Gender again. Sorry!

[monkers]

Blimey! A lot of words have been written since I partially switched off from this thread in order to concentrate better on other things for a bit. I'm not saying that there's been nothing illuminating in the mix, but as someone who considered herself quite well up on the issues involved, I feel further away than ever from where I attempted to start.

For all that I agree that icowden's caricatures are reductive and insulting, I can't help but conclude that he has a point about discrimination claims in relation to prison accommodation requests. Discrimination claims require a comparator, and previous litigation in this area has involved (legally male) prisoners with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment (but without a GRC) having their treatment assessed by comparison to that of a hypothetical male prisoner without the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. It seems merely a matter of time before a lawyer successfully argues that the possession of a GRC means that the appropriate comparator must be a female prisoner? Again I stress that I am not a legal expert, but I remember this point being made by Julian Norman (FOTP) in the context of an exchange with Stephanie Hayden, as it prompted me to reference it in a submission in the public consultation at the time, which was back when it seemed possible to have a constructive debate in public about these things.

I respect Monkers' intention to offer a counterweight to fear and panic, but if the law seems (to reasonably well informed people who might need to use it) to to be a contradictory mess riddled with circular definitions, conflated key terms, incompatible pieces of key legislation, and alarming unintended consequences, then we have a problem, especially in the context of proposed legal changes, public understanding thereof, and a cultural climate extremely conducive to right-wing populist wedge politics. I recognise that the GRA predates the EA, but let's also not forget that the legislation replaced by the EA included the Sex Discrimination Act, and that there might be losses as well as gains from rolling up all unequal social relations into a single framework.

Thanks theclaud.

Here's the thing. The topic is a big one, full of legal complexities not always understood by all people. If you'll forgive the analogy, it's rather like Brexit. Sovereignty meant dfferent things to dfferent people. People argued endlessly about who held the power to do what. Few people actually read the Lisbon Treaty, instead accepting the gish gallop propaganda emanating and spreading across the various media.

My effort here is to try to be an explainer, a buster of myths, and lies, and promoter of truth, even where it sounds unpalatable. As an explainer of the law to the best of my ability, My explanation of the law does not necessarily mean that I think it is good law or well written law, just that it is an understanding of what parliament intended.

Caricatures are often negatively drawn to attempt the win in an argument. To me they are never healthy or helpful to a useful discussion.

I'm not here to win. I came to this place to attempt to explain. Language is problematic, I've attempted to tackle this. Trans women are in the umbrella group of 'transgender' but those people are not transgender since their gender identity is confirmed rather than changed as the word implies. Nor are trans people the same as others in the group such a transvestite men and drag queens. The drivers for each group are much different.

As it happens, today AS and I have reached some agreement in two key areas, which shows the power of reasonable discussion is possible.

But like Brexit, once people more fully understand the status quo they become equipped to think about how things can be made better, and avoid the traps of making things worse. I know this reads pompously; I'm at the limit of my eloquence here.

I'd like to be able to continue answering questions asked in good faith and providing explainers to people who might read them. That will then make a sound basis for returning to the OP and discussing if the proposed model is the change that is needed. Time will tell, but I suspect people's boredom thresholds might be breached before we get to a conclusion.

Post 1216 who'dathought it.

 

[classic33]

Post 1216 who'dathought it.

I've seen a similar thread elsewhere on Page 780, when last looked at.

 

[theclaud]

Few people actually read the Lisbon Treaty

Guilty as charged.

 

[monkers]

I've seen a similar thread elsewhere on Page 780, when last looked at.

Blimey, some proper wordsmiths in this place.

 

[theclaud]

Holy grail 'Like' result, here.

 

[Ian H]

Blimey! A lot of words have been written since I partially switched off from this thread in order to concentrate better on other things for a bit. I'm not saying that there's been nothing illuminating in the mix, but as someone who considered herself quite well up on the issues involved, I feel further away than ever from where I attempted to start.

For all that I agree that icowden's caricatures are reductive and insulting, I can't help but conclude that he has a point about discrimination claims in relation to prison accommodation requests. Discrimination claims require a comparator, and previous litigation in this area has involved (legally male) prisoners with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment (but without a GRC) having their treatment assessed by comparison to that of a hypothetical male prisoner without the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. It seems merely a matter of time before a lawyer successfully argues that the possession of a GRC means that the appropriate comparator must be a female prisoner? Again I stress that I am not a legal expert, but I remember this point being made by Julian Norman (FOTP) in the context of an exchange with Stephanie Hayden, as it prompted me to reference it in a submission in the public consultation at the time, which was back when it seemed possible to have a constructive debate in public about these things.

I respect Monkers' intention to offer a counterweight to fear and panic, but if the law seems (to reasonably well informed people who might need to use it) to to be a contradictory mess riddled with circular definitions, conflated key terms, incompatible pieces of key legislation, and alarming unintended consequences, then we have a problem, especially in the context of proposed legal changes, public understanding thereof, and a cultural climate extremely conducive to right-wing populist wedge politics. I recognise that the GRA predates the EA, but let's also not forget that the legislation replaced by the EA included the Sex Discrimination Act, and that there might be losses as well as gains from rolling up all unequal social relations into a single framework.

