The Trans Rights Debate

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Hold on a minute. Society takes lots of rights away from people who commit offences. In some western societies the state is enabled to kill people. Fortunately we don't do that here, but the idea that restrictions on rights of offenders is somehow odd is just bizarre. Indeed we restrict the rights of people who haven't been convicted. Have you heard of remand? So the level and nature of restrictions on offenders is up for debate. Personally I think it is legitimate to restrict access to the process when a person is accused or convicted of sex crimes

You're correct to point out that we restrict the rights of offenders. Such as what jobs they can apply for and the public spaces they can legally access.

This would of course continue to be the case, even if they have a GRC. So what's the issue?

[CropleyWasGod]

This is from a blog which is run by people concerned with the legislation, but it does walk through the issues and process (so far as it is understood) https://murrayblackburnmackenzie.org/2023/01/17/guest-blog-gender-recognition-safeguarding-and-the-limitations-of-the-martin-amendment/

Ta :)

MBM have a history of being against the bill, so I'm trying to put that to one side. :greengrin

It does, though, give a reasonable view of how things might work in practice. On the face of it, it seems sensible enough, although my non-lawyer brain has a bit of fog around some of it.

Like all new legislation, until we have some experience of how things work in practice, we can't know of any unintended consequences. That's what the review period is for. That said, if some of the more extreme predictions come to pass, I'd hope they'd be brought back to Parliament PDQ.

[archie]

You're correct to point out that we restrict the rights of offenders. Such as what jobs they can apply for and the public spaces they can legally access.

This would of course continue to be the case, even if they have a GRC. So what's the issue?The reply was in response to Ozyhibby who appeared (although I can't really believe this) to be concerned that sex offenders and those accused of sex offences would have their right to apply for a GRC constrained. This amendment to the Bill was voted down and instead an amendment was passed which introduced the notification and risk assessment requirement.

[archie]

Some (rather polemical) lived experience https://4w.pub/you-meet-more-perverts-when-poor/

[archie]

Ta :)

MBM have a history of being against the bill, so I'm trying to put that to one side. :greengrin

It does, though, give a reasonable view of how things might work in practice. On the face of it, it seems sensible enough, although my non-lawyer brain has a bit of fog around some of it.

Like all new legislation, until we have some experience of how things work in practice, we can't know of any unintended consequences. That's what the review period is for. That said, if some of the more extreme predictions come to pass, I'd hope they'd be brought back to Parliament PDQ.

I know you are joking, but I find it really instructive to read stuff by people I don't agree with supporting issues i don't agree with. It helps hone the arguments (and sometimes changes my mind). I'm less certain that there would be a quick referral to the Parliament if there were emerging issues. That's partly because of practical issues with legislation and also because this has become such an article of faith that I think it would be difficult to acknowledge flaws.

[Bristolhibby]

The first poll on this will be interesting, I suspect you will be in the minority yet again. Most people are against this Bill.

People were against repealing Section 28 and gay rights in the 90s.

Looking back it’s ludicrous.

Not talking about being gay in schools, because we’ll “turn” the kids gay.

J

[Bristolhibby]

And what can the police do? How do they prove the person applying is doing so under false pretences?

And if they do, so what? A rapist can rape with or without the GRB.

Also, why not 16 year olds self IDing. They are legal adults in Scotland. Stands to reason.

J

[James310]

People were against repealing Section 28 and gay rights in the 90s.

Looking back it’s ludicrous.

Not talking about being gay in schools, because we’ll “turn” the kids gay.

J

I don't see the connection?

This is about allowing or not allowing convicted sex offenders applying for a GRC?

[CropleyWasGod]

I know you are joking, but I find it really instructive to read stuff by people I don't agree with supporting issues i don't agree with. It helps hone the arguments (and sometimes changes my mind). I'm less certain that there would be a quick referral to the Parliament if there were emerging issues. That's partly because of practical issues with legislation and also because this has become such an article of faith that I think it would be difficult to acknowledge flaws.

Snap. :agree:

[TrumpIsAPeado]

I don't see the connection?

This is about allowing or not allowing convicted sex offenders applying for a GRC?

But even if they have a GRC, they are still a convicted sex offender and the same laws and restrictions will still apply to them. There seems to be people who think that a GRC will allow offenders to circumvent restrictions that are placed on them following their convictions. This simply isn't the case.

[archie]

People were against repealing Section 28 and gay rights in the 90s.

Looking back it’s ludicrous.

Not talking about being gay in schools, because we’ll “turn” the kids gay.

JI wonder if that's what is driving FM now, given the SNP's opposition to elements of the repeal of section 28? Maybe some remorse?

[James310]

But even if they have a GRC, they are still a convicted sex offender and the same laws and restrictions will still apply to them. There seems to be people who think that a GRC will allow offenders to circumvent restrictions that are placed on them following their convictions. This simply isn't the case.

