Thread by @ForWomenScot

🧵about that @Edinburgh_CC motion yesterday.

As the motion was not heard until after 4pm, councillors were limited to one minute proposal & seconder speeches. Something as critical as a service for abused women in the city was given perfunctory treatment.

An earlier motion on Palestine got a great deal more attention. While this is clearly an important topic, it is not really one that ECC can do anything about. Unlike the funding of women’s services.

Let’s start with looking at the gruesome Greens.

Cllr Alex Stanisforth, the spiteful toad behind the threat to EWA, claimed that men not being allowed into women’s shelters it would be “the first step towards the dominance of c*s het white men over all others”. This is Cllr Staniforth.

democracy.edinburgh.gov.uk/mgUserInfo.asp…

I dunno, one might be forgiven for thinking him a “c*s, het white man exerting dominance.

Alex is just the latest in a long line of MRAs annoyed that women might have something for themselves. Even if it's just a place of refuge & help after violence.
democracy.edinburgh.gov.uk/mgUserInfo.asp…

Alex has “experience” of “those in the media and social media who will stir up a transphobic mob”. Spell it out, dear boy, who’d ya mean?

Not letting men into group therapy sessions to listen to women’s stories of abuse is “nothing less than the exclusion of trans people from public life”.

Alex, OF COURSE, is an enby and is painfully present in public life, so this doesn't wash.

Alex was “resigned to the fact we won't get a comprehensive review, but at least that leaves us with a briefing that will identify gaps in services for trans and non binary people”. And why, pray, should EWA provide that? Are STA too busy with the glitter pens again?

Alys Mumford, late of Engender, naturally opened with “intersectional”.

She then lied her head off: “the law on this is not settled. The definition of women and man is still undergoing legal scrutiny, as well as to whether single sex includes trans people, as I believe it does.”

“What all legal experts are agreed upon is the Equality Act of 15 years ago is not explicit on these definitions, & that while it's fair to discriminate against individuals in certain circumstances, it's not appropriate to apply blanket discrimination against an entire group of people.”

Oh Alys! Perhaps some residents of Cllr Mumford’s ward would like to write to her with the salient bits of law?

Explicit bits in the EA: man means “a male of any age” and woman means “a female of any age”. I know, I know, Alys! Who could possibly make sense of that?

Whole paragraphs of explicit bits! legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/…

Let’s look at some examples of single sex services!
"a cervical cancer screening service to be provided to women only, as only women need the service"

Now, Alys, what do we think the words mean here? What sort of women might need a cervical screening service. What do we think the words “women” and “sex” are trying to tell us here?

Oh, and there’s more! “A group counselling session is provided for female victims of sexual assault. The organisers do not allow transsexual people to attend as they judge that the clients who attend the group session are unlikely to do so if a male-to-female transsexual person was also there. This would be lawful.”

That - right there - is a blanket exclusion and it is perfectly lawful.

FWS1 Ruling of the Inner House: “Provisions in favour of women, in this context, by definition exclude those who are biologically male.” I got to say, Alys, I’m not sure what you are struggling with here…

FWS2 Ruling of Inner House: “Individuals without a gender recognition certificate (GRC) retain the sex in which they were born and have no right to access services provided for members of the opposite sex.”

So when you said the definition was still undergoing legal scrutiny and questions concerned the incl of trans people in the opposite category, that was a tad hyperbolic aka a great big lie.

“All” legal experts agree it’s not explicit? Really? Are all these legal experts in the room with you and would you like us to find you some actual experts as opposed to your pals at Just Right Scotland?

Alys then said “Equally Safe is clear that to challenge violence against women and girls, we must challenge damaging gender stereotypes.” What, like Mermaids and their blinking Barbie spectrum? How are you “challenging” stereotypes by saying men who wear dresses are women?

“I don't want to be seen as less than a woman because I don't have kids or given suspicious looks in the toilet because I have short, fabulous hair.” NO ONE THINKS WOMEN CAN’T HAVE SHORT HAIR YOU IMBECILE!

Neither hair nor kids make you a woman - your DNA does!

This is Alys. Is she going to the loo with people from another century? Or maybe they are looking at her funny because they heard some tripe about gender beacons at an Engender AGM?

Speaking of Engender. Bunting and tea parties for the emancipation of women! Supervised by blokes, naturally. I’m so glad this lot were not in charge of suffrage. We’d all be getting giggly in the champagne tent instead of getting the vote.
eventbrite.co.uk/e/a-workshop-f…

Back to Alys:
“This is the route down which biological essentialism leads, and why it's so important to speak out clearly and say that trans women are women”

Saying sex is real isn’t biological essentialism you numpty! It’s a statement of observable, scientific fact. Is it also important to speak out clearly and say the moon is made of cheese and dewdrops are fairy tears if we are denying science for men’s rights?

Oh, and read this and then stop using words you plainly don’t understand! juliebindel.substack.com/p/understandin…

Gosh, didn't the Greens manage to fit muck bollox into 2 mins? Back later for the rest...