Back in the mists of time, we suggested that the proposed Scottish Hate Crime bill might be used as a stick to beat women who wanted to discuss the GRA, sex-based rights, & welfare of gender confused children.

We were told we were being silly: no one would do that.

Thread/

Today, we saw two proposed amendments to the hate crime bill with regard to #FreeSpeech in relation to transgender identity.

A general one from @humzayousaf & one from @liamkerrmsp which covers many of the topics women feared might result in prosecution - thank you!
If anyone had doubts that the extremists of gender ideology did not intend to use this legislation as a means to silence and intimidate, the frothing indignation of anti-woman activists who might be prevented from filing hourly hate crime reports, surely laid this to rest.
Naturally, Scottish Green Party were quick to charge into the fray. Emz Cuthbertson, co-convener of SGP women & Rainbow Greens, was in no way hyperbolic in referring to it as a "transphobes charter", with Dr Kevin finding the idea of not being able to shut women up "terrifying".
Also up were activist James (who once promoted a lurid fantasy about lesbians beating up a NB child at Edinburgh Pride) & serial party hopper, Tristan who was horrified that "misgendering" was not about to be a crime & thinks advocating child counselling is "conversion therapy".
Here is Labour activist who is "floored" by the amendments, calling them "active bigotry".
She's also furious a Labour MSP has the temerity to suggest that advocating for women's rights should not carry penal sanction.

Thank you @RhodaGrant for this amendment
Lib Dem, Layla Moran supporter, and evolutionary biologist (really), James is not a fan of #FreeSpeech

And Tristan is really hitting his stride now...
Still going...

No one suggested removing transphobia from hate crime, they are merely saying that it is not covered by women arguing that sex exists &we have rights, and that we shouldn't be punished for belief in science. Tristan clearly wanted to use this to persecute women.
Juan, who likes to write abusive articles about female MSPs is under the impression that the SNP swept to victory on a promise to create a third sex class.

He also thinks the amendments now legalise hate crime.

Not sure reading & comp are a strong suit!
Harry Giles is having a totally proportionate reaction.

Hate crime "doesn't protect" them. Well, it really doesn't protect women, but Engender's guest "feminist" thinker isn't really stopping to think about us...
Iona Paton, who has a dubious track record of smearing @joannaccherry, is still saying that talking about women's rights is "intolerance and bigotry"

She was also hoping to use the stirring up offence to prosecute Joanna.
https://t.co/ksN2nll3V4
This is Gregor. Gregor was suspended from the SNP for abusing women online. Gregor thinks protecting rape victims is wrong. Gregor thinks transphobia is now exempt from hate crime because Gregor can't use it to attack women.

Don't be like Gregor.
Jordon, the former partner of Alyn Smith MP, who shared confidential messages on Twitter and who was prevented from standing after the Sun exposed his abusive behaviour, is also cross.

Saying women might be able to talk about rights = "bowing to terfs".

"Horrifying"
An actor writes that Scotland is about to allow "conversion therapy" (allowing discussion of watchful waiting rather than affirmation and drugs, the devastating results of which were exposed in Bell case).

Apparently this means "transphobia is permitted". It's pronouns (again).
I realise the tone of this thread is flippant, but this is deadly serious. These individuals are furious that there might be any check on the legitimisation of their woman hatred.

This is the monster this bill has fed, and all MSPs should be very wary.
For more evidence, read the replies. People up in arms because @HumzaYousaf is not proposing to rip up #humanrights act & lock women up for misgendering or denying reality of 100 genders.

They want a new blasphemy law. At least the old one wasn't used!
https://t.co/01sMQWaawH

More from Law

This is what he wants to do.

No matter how this trial plays out, the US will remain divided between those who choose truth, Democracy, and rule of law and the millions who reject these things.

1/


The question is how to move forward.

My mantra is that there are no magic bullets and these people will always be with us.

Except for state legislatures, they have less power now than they have for a while.

2/

The only real and lasting solutions are political ones. Get Democrats into local offices. Get people who want democracy to survive to the polls at every election, at every level.

It’s a constant battle.

3/

Maybe I should tell you all about Thurgood Marshall’s life to illustrate how hard the task is and how there will be backlash after each step of progress.

4/

Precisely. That's why Thurgood Marshall's life came to mind.

We are still riding the backlash that started after the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education.

That's why I keep saying there are no easy
1/n How come we still have academics sustaining narratives of #obesity rather than of how real people find value & meaning in everyday lives? Revisit @whatsthepont on @tobyjlowe / @snowded & accept criticising "neoliberal" does not make things

New out 🤯 A review which says lots about the academic context in which it was written - with its embedded behaviorist fixations on just implementing *better* - with complete disregard for the unintended consequences of treating "agency" as a dirty word

In all #becausehuman fields, we see justifiable professional kick-back at reductionist agendas driven by a focus on #obesity & nonsensical CMO guidance of 60 min of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) per day for healthy growth and development


What's fundamentally missing is not just a respect for complexity. It's respect for Homo-Narrans - for the ordinary, everyday story-telling folk all around us whose aspirations & dispositions provide the context in which we find meaning, purpose & value

We don't need spurious arguments against initiatives... but let's consider ethics & unintended consequences - on which, see @snowded (especially around epistemic justice) #becausehuman
https://t.co/gu97xDEamB
https://t.co/E1GzCdCfLA
https://t.co/bKowDAgARQ
https://t.co/evzYMBPwvZ

You May Also Like

Still wondering about this 🤔


save as q