But this is a new law, so the same laws don't apply as this law doesn't exist today. I am sure if someone convicted of a crime that very likely involved lying and manipulation sees even the smallest advantage to be gained they will take it. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for greater safeguarding to be in place. I guess we will just need to agree to disagree on this point.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

I wonder if that's what is driving FM now, given the SNP's opposition to elements of the repeal of section 28? Maybe some remorse?

Why would the SNP of today have remorse over opposition to elements of a bill by members of the SNP in the 90s?

[TrumpIsAPeado]

But this is a new law, so the same laws don't apply as this law doesn't exist today. I am sure if someone convicted of a crime that very likely involved lying and manipulation sees even the smallest advantage to be gained they will take it. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for greater safeguarding to be in place. I guess we will just need to agree to disagree on this point.

This may be a new law, but it has zero effect over already existing laws pertaining to the restrictions that are already placed on convicted sex offenders. There has been over 5 years of parliamentary scrutiny to ensure that this is the case, which is why the bill received cross party support right across the board.

The 39 MSPs who opposed the bill are not interested in reforming the bill further, they just wanted to delay the bill indefinitely.

[He's here!]

You realize the bill works both ways right? It also "reduces the concept" of manhood from a biological certainty to a mere identity (if that's your way of looking at it). As a man, I can't say I really care to be honest. If a biologically born female wishes to transition into a male due to the way they identify themselves, that's none of my business and certainly not my place to tell them that they can't.

As for "stubborn Sturgeon", she (as pointed out multiple times already in this thread), put forward a bill that was backed by MSPs from every single party in Holyrood. SNP, Greens, Lib Dems, Labour and tory MSPs.

The only "mess" here is the one being stirred up by the 2 main parties at Westminster, who are in a race to the bottom to appeal to as many Daily Express readers as possible. There's absolutely zero justification for the actions being taken here and the "reasons" given for it. Because if there was any justification, a Section 33 order would have been enacted, rather than the nuclear option of Section 35 which allows the UK Government to effectively block any bill put forward by a devolved parliament, covering devolved areas, bypassing the court in the process.

That's a telling phrase. The reason women's rights groups expressed such furious opposition to this bill is because making it easier for males to 'become women' poses a far more significant threat to women's rights than a female 'becoming a man' does to men's rights (such as they are). The UK government is correct to have taken the action they have to defend women's hard-won freedom of association from those who deemed this peculiar, unpopular bill a good idea. To erase the very idea of womanhood is to erase women's liberties. Just because a man says he is a woman doesn't make him one, no matter how loudly those who seek to dismiss biological reality claim it does. To denounce those who stand up for that biological truth and women's rights as somehow transphobic is desperate stuff.

As for the supposedly harmonious cross-party backing for the bill, I think I'm right in saying the Tories were the only party to allow a free vote. It would have been interesting to see whether it would have enjoyed such backing if the whip had been withdrawn, with the unprecedented SNP rebellion hinting at a deeper concern over a bill which IMHO transcends political allegiance.

[archie]

Why would the SNP of today have remorse over opposition to elements of a bill by members of the SNP in the 90s?

Well not just elements of the SNP. The amendments in the Parliament to reflect the special status of marriage were led by now FM. It's interesting to look back on section 28. There was a very widespread keep the clause campaign. The main SNP funder led a campaign to oppose the bill, including a privately funded referendum. There was chatter at the time that the SNP used the Catholic church's opposition to the bill to drive a wedge into Labour voting heartlands. Arguably this was a smart long term strategy from Salmond. I think it's too strong to say this was a turning point, but I do think it was significant on the growth of the SNP. It might have been cynical, but it was effective in the long run.

[Stairway 2 7]

Well not just elements of the SNP. The amendments in the Parliament to reflect the special status of marriage were led by now FM. It's interesting to look back on section 28. There was a very widespread keep the clause campaign. The main SNP funder led a campaign to oppose the bill, including a privately funded referendum. There was chatter at the time that the SNP used the Catholic church's opposition to the bill to drive a wedge into Labour voting heartlands. Arguably this was a smart long term strategy from Salmond. I think it's too strong to say this was a turning point, but I do think it was significant on the growth of the SNP. It might have been cynical, but it was effective in the long run.

Souter is a complete ****bag

[TrumpIsAPeado]

That's a telling phrase. The reason women's rights groups expressed such furious opposition to this bill is because making it easier for males to 'become women' poses a far more significant threat to women's rights than a female 'becoming a man' does to men's rights (such as they are). The UK government is correct to have taken the action they have to defend women's hard-won freedom of association from those who deemed this peculiar, unpopular bill a good idea. To erase the very idea of womanhood is to erase women's liberties. Just because a man says he is a woman doesn't make him one, no matter how loudly those who seek to dismiss biological reality claim it does. To denounce those who stand up for that biological truth and women's rights as somehow transphobic is desperate stuff.

