When women had evidence to support their arguments against the GRR Bill Scotgov rejected it on the basis of being "anecdotal." When trans activists and #Scotgov funded groups had evidence to support their arguments it was valid because it was "lived experience." Someone laughed
at Russell Findlay MSP for saying "there was no evidence there was no evidence" that self-id could present a risk to women. Of course what he meant was absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The fact most of the countries cited by Scotgov as having had problem free self-
id laws have not kept data or information on any possible impacts. Ignoring also that many women will not report and women in prison, refuges etc will be reluctant to report. We know there have been impacts. No, this is a deliberate act on the part of our democratically
elected govt to misrepresent not only the need for this legislation but a blatant minimising of risk to women as a result. Roll on Section 35.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
