![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Jul. 5th, 2013 12:05 pmIn a recent meme I said that I didn't read horoscopes, but I have just found these, which I very much enjoyed reading. They're from Tourettes Hero, a blog which I've been reading back through for the past week or so, and really really enjoying. She's very funny - and probably very accurate, maybe I would get more money in my job as a builder if I learned to talk about shepherds. (I'm not moving to Nunhead though. I don't even know where it is.) I also watched this video of her on a talk show explaining about Tourettes. I have developed quite a large crush on her, and I'm really looking forward to reading her book.
And a less happy link - the spousal veto, which means that trans people in a marriage can only get a gender recognition certificate (which is what gives trans people legal protections, and an accurate birth certificate) if their spouse agrees. As Sarah puts it: "Your spouse doesn’t get to veto your transition, your surgery, or anything else. They get to veto this though. In 2013, we are passing a law in the name of equality that makes the human rights of one party to a marriage the “gift” of the other."(1) I'm not sure whether this is also an issue in the upcoming Scottish legislation on same-sex marriages, I'm asking around.
ETA: And another link, which I had initially thought was locked , from steepholm.
And a positive outcome amongst a depressing overview - I was pleased that the recent members bill in the Scottish Parliament that wanted to criminalise buying services from sex workers failed. It was based on the Swedish model, where sex workers are not breaking the law, but their clients are. I think I first heard about it either in late school or early university, and I thought it was a cracking good idea. Over the years, though, I started to read more about it, in particular more by sex workers and their allies, and started to see it as, at best, a misguided approach. In brief, it makes sex work much more harmful for the sex workers. It doesn't stop the practice, it doesn't solve any of the problems around sex work, it just puts more danger into women's lives. I still find the theoretical arguments about sex work difficult to get my head around, but I found that having a base of "I do not want vulnerable women to be the victims of violence" was a good starting point for me to sit on and listen to sex workers. I really like this post (by an ally), and this, which is a specific response to the SP bill from SCOT-PEP. The Swedish model is one of the only models that gets recognition, and it's assumed to be a feminist gold standard, despite reports on its lack of success. Another approach I only read about recently was the Merseyside approach, where attacks against sex workers are treated as hate crimes, and it was introduced after sex workers asked for it. This article talks about its success, as well as concerns.
(1)Though I'm not sure why the Minister using the same wording as the civil servants is worthy of note - that the bill has clearly been drafted based on a few people's suppositions and not proper consultation, yes, but the lines to take on a particular issue are agreed, so the Ministers and civil servants will both be working from that when they're talking about the bill, particularly in parliamentary interventions.
And a less happy link - the spousal veto, which means that trans people in a marriage can only get a gender recognition certificate (which is what gives trans people legal protections, and an accurate birth certificate) if their spouse agrees. As Sarah puts it: "Your spouse doesn’t get to veto your transition, your surgery, or anything else. They get to veto this though. In 2013, we are passing a law in the name of equality that makes the human rights of one party to a marriage the “gift” of the other."(1) I'm not sure whether this is also an issue in the upcoming Scottish legislation on same-sex marriages, I'm asking around.
ETA: And another link, which I had initially thought was locked , from steepholm.
And a positive outcome amongst a depressing overview - I was pleased that the recent members bill in the Scottish Parliament that wanted to criminalise buying services from sex workers failed. It was based on the Swedish model, where sex workers are not breaking the law, but their clients are. I think I first heard about it either in late school or early university, and I thought it was a cracking good idea. Over the years, though, I started to read more about it, in particular more by sex workers and their allies, and started to see it as, at best, a misguided approach. In brief, it makes sex work much more harmful for the sex workers. It doesn't stop the practice, it doesn't solve any of the problems around sex work, it just puts more danger into women's lives. I still find the theoretical arguments about sex work difficult to get my head around, but I found that having a base of "I do not want vulnerable women to be the victims of violence" was a good starting point for me to sit on and listen to sex workers. I really like this post (by an ally), and this, which is a specific response to the SP bill from SCOT-PEP. The Swedish model is one of the only models that gets recognition, and it's assumed to be a feminist gold standard, despite reports on its lack of success. Another approach I only read about recently was the Merseyside approach, where attacks against sex workers are treated as hate crimes, and it was introduced after sex workers asked for it. This article talks about its success, as well as concerns.
(1)Though I'm not sure why the Minister using the same wording as the civil servants is worthy of note - that the bill has clearly been drafted based on a few people's suppositions and not proper consultation, yes, but the lines to take on a particular issue are agreed, so the Ministers and civil servants will both be working from that when they're talking about the bill, particularly in parliamentary interventions.