As for the supposedly harmonious cross-party backing for the bill, I think I'm right in saying the Tories were the only party to allow a free vote. It would have been interesting to see whether it would have enjoyed such backing if the whip had been withdrawn, with the unprecedented SNP rebellion hinting at a deeper concern over a bill which IMHO transcends political allegiance.

The UK government took the cowardly action of blocking a devolved bill from reaching royal assent without legal scrutiny, as they were afraid that they were going to lose in a court of law. Hence the use of Section 35 rather than Section 33.

In doing so, they've effectively opened Pandora's box. What's to prevent them from enacting section 35 whenever a devolved government implements something into law that they simply don't like the look of, even if it has no effect on England?

There's your "union of equals" right there.

[He's here!]

The UK government took the cowardly action of blocking a devolved bill from reaching royal assent without legal scrutiny, as they were afraid that they were going to lose in a court of law. Hence the use of Section 35 rather than Section 33.

In doing so, they've effectively opened Pandora's box. What's to prevent them from enacting section 35 whenever a devolved government implements something into law that they simply don't like the look of, even if it has no effect on England?

There's your "union of equals" right there.

What's that got to do with what I posted?

Re your own point, the more obvious conclusion to be drawn from the first deployment of a section 35 in the history of the Scottish Parliament is that this is a uniquely ill-advised piece of Holyrood legislation.

[Ozyhibby]

What's that got to do with what I posted?

Re your own point, the more obvious conclusion to be drawn from the first deployment of a section 35 in the history of the Scottish Parliament is that this is a uniquely ill-advised piece of Holyrood legislation.

Within 5 years all parts of the UK will have followed Scotland’s example on this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hibby rae]

What's that got to do with what I posted?

Re your own point, the more obvious conclusion to be drawn from the first deployment of a section 35 in the history of the Scottish Parliament is that this is a uniquely ill-advised piece of Holyrood legislation.

I'd say, and a lot of others have too, is the more obvious conclusion to be drawn is the Tories were looking to pick a fight for political/electoral reasons.

I don't think their recent legislative history in general supports an argument they were opposed to it because it's 'ill-advised'.

[He's here!]

Within 5 years all parts of the UK will have followed Scotland’s example on this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe, if the bill is properly amended so that it doesn't erase the idea of 'woman'.

For someone who consistently claimed nobody cared about this legislation you've become one of the most prolific posters on the subject.

[Ozyhibby]

Maybe, if the bill is properly amended so that it doesn't erase the idea of 'woman'.

For someone who consistently claimed nobody cared about this legislation you've become one of the most prolific posters on the subject.

Does the bill erase the idea of women?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JeMeSouviens]

Maybe, if the bill is properly amended so that it doesn't erase the idea of 'woman'.

For someone who consistently claimed nobody cared about this legislation you've become one of the most prolific posters on the subject.

So that would effectively roll back the 2004 legislation as well then?

As I've said before, a big part of the opposition to this bill comes from those who just don't recognise transitioning at all.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

What's that got to do with what I posted?

Re your own point, the more obvious conclusion to be drawn from the first deployment of a section 35 in the history of the Scottish Parliament is that this is a uniquely ill-advised piece of Holyrood legislation.

If it was "ill-advised", why not use section 33 as i'm sure the court would have concluded this. Right?

[Moulin Yarns]

Lord falconer and Dominic Grieves debate on drive time on radio Scotland.

Seems clear that there is no change to whether those people who run refuges can prevent people accessing such places.

[He's here!]

Does the bill erase the idea of women?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, because it no longer limits human sex to biology.

[He's here!]

So that would effectively roll back the 2004 legislation as well then?

As I've said before, a big part of the opposition to this bill comes from those who just don't recognise transitioning at all.

No, because that legislation does not indulge the pretence that it's possible to change your biological sex.

Standing up for women's rights is not transphobic and does not mean opponents of the bill don't recognise tranisitioning.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

No, because that legislation does not indulge the pretence that it's possible to change your biological sex.

Nor does the Gender Recognition Bill.

[Kato]

I'd say, and a lot of others have too, is the more obvious conclusion to be drawn is the Tories were looking to pick a fight for political/electoral reasons.

I don't think their recent legislative history in general supports an argument they were opposed to it because it's 'ill-advised'.

Totally. If you were looking to see which party was using this as a culture war battle (ie a distraction) you only have to look at their track records. Which politicians are more prone to
"Anti-Woke" bogeyman stuff? (..and bogeywoman stuff, just to stay on point...)

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[He's here!]

Nor does the Gender Recognition Bill.

According to the Haldane ruling it does.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

According to the Haldane ruling it does.

"Gender Recognition"
"Biological Sex"

None of this about changing a person's biological sex. It's how you're choosing to interpret it.

