against the efforts by TRAs, perfectly demonstrated here by the TRA academics, to demonise and refuse all legitimacy to our concerns.
And then this dude strolls in and tries to put us in the corner as the bad wimmins for not adhering to the catechism, which is not true and which is against our interests.
This whole slogan and the effort to posit anyone who will not take it as an article of sacred faith as
This whole slogan and the effort to posit anyone who will not take it as an article of sacred faith as
somehow bad and evil, is the core of the whole mechanism that has created this mess.
If our legislators genuinely want to sort out this trainwreck, they need to stop trying people by fealty tests.
As Alice says, grown people do not think in slogans.
If our legislators genuinely want to sort out this trainwreck, they need to stop trying people by fealty tests.
As Alice says, grown people do not think in slogans.
And politics in a grown up democracy should not be done by it.
Parliament is not Tumblr.
Three cheers for our team. Well played all.
That was stressful
*Pours LARGE glass of wine*
Parliament is not Tumblr.
Three cheers for our team. Well played all.
That was stressful
*Pours LARGE glass of wine*