1/ I went to Parliament to watch the Women and Equalities Committee. The chair of the EHRC Mary-Ann Stephenson (MAS) and CEO John Kirkpatrick were giving evidence, the other adults in the room were Rosie Duffield and Rebecca Paul MP. Other than that it was the slow kid's table.
2/ This is the committee chair Sarah Owen MP, she is EXTREMELY fair unless you're Rosie or Sarah when she'll look at Nadia Whittome and mutter. She also thinks intersex means people are neither male or female and didn't like it much when the chair of the EHRC corrected that.
3/ So the committee kicks off with about half an hour of the kids table saying it is COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE to ever tell if a bloke is a bloke if he puts a dress on. MAS has to patiently explain people have eyes and seem to be able to work it out. MPs think this is genocide.
4/ So this bloke is up first. He is INDIGNANT that women sometimes bring male children/babies into the ladies and implies this shows the Law Lords are a bunch of idiots. MAS is too polite to explain that babies do not represent the same threat level as massive hairy transvestites
5/ Then get a GENUIS intervention from Sarah Owen. She says blokes who want to get into the ladies will now claim they are "trans men" (and therefore female in law). This obviously happens all the time and no one has eyes able to correctly sex people so it's a real gotcha.
6/ Sensing a killer point, Nadia Whittome questions whether a minister was right to say that people have eyes and will use commons sense to ask blokes to leave the ladies. She says this enforces stereotypes and comes down with a massive case of RAPID ONSET BUTCH LESBIAN CONCERN
7/ MAS sneaks in a remark about women and women's rights. This is considered absolutely fucking outrageous by the kid's table at the Women and Equalities Select Committee who quickly return the discussion to sad transvestites and their theory that no one has eyes.
8/ This professional Naomi Cunningham impersonator then speaks. She says the fact that women didn't have the vote was once considered common sense and therefore that means no one can ever exercise common sense or use their eyeballs to ask Dave to get the hell out the ladies.
9/ So then this weird little gremlin bloke tries his hand at some amateur hour article 8 point. MAS patiently explains the High Court, Supreme Court have considered this and it's a no goer for his side. She also dares to say other people (women) have article 8 rights.
10/ This bloke then pipes up saying it's impossible to ever enforce single sex spaces in medicine. Later on in the hearing he complains that the written code of practice is "just words" which is a fair analysis of a written document and a powerful point lol.
11/ We then get a comedy interlude from Rachel Taylor who reads out an email from a transvestite truck driver who is worried about showers and is now going to seek a new life in Ireland. This email is MOVING and EMOTIONAL and a fair reason why women should lose all their rights
12/ It's a committee of all the talents this one, so who better than Kim "reaper" Leadbetter to moan about the fact the women's institute and girl guiding now, horrifically, do not cater for transvestites. Women have been mentioned about 3 times if that by this point.
13/ Rosie Duffield MP then completely kills the vibe and says maybe the Women's and Equality Ctte should consider women. This is outrageous. She doesn't ask a single question focused on the needs of transvestites and appears to suggest the EHRC should educate the kids table.
14/ Also ruining the vibe is Rebecca Paul MP, she disgracefully says there are massive blokes in female prisons and then even invites the EHRC to take an interest in it! That Kirkpatrick guy acts like he's only just heard of it but says they will take a look maybe.
15/ Then some low energy lib dem says wouldn't it be great if we had associations for two protected characteristics so girlguiding now becomes girls and transvestite guiding. Women barely get a mention as is the tradition of this committee.
16/ There's then an assortment of back and forth on various subjects but MAS has warmed to her task and is casually batting off stupid stuff about "policing toilets" and sad transvestites in the fashion of a slightly exhausted by very patient infant school teacher.
17/ Overall MAS did a good job and joined Rosie and Rebecca as an adult in the room. She did say something a bit dodgy about the EHRC supporting conversation legislation but basically only if it complies with Cass. We'll be watching that development but overall a good show by her
18/ My abiding impression was that I leave Parliament with many more LOLs in my heart but many more fears about the standard of our MPs. This was silly student politics but it had a half hearted feel. They know they've lost this one and are now whinging on the kid's table.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ I'm amazed the minister can't see the problem with this. The word "abusive" is not defined in her poorly drafted bill, so her plan to "let the courts decide" means a load of parents face first instance courts with no definition coming to their own conclusions.
2/ This is deeply irresponsible. Parliament makes the law. Not the Courts. And no Crown Court should be judging the finer points of parenting, that is a matter for the Family Courts. Especially do when "any conduct" can trigger this wide and draconian offence.
3/ How can it possibly be right that Doctors have a carve out in clause 1(3) but there is no carve out for a decent parent doing their best in a difficult situation trying to prioritise the welfare of their own child?
1/ As someone who has been in a few murder trials let me just try to explain why the police always ask people not to speculate, (with the caveat that I understand everyone is justifiably angry, saddened and horrified).
Murder investigations and trials are very fragile things.
2/ In a murder trial, every single move the police make is put under a microscope. Days and days can be spent on suggestions they were "playing to the media" or that they improperly provided a running commentary on an investigation for social media consumption. This matters.
3/ In criminal proceedings, evidence can be excluded under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 or common law if it's unfair to go before a jury. One way a defence team can make that argument is to argue release of evidence contaminated other evidence or ultimately the jury
1/ Amnesty International produce a silly report in which gender critical organisations are libelled variously as conversion practitioners, "anti-rights" and anti abortion adjacent. This, from a charity who intervened unsuccessfully to supress gay rights in For Women Scotland.
2/ So there's no doubt about that matter, let's consider paragraph 206 of the Judgment. Amnesty were supporting the side that wanted to render gay rights flowing from the same sex orientation characteristic "meaningless", yet they now call others "anti rights"
3/ Amnesty provided written submission the court rejected when it overruled the Scottish Courts. To be clear, Amnesty wanted a position whereby a GRC modified sex in law and the same sex orientation PC thus becomes meaningless because people are not attracted to bits of paper
1/ The Conversion Bill is going to hand Stonewall a financial lifeline writing policies for organisations. If it passes in this form, I predict they will market themselves as "experts" in producing policies for organisations so they can show they've taken reasonable steps.
2/ We should all be very worried about this. The Conversion Bill is impermissibly wide and vague for a criminal statute and the "actus reus" (the criminal law term for a criminal action) trigger is so wide it can be "any conduct".
3/ If we consider to whom the "reasonable steps" duty applies, it's also extremely wide and covers just about every sort of organisation, company and charity you can think of, so Stonewall are going to have a huge market of firms, charities and voluntary organisations to scare
1/ You and your mates have nothing to be proud of. Pride is now a pointless shell of what it once was and it succeeds today only in being an obnoxious display of false virtue. 200 children will be chemically castrated at the behest of this political movement later this year.
2/ Those children are likely to be majority same sex attracted and autistic, but you and your friends think nothing of the permanent, irreversible harm to them as you drivel on about being your authentic self and love winning over hate and all that crap.
3/ When it's not chemically castrating children, the flag this movement represents is assiduously attacking the basic rights of women whether that be to spaces, sports or in the case of lesbian in Australia, their basic right to freedom of assembly.
1/ Graham's right, he's referring to a Judgment by the former President of the Family Division called Re J. It's available in the link below, in this case Gender GP prescribed a troubled girl a dose of testosterone so high she was at risk of sudden death
2/ Let's look at the case from a summary. You can see Gender GP was entirely negligent and allowed a potentially fatal dose to be prescribed after a consultation.
3/ Now let's look at J's medical history. This is a very vulnerable young female with really serious problems.