[JeMeSouviens]

No, because that legislation does not indulge the pretence that it's possible to change your biological sex.

Standing up for women's rights is not transphobic and does not mean opponents of the bill don't recognise tranisitioning.

Lady Haldane’s ruling says that a GRC obtained under the existing rules, ie. absolutely nothing to do with the new law which is blocked anyway, changes a person’s legal sex. So what you’re scared of is already the law.

[Stairway 2 7]

I disagree with some of what this lady says, but equating her (who started an organisation against section 28) or Joanna Cherry of being like on the wrong side of section 28 is daft

https://mobile.twitter.com/joannaccherry/status/1616141573284036623
Joanna Cherry KC
@joannaccherry
My constituent Sally has written a very personal piece explaining why many #lesbians fear self ID & worry that gender identity theory forces lesbians back into the closet & enables #lesbophobia. I applaud her courage & eloquence

[archie]

Lady Haldane’s ruling says that a GRC obtained under the existing rules, ie. absolutely nothing to do with the new law which is blocked anyway, changes a person’s legal sex. So what you’re scared of is already the law.

But only established by the court just before stage 3 of the Bill. I think a pause would have been helpful to consider the implications of that as it wasn't clear before.

[He's here!]

Lady Haldane’s ruling says that a GRC obtained under the existing rules, ie. absolutely nothing to do with the new law which is blocked anyway, changes a person’s legal sex. So what you’re scared of is already the law.

IIRC the Haldane ruling centred on a more recent piece of legislation regarding gender balance on public boards. For Women believed that this conflated with the Equality Act (which includes separate protections on the basis of gender reassignment and sex). They won their initial court challenge but believed (rightly IMHO) that the SG's commitment to reword the guidance notes failed to remedy the anomaly. Last December's ruling was, as far as I am aware, the first time it has been spelled out what a GRC does - a crucial development ahead of the GRA vote. Invevitably, those backing the bill claimed that we'd all known for years what it does but that simply wasn't the case. I cannot imagine the earlier legislation would have passed muster had it been made clear that a GRC results in a change of sex. That's why Haldane's ruling was so controversial.

As Susan Smith of For Women pointed out after the ruling: "We asked the Scottish government if they could give us their interpretation of what it meant for someone to have a GRC, and they said it was a simple administrative change and made no difference. And then they went to court and argued the opposite."

[JeMeSouviens]

This page from May 2022 is consistent with Lady Haldane’s judgment from December. I haven’t read the equality act but from the 2 things, it seems to refer only to sex and that sex is determined by birth but can be legally altered by a GRC.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/what-equality-act-says-about-protected-characteristics-sex-and-gender

[Ozyhibby]

I see Alistair Jack is refusing to appear before the Holyrood equalities committee. Apparently it’s not his job. So much for working together for a solution.[emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ronaldo7]

I see Alistair Jack is refusing to appear before the Holyrood equalities committee. Apparently it’s not his job. So much for working together for a solution.[emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Says it's nothing to do with him.

The constitutional committee have sent an invite now.

Badenoch has been invited to the equalities committee.

[archie]

Personally I think UK Ministers should take up the Committee invitation. I also think Scottish Ministers should reciprocate when invited to Westminster. That is the grown up approach. I do wonder, however, whether there is a nervousness about this with the upcoming judicial review. If you were a lawyer what advice would you be giving Mnisters about making statements that could be used in the JR? I genuinely don't know the answer to this.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Personally I think UK Ministers should take up the Committee invitation. I also think Scottish Ministers should reciprocate when invited to Westminster. That is the grown up approach. I do wonder, however, whether there is a nervousness about this with the upcoming judicial review. If you were a lawyer what advice would you be giving Mnisters about making statements that could be used in the JR? I genuinely don't know the answer to this.

Of course they're nervous. If they were confident, they would have used Section 33.

[He's here!]

Cherry makes a good point here:

https://www.thenational.scot/politics/23263753.joanna-cherry-gender-bill-might-faced-legal-challenge-post-indy/

[ronaldo7]

Cherry makes a good point here:

https://www.thenational.scot/politics/23263753.joanna-cherry-gender-bill-might-faced-legal-challenge-post-indy/

Can't access the article. What does she say?

[He's here!]

Of course they're nervous. If they were confident, they would have used Section 33.

So you keep claiming. I'm not going to pretend I know that that is, although it rings a bell with regard to a grim stand-off with the landlord of a flat I was renting many years ago. I guess there must be innumerable section 33s though.

I didn't know what an s35 was either until a few weeks ago, but whichever 'section' most effectively puts a hold on bad law makes sense to me.

[He's here!]

Can't access the article. What does she say?

