kuningan

Wrote to my MP. "If the Labour Party and Government will not fight the corner of working class women - what is it for?"

This is correct. Sean said he made his complaint after following your writing on it, and then speaking to friends who had lost money and were similarly reading your updates. It’s remarkable that people within the SNP who presumably read this as well didn’t come to the same conclusion and instead dismissed it or even mocked it.

14/ And this is why Swinney’s “victim of criminality” line will not wash. The criminality was able to happen because Sturgeon and Swinney lied about the money having gone missing. By saying “nothing to see here”, both Sturgeon and Swinney facilitated Murrell’s criminal behaviour.

13/ This timeline explains why Murrell was able to continue the embezzlement for so long. Sturgeon, Swinney, and numerous other senior SNP figures were trying to cover up run-of-the-mill dishonesty, and this allowed criminal dishonesty to continue (and to accelerate) unchecked.

As Australia’s sex discrimination commissioner rightly goes viral for insisting that men who claim to be women need pregnancy protections in law, it’s important to put into perspective what is happening to the law: Men are getting protections they don’t need (pregnancy) while taking away protections women do need (single sex spaces & sport, etc). This is incoherent and is an embarrassment for legislators with every day the law remains this way. What you can do: email all MPs & Senators informing them that you want the sex discrimination act fixed - BACK THE BILL.

In order to protect men from men, we need to give men access to places men can't access.

The risk of a woman being abused or assaulted in the women's toilet is indeed low, as long as it remains women-only. Risk goes up considerably when men are admitted to women's spaces. thetimes.com/life-style/sex… I'd be very interested to see the statistics on a trans-identified man's risk of being assaulted in the men's bathroom. Do you have them, @owenjonesjourno?

NEW: We have written to the Minister for Women and Equalities Bridget Phillipson, calling on her to withdraw the “asking about sex” section of the EHRC code of practice for service providers because it is legally wrong.

“For far too long we were called transphobes, bigots, TERFs, right wing, anything to try & silence us & get us to go away. But this has never been a culture war.”

@HilllbillyHugs @akuareindorf @KirstiMiller30 If trans women were women they wouldn't be prefixed with "trans". That's there because they are men. Only men can be trans women.

@kuningan @akuareindorf @KirstiMiller30 Learn to deal with the fact that Trans women are women, through the same mechanisms as all other women. Then you may be more open to understanding the rest of the science.

In common use, ‘discrimination’ refers only to the unjustified, unethical or illegal, forms of discrimination. But international human rights frameworks include provisions for when we can justify what is otherwise discriminatory. There’s a four-fold test. First, the policy must be in service of a worthy social goal. We have prisons and override the right to freedom of movement, partly on the grounds that doing so is in service of the worthy social goal of ‘promoting public safety.’ We can argue about whether this is effective, but the first test is merely to ensure that policies are in service of a worthy social goal. Second, the policy must be necessary for the promotion of the worthy social goal. If we can achieve the worthy social goal without infringing upon human rights, then we must. We can only potentially be justified in overriding human rights if doing so is necessary for promoting a worthy social goal. Arguably, the death penalty is not necessary for promoting public safety, and thus arguably fails this second test. Third, the policy must be effective at promoting the worthy social goal. Even if a discriminatory policy might be judged necessary for promoting a worthy social goal, if it isn’t effective at doing so, then it fails to be justified. Aprimary justification for the death penalty is to deter other crime. Arguably, evidence suggests that the death penalty is not effective at such deterrence. And since there are other methods capable of preventing someone from reoffending, the death penalty is neither necessary nor effective, and so is not justified. Finally, the benefit from promoting the worthy social goal must be proportional to the harm caused to the group or individuals discriminated against by the policy. Generally, policies that discriminate against already vulnerable or stigmatised social groups, even if they are necessary and effective in service of a worthy social goal, will fail to be sufficiently proportional. Appeal to the small size of a group will not suffice, either: the proportionality test is not a utilitarian calculus whereby a large group can benefit greatly at the expense of a few. What’s most crucial about human rights is that the default position is inclusion. The default is not “Exclude trans women until we have more evidence about there not being an advantage or a threat. Rather, the default must be “Include trans women unless we have sufficient evidence to justify discrimination in an international human rights framework. This is why the human rights framework controls this “debate.” Trans women don’t have to justify our inclusion even in sports. The burden of argument is entirely on those who seek to exclude us. And, , that burden has not yet been met in a single female space including female sports, and is unlikely ever to be met. Trans-exclusionary policies fail on every measure. And finally, trans women are a heavily stigmatized and marginalized group, particularly trans women of color, and particularly trans women of color from the global south. And since the benefits to society of discriminatory policies that further harm an already marginalised, stigmatized group tend not to be proportional, excluding trans women also fails the proportionality test. The blanket excluding trans women is not justified under an international human rights framework, under which even the participation in sport as a human right is subsumed!!!!!! google.com/url?q=https://…

@HilllbillyHugs @akuareindorf @KirstiMiller30 Neurological condition does not win medals. Male puberty, heart and lung capacity and muscle strength do.

@akuareindorf @KirstiMiller30

EXCL: Nicola Sturgeon refused to comment and sat in silence for hours during her police interview - despite publicly claiming to be "cooperating fully" with cops thescottishsun.co.uk/news/16305227/…

@RosieDuffield1 @suffolkvicar Man says “Yes” does not trump women say “no”. That is an entirely sufficient condition.

@suffolkvicar We say it loud, we say it clear. No.

Say it loud, say it clear ‘Excluding trans peoples from single sex spaces will not make c!s women safer.’

@ginadavidsonlbc Not buying it. If I come home from shops with wrong milk type I get Spanish Inquisition and have to file a report. If I parked a new jag on drive the full audit would begin.

I see @UKLabour MPs are faithfully repeating the line that Govt has managed to “scale back” some “harmful elements” of the @EHRC Code of Practice. They don’t know what Govt has “scaled back”. They haven’t seen the post-consultation version sent to @bphillipsonmp in Sep 25 …/1

The co-signatories to the account included Colin Beattie MSP (still); and the chair of the NEC when questioners were bullied out was Kirsteen Oswald MSP, now a minister in the Scottish Government's Justice team. The other signatory was of course Ms Sturgeon./

@soniasodha It’s rather concerning that the people who make the laws don’t know how to change them - should they have the courage. I’d like to see them try!

The MPs claiming the government has successfully ‘scaled back the law’ through making amendments to the EHRC Code of Practice don’t know what they’re talking about. They’re just saying it because they think it makes them look good and the EHRC bad.

And so, inevitably, the lavender husband throws himself under the bus as @NicolaSturgeon (me/me) avoids the whole corrupt affair being put before a court and the public. Scotland is run by charlatans - and you keep voting for them. You reap what you sow.

Nicola Sturgeon can't just run away. She says she had "no knowledge or suspicion" her husband was using SNP funds for "personal purposes". Where did she think the money came from then? Did she never ask? Any other spouse in the kindgom would surely have asked.

I mean, you would notice, wouldn't you? Did he just take them out to look at when Sturgeon wasn't there?