Printable View
Niomi Cunningham an employment and discrimination lawyer explains to the women and equality committee why GRA will be a legal nightmare for small businesses to stop transfemales from from female only situations
https://mobile.twitter.com/treesey/s...60497069035520
@treesey
Brilliant from Naomi Cunningham speaking at
@Commonswomequ
explaining how self ID impacts small service providers - the refuge or the spray tanning salon
it seems to me that she's talking as though a man could just spontaneously self declare as a woman and walk in to a refuge. would it not still require 6 months of living as a woman to get a GRC under the GRA? my understanding is that the reason for it is that it is currently too difficult for trans people to transition, and that they need to endure a minimum of two years of going into toilets that don't match their gender identity. is there something in the act that i'm missing that makes it a much more imminent and spontaneous risk? i basically though the idea of it is to make it easier, i.e. less awful, to go through gender re-assignment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
It's 3 months not 6 unless you are 16 or 17. Also you don't need to live as a woman or man, you just fill in a form online and you are now a woman or a man. As it's self ID nobody is checking anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by AgentDaleCooper
After women raised concerns about the GRRB being a threat to women only spaces, we were told the the very idea that a predatory man would lie to gain entry to a woman only space was a transphobic dog whistle, then what we were told wouldn't happen did happen, Adam Graham AKA Isly Bryson a double rapist was in a women only prison. This shows that if you introduce Self-ID laws where any man can claim to be a women and be taken seriously, this will obviously be exploited by dangerous predators.
No-one is suggesting that trans people are predatory, but bad actors will exploit the system like Albert Cabellero who is in Saughton Prison for abducting and raping his female care worker, this person has asked to be called Claire and boasted to fellow inmates that he will be transferred to a female prison before he is released.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...ffenders-jail/
Where will the case ultimately land IF the Court of Sessions waves through the Bill?Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
I believe if in the unlikely case that a woman was offered a transsexual carer and she refused it, then she would be offered alternative care.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Not sure what you mean, are you saying if the Court of Session "waves through" the Bill it's legal or not? Isn't it to do with the use of the S35 order and was that used correctly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
To ultimately end up in the Supreme Court the SG would need to lose in both the outer and inner court of session held in Edinburgh, the most senior law officer in Scotland is the Lord Advocate who sits in Nicola Sturgeons cabinet.
Why do you think the Court of Session in Edinburgh is a Tory government organ as you described? Even the Supreme Court ruled against the Government on Brexit not that long ago.
You know who else is a fan of saying courts are corrupt and biased, Donald Trump, he does it all the time.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/dona...ry?id=69202950
Probably off topic though, so maybe belongs on another thread.
She would be offered same sex care, she will literally be a woman if the care provider chooses that. Many women who get care are non verbal also. Would you have believed a trans woman would have gone in a female refuge. It seems impossible but it comes out this week that it happens. Would you believe women could have rape crisis meetings with females only. That's also not happening. Some care providers are clearly choosing that trans females are literally women, Haldene ruling obviously furthers thisQuote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
My mother had what we thought was an irrational fear of one of her carers (it happens), we asked for another, no questions asked and we were provided with another. I think the same would happen if someone felt similar with a transgender woman.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
You're argumentation about non verbal patients shines a bit of light on your prejudice, how do we know these patients aren't already terrified of the carers they have for whatever reason? Why are you only concerned about their transgender fear?
Thankfully I've only encountered the care service twice in the recent past. Both times the carers where changed when requested. Both male and female carers took it in their stride. It happens.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
You'd think a trans female wouldn't be in a female refuge or rape support centre too, but companies are going with HaldaneQuote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
My mum worked with severely disabled people since before I can remember, many are family friends. It's not prejudice it's protection. The non verbal clients get female care only as standard where she worked, this is important. I'm concerned as sexual assaults are committed by men simply. Trans females won't be more or less likely to commit assaults, but men are the ones that do.
If the care provider decides to go by the Haldane decision just like some female refuge providers, then it will be seen as female only care.
Female only care isn't the main issue it's one of a huge group of female spaces situations and rights that are being dismissed
She sums up the difficulties very succinctly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Meanwhile I see Sturgeon has now stated that women can be rapists.
I really don't understand a lot of the issues, but an extension of some of the arguments would be banning male anaesthetists from treating female patients. Does this already happen in the UK?
Further to my previous points, if you google "uk doctor rapes patients", you can see many cases. Do I misunderstand something?
A further exchange today at FMQs which was somewhat odd. When asked about the rapist Isla Bryson Nicola Sturgeon said;
“This individual claims to be a woman.
“I don’t have information about whether those claims have validity.”
Isn't that the point of self ID, if someone says they are a woman then they are a woman.
With self ID how do you know if it's valid or not? There are zero checks.
We don't have self-ID yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
But she has in the past said a trans woman is a woman. Now she doesn't seem so sure. She also seems to think information should be available to see if a claim is valid or not, under self ID how do you check if a claim is valid of not?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
That's the law as it stands.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
Don't you like it? :greengrin
It's changing if they have their way if you say your female got literally are. I'm sure 90% wouldn't bother there arse if that applied to almost all situations bar some female reserved situationsQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I think you know I am talking about what would happen under self ID, that's pretty clear.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I am guessing there is no clear answer then, there would very likely be no information to check if it was valid or not.
This goes back to a comment made yesterday when someone said a "legitimate" trans person, how is a legitimate trans person identified versus a non legitimate trans person when it's all done via self ID.
I thought I heard the FM saying today that under the EA that trans women don't automatically get access to women's only spaces as there are exemptions, even those with a GRC.
The EA is on the face of the proposed GRRA
Did I hear correctly?
That's probably still to be tested in court especially in light of the Haldane ruling. That's my understanding. Hence the concern there wasn't the time taken to consider this ruling and the impact it may have.Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
Does the EA not have primacy?Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
It was put on the face of the bill in an amendment.
Just because it's in the Bill doesn't make it true.Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
Are you saying the EA isn't actually law then?Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
I think you understand the ridiculousness of the whole anti-trans debate quite well. Apparently it's only men who pretend to be trans-female that are a danger to vulnerable women needing care.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Tubs
You'd think so but some providers are going by the Haldene. You'd think a female refuge would be clearly protected as female only.Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
No, where did you get that from?Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
I am saying just because the GRA Bill says it doesn't impact the EA doesn't make it true.
Is this not where the equality commission comes in with guidance?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Does the EA have primacy on the bill?Quote:
Originally Posted by James310