Joanna Cherry: Gender bill might well have faced legal challenge in an indy Scotland
EVERYONE knows I am opposed to the Gender Recognition Reform Bill. However, I believe the problems it creates should be addressed in Scotland if not by our Parliament, then by our courts.
That said, to describe the use of the Section 35 power to block the bill as an attack on devolution doesn’t really make sense. It is of the essence of devolution that the devolved Parliament is subservient to the UK Parliament that’s why we as nationalists want independence (https://www.thenational.scot/news/scottish-independence/).
In an independent Scotland the passing of the bill by a parliamentary majority would not necessarily have guaranteed that it would have become law without further challenge.
If we were an independent country with a written constitution, I predict this bill would be facing a legal challenge based on the concerns about its impact on equality law and human rights.
If you cast your mind back to the summer of 2014, you will recall that the transitional constitution (published in a white paper (https://consult.gov.scot/elections-and-constitutional-development-division/scottish-independence-bill/supporting_documents/00452762.pdf) with a foreword by Nicola Sturgeon (https://www.thenational.scot/politics/nicola-sturgeon/)) enshrined the protected characteristics of the Equality Act and the rights protected by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in Scotland’s new constitution.
Those protected characteristics include age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation. Not in a hierarchy but all deserving of equal treatment.
So, let’s have a little bit less hysteria and more cool heads. The women, the old ladies, people with disabilities and those who are same-sex attracted who have valid concerns about the impacts of this bill are as deserving of having their voices heard as the trans people whom it may benefit. They don’t deserve to have their voices drowned out by this issue being turned into a constitutional foootball.
I am not opposed to simplification of the process of gender recognition for trans people, as was promised in the SNP (https://www.thenational.scot/politics/snp/) manifesto, but simplification should not mean eliminating safeguards. The First Minister has said repeatedly the bill gives no new rights to trans people. That is correct. You will search in vain for the word “trans’ in the bill. It’s not there.
Instead, the bill creates a new right for anyone to self-identify as the opposite sex with next to no meaningful safeguards. It’s pretty obvious that giving any man the right to be able to self-identify as a woman will impact on the rights of women to safety, dignity and privacy. And, for lesbians, the fact that any man can say he is a woman poses a threat to our right to be same-sex attracted.
Let’s just remind ourselves of the sort of safeguards to the bill that were voted down in the Scottish Parliament. An amendment to prevent known sex offenders from obtaining a gender recognition certificate (GRC); an amendment to prevent those awaiting trial on sex offences from applying for a GRC (which would have protected rape victims from the humiliation of having to use female pronouns to refer to their attacker in court); amendments to protect vulnerable women in prison; amendments to ensure those receiving intimate care could elect to receive it only from members of their same sex; amendments to allow the continuation of single-sex wards in health care settings.
Are we really saying this is acceptable and justifiable?

[ronaldo7]

Joanna Cherry: Gender bill might well have faced legal challenge in an indy Scotland
EVERYONE knows I am opposed to the Gender Recognition Reform Bill. However, I believe the problems it creates should be addressed in Scotland if not by our Parliament, then by our courts.
That said, to describe the use of the Section 35 power to block the bill as an attack on devolution doesn’t really make sense. It is of the essence of devolution that the devolved Parliament is subservient to the UK Parliament that’s why we as nationalists want independence (https://www.thenational.scot/news/scottish-independence/).
In an independent Scotland the passing of the bill by a parliamentary majority would not necessarily have guaranteed that it would have become law without further challenge.
If we were an independent country with a written constitution, I predict this bill would be facing a legal challenge based on the concerns about its impact on equality law and human rights.
If you cast your mind back to the summer of 2014, you will recall that the transitional constitution (published in a white paper (https://consult.gov.scot/elections-and-constitutional-development-division/scottish-independence-bill/supporting_documents/00452762.pdf) with a foreword by Nicola Sturgeon (https://www.thenational.scot/politics/nicola-sturgeon/)) enshrined the protected characteristics of the Equality Act and the rights protected by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in Scotland’s new constitution.
Those protected characteristics include age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation. Not in a hierarchy but all deserving of equal treatment.
So, let’s have a little bit less hysteria and more cool heads. The women, the old ladies, people with disabilities and those who are same-sex attracted who have valid concerns about the impacts of this bill are as deserving of having their voices heard as the trans people whom it may benefit. They don’t deserve to have their voices drowned out by this issue being turned into a constitutional foootball.
I am not opposed to simplification of the process of gender recognition for trans people, as was promised in the SNP (https://www.thenational.scot/politics/snp/) manifesto, but simplification should not mean eliminating safeguards. The First Minister has said repeatedly the bill gives no new rights to trans people. That is correct. You will search in vain for the word “trans’ in the bill. It’s not there.
Instead, the bill creates a new right for anyone to self-identify as the opposite sex with next to no meaningful safeguards. It’s pretty obvious that giving any man the right to be able to self-identify as a woman will impact on the rights of women to safety, dignity and privacy. And, for lesbians, the fact that any man can say he is a woman poses a threat to our right to be same-sex attracted.
Let’s just remind ourselves of the sort of safeguards to the bill that were voted down in the Scottish Parliament. An amendment to prevent known sex offenders from obtaining a gender recognition certificate (GRC); an amendment to prevent those awaiting trial on sex offences from applying for a GRC (which would have protected rape victims from the humiliation of having to use female pronouns to refer to their attacker in court); amendments to protect vulnerable women in prison; amendments to ensure those receiving intimate care could elect to receive it only from members of their same sex; amendments to allow the continuation of single-sex wards in health care settings.
Are we really saying this is acceptable and justifiable?