I didn't know Julian had been a member. I'm not sure that gender law is her particular speciality, but I'd certainly respect her opinion on it.

 

[theclaud]

I didn't know Julian had been a member. I'm not sure that gender law is her particular speciality, but I'd certainly respect her opinion on it.

Of CC, not of this ghetto specifically. Immigration specialist, AIUI, but was once a trustee of Filia and also ran a feminist law Twitter account which I found illuminating on this sort of stuff for a while - I think she subsequently handed it over to some less thoughtful sorts and it became a bit 'Aurora' - although I might be misremembering...

 

[monkers]

This is an interesting case. Like Isla Bryson, the case in an outlier, so let's not get too exercised. This time it is a repeat sex offender who demanded sex at knifepoint from a stranger. The offender escaped a jail sentence and remains a potential danger to the public. If they were sent down, I wonder what the risk assessment would look like.

 

[newfhouse]

If women don't want to be around male bodies whilst in vulnerable spaces, that's enough of a reason. If you are disabled and want a same sex carer for your intimate washing, that's reason enough. It doesn't matter whether the person doing it is lovely, you are entitled to same sex care. That applies to men too.

I do have some sympathy with this but at the same time I can’t help hearing echoes of white patients demanding care from white nurses only.

 

[mudsticks]

I do have some sympathy with this but at the same time I can’t help hearing echoes of white patients demanding care from white nurses only.

It's a totally false equivalence, to equate a woman's aversion to male bodied people, with racism.

Men do disproportionately harass, and hurt, and sexually abuse women, statistically far more than other women do the same to women.

It happens everyday to millions of women.
Its not all men, but it's enough of them for the precautionary principle to be valid.

In fact as women we're told were being unwise, or taking risks, or even 'asking for it' if we do put ourselves in vulnerable situations around men.

That's not for no reason.
And it will often be implied it's our fault if something bad happens.

But then in other situations of vulnerability were supposed to just override all that often quite reasonable caution, because if we don't we're being 'discriminatory' ??

To equate a womans self protective caution around male bodied people, with racism, is deeply insulting.

 

[multitool]

Early kick-off this morning, I see

 

[newfhouse]

false equivalence

equate

That’s really not what I said, is it?

 

[mudsticks]

That’s really not what I said, is it?

Saying 'i can't help hearing echoes'
Implies that you think there is an equivalence, even if only a faint one, between women being extra cautious around men, and racism.

When there is no equivalence whatsoever.

If that's not what you meant, then why bring it up. ??

 

[newfhouse]

Saying 'i can't help hearing echoes'
Implies that you think there is an equivalence, even if only a faint one, between women being extra cautious around men, and racism.

When there is no equivalence whatsoever.

If that's not what you meant, then why bring it up. ??

I remember a time - and in truth it hasn’t gone completely - when some women would fear consulting a black male doctor more than a white one. Charitably, when immigrants in the health service were a relative novelty, it was fear of the unknown. Racism was used by those with a right wing agenda to amplify those fears.

I do think there’s an echo of that in the way that unsavoury right wing interests are promoting and encouraging fear now. Again, in an effort to head off accusations of ‘equivalence’ I’m not saying that because one fear is unfounded that the other must be too. Hell, I even said I have sympathy with those affected by such anxieties but there are parallels, however distant, that are worth pondering, aren’t there?

As with much of this topic I dont have a fully formed or static position that I’m seeking to defend. We’re mostly just chatting through the issues and our feelings about those issues, aren’t we?

 

[mudsticks]

I remember a time - and in truth it hasn’t gone completely - when some women would fear consulting a black male doctor more than a white one. Charitably, when immigrants in the health service were a relative novelty, it was fear of the unknown. Racism was used by those with a right wing agenda to amplify those fears.

I do think there’s an echo of that in the way that unsavoury right wing interests are promoting and encouraging fear now. Again, in an effort to head off accusations of ‘equivalence’ I’m not saying that because one fear is unfounded that the other must be too. Hell, I even said I have sympathy with those affected by such anxieties but there are parallels, however distant, that are worth pondering, aren’t there?

As with much of this topic I dont have a fully formed or static position that I’m seeking to defend. We’re mostly just chatting through the issues and our feelings about those issues, aren’t we?

Nope I think it's a very poor parallel to draw.
.
And I notice how you've hinted that it was only women who were racist about the doctor they saw, it was hardly that - and it's still not now .
Hell we still have plenty of people who would question the competency of a doctor who happened to be a woman..

Of course the rightwing press et al are stoking up unfounded fear around all sorts of things, including the trans issue, that's what they do.

But that still doesn't mean it's ok to draw any sort of parallel between womens justifiable caution around men, and totally unjustifiable racism..

The old "I have sympathy but"

subtext
"but - you might also be making a bit too much unjustified silly fuss about all this."

Is something women have had to put up with for far too long, regarding their own wellbeing, rights, and safety..

P.s. just so you know 'feelings' isn't what we're supposed to be talking about here, anyway, it's legal stuff, and statistics...

..unless of course those feelings are deemed acceptable to the narrative. 👍🏼