There should be no limits
Scottish misogyny law must protect all women, says Helena Kennedy
On the one hand, duh, obviously it must. But this being now, of course on the other hand are we using “all women” to mean “including men”? We are, aren’t we. It wouldn’t be a news story otherwise.
There should be no limits of the types of women protected from hate crime says Baroness Helena Kennedy QC, as she begins her consideration of whether Scotland requires a standalone offence to tackle misogynist abuse.
Of course that’s right…unless by “types of women” you mean “especially men who call themselves women.” A man isn’t a type of woman. There are many types of rabbit, but a dog isn’t a type of rabbit. There are many types of tree, but a daffodil isn’t a tree.
Kennedy is immediately clear on how she would define the scope of specific protection she is charged with: “This is about hatred. Trans women, gay women, journalists, parliamentarians, all women get a whole lot of horrible stuff slung at them – disproportionately – and I’m not narrowing down those who receive it.”
Cute, but no. Trans women are men, and it’s not “narrowing down” the category “women” to say men are not women.
Describing it as an ambitious project to protect women, Kennedy and her six-person panel – “hand-picked by me” – have a year to resolve whether the creation of a standalone offence or adding sex to the list of other protected characteristics, such as race and religion, would better tackle misogynist abuse.
Why isn’t sex already a protected characteristic? I’ve never understood that.
The Scottish government’s own hate crime bill has attracted a huge amount of controversy and, while it was always the intention to examine this standalone option, the timing is far from ideal. As it stands, the bill that is passing through Holyrood criminalises, among other things, the stirring up of hatred against cross-dressing people, thereby protecting men who dress as women, but not the stirring up of hatred against women, while the decision on protections for women won’t be made until Kennedy’s working group reports back in 12 months’ time.
That’s how we know we’re women: we’re always an afterthought.
It’s always the way, isn’t it? They say “trans women”, then list a bunch of types of women that are women, like gay women, journalists (odd choice), parlimentarians (also odd). Usually they like to include black women, disabled women, etc…because all those groups are women, which by mere juxtaposition puts trans-women firmly in the same category of women that NO ONE disputes are women – least of all GFCs.
Tricky trick by tricky tricksters. And I suspect most of them know exactly what they are doing – getting people to think of trans women like black women, disabled women, gay women…just another group of actual women that are entitled to be given access to women’s spaces.
The thing is, rights for black women, gay women, disabled women etc do not undermine rights for women as a whole, because THEY ARE WOMEN. Allowing black women into women’s spaces is just…well, ordinary and banal. It’s what we expect, and when it doesn’t happen, we are shocked by the refusal, because everyone knows black women are women. But trans women are a different story. Seeing a bearded man trying to force his way into a women’s bathroom shocks us more than refusing him entry, because HE IS NOT A WOMAN.
Packing your panel with your buddies is a good way to ensure you get the results you want. Just ask the former occupier of the White House.
Words fail me.
It sounds like a reality TV show. It sounds exactly like that. I saw some of the things the teams came up with on The Apprentice (UK). That’s the level at which I’ve set my expectations.
What are some examples of “misogynistic abuse?”
Misgendering a trans woman.
Dead-naming a trans woman.
Not allowing a trans woman to use the women’s bathroom.
Not allowing a trans woman to play on the women’s team.
Hm. Will adding “sex” to the list of protected characteristics be enough to tackle all that?
Sastra@5:
Nicely done.
“…And that’s why we want to kick things off with some protections for not-women.”
And look at the grift! The ask at hand is adding sex to the list of protected characteristics, and crafting a standalone Act to make relevant hate offences. All they need to do is amend the previous legislation which specifies the protected characteristics to include the new one, and to add it also to the relevant offences. If something new needs to be written, they can probably copy a fairly large portion of the wording from the previous legislation on the subject.
But no, let’s have a hand-picked team of six to sit around for a year! I think the word ‘sinecure’ has never been more applicable in the history of anything ever.