Cheers.

Just a regurgitation of old arguments then.

Thought there might be something new in it.

[He's here!]

Cheers.

Just a regurgitation of old arguments then.

Thought there might be something new in it.

I thought the observation that the bad law was likely to be challenged irrespective of the challenger was quite astute.

[marinello59]

Cheers.

Just a regurgitation of old arguments then.

Thought there might be something new in it.

Aren’t we at the point when it’s almost all regurgitation of old arguments from both sides and even those in the middle?
And I’m still confused.:greengrin

[marinello59]

I thought the observation that the bad law was likely to be challenged irrespective of the challenger was quite astute.

She argues her case well as always and given that she does have a legal background her words carry some weight. Up there with some of the best stuff from people with opposing views. Strip out the needless party political point scoring and there has been some really good debate around this.

[ronaldo7]

I thought the observation that the bad law was likely to be challenged irrespective of the challenger was quite astute.

She makes the point that if we were an independent country it would still have been challenged. I don't think anyone has argued that wouldn't be the case tbh.

You only need to look at the laws challenged in the last 10 years to see that.

We'll still be able to challenge laws made in an independent Scotland.

[Ozyhibby]

She makes the point that if we were an independent country it would still have been challenged. I don't think anyone has argued that wouldn't be the case tbh.

You only need to look at the laws challenged in the last 10 years to see that.

We'll still be able to challenge laws made in an independent Scotland.

I would bloody hope so.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[He's here!]

Quite a decent overview of the whole mess from Macwhirter:

Gender wars: the Union’s new battle line | The Spectator (https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/gender-wars-the-unions-new-battle-line/)

[ronaldo7]

Kemi Badenoch fails to respond to the request to attend the equalities committee at Holyrood.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

So you keep claiming. I'm not going to pretend I know that that is, although it rings a bell with regard to a grim stand-off with the landlord of a flat I was renting many years ago. I guess there must be innumerable section 33s though.

I didn't know what an s35 was either until a few weeks ago, but whichever 'section' most effectively puts a hold on bad law makes sense to me.

That's subjective. It's your personal opinion that it's a bad law. It doesn't however change the fact that a devolved parliament consisting of MSPs put in place by the Scottish electorate gave this bill cross party support. A bill that falls within the powers of devolution. Because had it not fallen within the powers of devolution, the UK Government would have enacted section 33, not section 35.

They've effectively halted a bill that they simply don't agree with. Not because of any constitutional implications. Of course, by using section 35, they've created a constitutional implication themselves.

[He's here!]

She makes the point that if we were an independent country it would still have been challenged. I don't think anyone has argued that wouldn't be the case tbh.

You only need to look at the laws challenged in the last 10 years to see that.

We'll still be able to challenge laws made in an independent Scotland.

I've not seen anyone make that point before, but that's not to say they haven't. It just seems the line of attack from supporters of the bill is that Westminster have got involved rather than acknowledge there are legitimate questions to be asked of its efficacy.

The most recent Holyrood legislation I can recall which caused similar levels of outcry was the named person scheme, which IIRC also ended up being ruled on outwith Scotland (by the Supreme Court) before ultimately being abandoned.

On the flipside, one piece of SG legislation which I fully supported (the offensive behaviour at football act) was overturned from within Holyrood. I still find that a baffling move when you see what continues to be glossed over in Scottish football.

[James310]

https://twitter.com/murdo_fraser/status/1616809213954756611?t=GAyLdCZOHWco2LINp5giIw&s=19

An example of why I think extremists have hijacked the trans right movement. Not a great look for the SNP/Greens to be side by side with these people.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

https://twitter.com/murdo_fraser/status/1616809213954756611?t=GAyLdCZOHWco2LINp5giIw&s=19

An example of why I think extremists have hijacked the trans right movement. Not a great look for the SNP/Greens to be side by side with these people.

These people? It's a couple of people holding up signs they shouldn't be amongst a crowd of hundreds of people. Bit of a desperate stretch to say that the SNP and Greens are "side by side" with them. Not quite the same as the tories warming up to the Orange Order.

[James310]

These people? It's a couple of people holding up signs they shouldn't be amongst a crowd of hundreds of people. Bit of a desperate stretch to say that the SNP and Greens are "side by side" with them. Not quite the same as the tories warming up to the Orange Order.

These people? Yes, extremists holding up signs in a busy city centre saying they want to brutally murder women. That's not normal.

https://twitter.com/joannaccherry/status/1616796097602588673?t=T7e88GJzclruXOBthNdu5A&s=19

Joanna Cherry due in court soon to give evidence against someone who threatened to kill her.

[He's here!]

These people? Yes, extremists holding up signs in a busy city centre saying they want to brutally murder women. That's not normal.

https://twitter.com/joannaccherry/status/1616796097602588673?t=T7e88GJzclruXOBthNdu5A&s=19

Joanna Cherry due in court soon to give evidence against someone who threatened to kill her.

Terf is such a daft, unpleasant term.

What's 'radical' about not agreeing transwomen are women?

[He's here!]

https://twitter.com/murdo_fraser/status/1616809213954756611?t=GAyLdCZOHWco2LINp5giIw&s=19

An example of why I think extremists have hijacked the trans right movement. Not a great look for the SNP/Greens to be side by side with these people.

It's a gift to the Sunday papers' picture editors

Row erupts as SNP MPs appear near violent sign at Glasgow protest | The National (https://www.thenational.scot/news/23267343.row-erupts-snp-mps-appear-near-violent-sign-glasgow-protest/)

SNP politicians blasted after standing with group holding 'decapitate TERFS' sign at trans protest - Scottish Daily Express (https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/snp-politicians-blasted-after-standing-29015140)

[archie]

It's a gift to the Sunday papers' picture editors

Row erupts as SNP MPs appear near violent sign at Glasgow protest | The National (https://www.thenational.scot/news/23267343.row-erupts-snp-mps-appear-near-violent-sign-glasgow-protest/)

SNP politicians blasted after standing with group holding 'decapitate TERFS' sign at trans protest - Scottish Daily Express (https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/snp-politicians-blasted-after-standing-29015140)

It was really stupid to post the video with this in the background. I don't for a second think the MPs and MSPs support it, but they put themselves in the position.

[CropleyWasGod]

Terf is such a daft, unpleasant term.

What's 'radical' about not agreeing transwomen are women?

The term itself goes back about 15 years. Its original meaning was to distinguish between those radical feminists who accept that trans women are women, and those who don't. Inclusive vs excluding.

Now, of course, it's a pejorative. A softer term would be "Gender-critical", which of course can include all genders.

[He's here!]

These people? Yes, extremists holding up signs in a busy city centre saying they want to brutally murder women. That's not normal.

https://twitter.com/joannaccherry/status/1616796097602588673?t=T7e88GJzclruXOBthNdu5A&s=19

Joanna Cherry due in court soon to give evidence against someone who threatened to kill her.

https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1616871052214255616?s=20&t=xVi-NqrzQz12I8PzPRChpA

[James310]

https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1616871052214255616?s=20&t=xVi-NqrzQz12I8PzPRChpA

Her original tweet has over 3.5M views.

https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1616823465528512517?t=ebleoLwtlZ-CVHGrsT2t0w&s=19

[He's here!]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jan/21/stoking-a-culture-war-no-nicola-sturgeon-this-is-about-balancing-conflicting-rights

Good piece underlining the hypocrisy of the SG insisting the bill was a mere administrative tweak then going to court to argue it has a profound influence of people's legal rights.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jan/21/stoking-a-culture-war-no-nicola-sturgeon-this-is-about-balancing-conflicting-rights

Good piece underlining the hypocrisy of the SG insisting the bill was a mere administrative tweak then going to court to argue it has a profound influence of people's legal rights.

It's an opinion piece that does nothing to explain why the UK Government used Section 35 instead of Section 33. Although, we all know why.

[He's here!]

The term itself goes back about 15 years. Its original meaning was to distinguish between those radical feminists who accept that trans women are women, and those who don't. Inclusive vs excluding.

Now, of course, it's a pejorative. A softer term would be "Gender-critical", which of course can include all genders.

Yes, I get that. But radical feminism ideology goes back much further, to a time when the radicalism was grounded, for the most part, in a very real (and ongoing) battle against women's oppression, not against those who wish to eradicate biological fact. That those women (and these days it includes any woman, not just those with strong feminist views) who make the undeniable point that a man cannot experience the lived reality of a woman are deemed the bad guys is just plain daft. If anyone merits a derogatory slur, it's the faction who choose to live in the world of make believe and insist that anyone who does not deserves scorn (or indeed 'decapitation').

One of Rowling's original tweets (in support of Maya Forstater) which has ever since seen her unjustly demonised, perfectly sums up the absurdity of where we're at:

https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1207646162813100033?s=20&t=JV6jZxCDBtayNykIYmQQDQ

[He's here!]

It's an opinion piece that does nothing to explain why the UK Government used Section 35 instead of Section 33. Although, we all know why.

She explains why they were 'correct to trigger section 35'.

[James310]

Trans rights was literally on 3 programmes in a row this morning, the presenter on Sunday Morning Live saying the topic has been the most commented on he has ever seen.

Yet some still say the general public don't care.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

She explains why they were 'correct to trigger section 35'.

This is what she says: "The rights at stake – protections for women and girls that remain a Westminster matter – mean the government was correct to trigger section 35. It remains to be seen if the courts find it meets the legal test."

Guess what? It doesn't. Because if it could meet the legal test, they would have triggered section 33 instead.

[He's here!]

Second former Supreme Court judge explains why the veto is correct (from the Sunday Times):

This is a fight with Westminster that Sturgeon won't win
by Jonathan Sumption

THE UK government’s veto of the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill has provoked predictable outrage from Bute House. The first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, has called it a “full frontal attack” on Scottish democracy. She threatens a challenge in the courts.
Three streets away in Edinburgh’s New Town, Lord Hope of Craighead, a distinguished Scottish lawyer and former deputy president of the UK Supreme Court, is scathing. Her litigation, he says, will be a hopeless waste of public money. What is going on?
The Edinburgh parliament is a subordinate legislature. It owes its existence and powers entirely to the Scotland Act 1998, an act of the UK parliament. The scheme of the Scotland Act is perfectly rational. It devolves to Scotland everything of exclusive concern to Scotland, while reserving to Westminster a long list of “reserved matters” that concern the whole of the United Kingdom.
Section 35 of the act is part of this scheme. It empowers the UK government to stop a Scottish bill from becoming law, but only if the bill deals with matters reserved to Westminster in a way that adversely affects how the law works.One of these reserved matters is equal opportunities.
What mainly concerns the UK government is that the new bill (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/stonewall-warns-government-not-to-block-gender-recognition-bill-mxtjpls0s) will create a special regime for recognising gender reassignment in Scotland. Trans people will be able to self-identify without satisfying the clinical tests that apply in the rest of the UK and the minimum age will be reduced from 18 to 16. This is achieved by modifying the operation in Scotland of two Westminster statutes, the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the Equality Act 2010, both of which apply throughout the UK.
The changes will not apply in the rest of the UK, but that is heart of the problem. If the bill becomes law, some UK citizens will have a different legal gender in different parts of the UK, depending on where they happen to be.
This poses serious legal and practical problems for employers and public authorities operating on a UK-wide basis. They will have to discriminate between trans people in Scotland and the rest of the UK on such matters as equal pay, gender discrimination, tax, benefits and pensions, all of which are subject to UK-wide statutory regimes.
These are powerful points. It is not clear what the Scottish ministers’ answer is. Unless they can think of one, their judicial review (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sturgeon-challenge-to-gender-law-veto-waste-of-money-says-ex-judge-c68n839tf) will fail. But all that we have heard from them so far is froth and rage.
The suggestion that the UK government’s veto is an attack on Scottish democracy (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/gender-bill-veto-first-of-many-attempts-to-limit-scottish-power-says-sturgeon-llm3g0pgd) is absurd. The matters reserved to Westminster by the Scotland Act concern the whole of the UK. Only Westminster can legitimately speak for the whole of the UK, and Scotland is fully represented there by 59 MPs. They don’t always get their way, but that is democracy for you.
The Scottish parliament represents less than a tenth of the people of the UK. It would be wholly undemocratic for the Scottish tail to be allowed to wag the UK dog on issues such as these.
Scotland has a remarkably generous devolution settlement. Almost everything which really matters to Scots is devolved. This ought to mean that there are few occasions for conflict with Westminster.
But for some years Scottish ministers have been promoting bills in Edinburgh designed to throw grit into the working of the Union in the few areas where there is scope for disagreement. The strategy is to nibble away at the matters reserved to Westminster in order to provoke constitutional rows, which they hope will boost support for independence.
Hence the constant yelling about assaults on Scottish democracy whenever the Scottish parliament comes up against the limits of its powers and the legitimate interests of the UK as a whole.
On this occasion, however, Sturgeon’s famous political skills may have deserted her. The signs are that her Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill is alienating some of her natural supporters north of the border. When opportunities to pick a quarrel with Westminster are so few, it is more important than ever to choose the right ones.

Lord Sumption is a former Justice of the Supreme Court

[archie]

This is what she says: "The rights at stake – protections for women and girls that remain a Westminster matter – mean the government was correct to trigger section 35. It remains to be seen if the courts find it meets the legal test."

Guess what? It doesn't. Because if it could meet the legal test, they would have triggered section 33 instead.

That's your opinion. There's a lot of legal opinion that says it meets both legal tests. I suspect there was a lot of discussion as to which section to trigger. My guess it was a mix of legal view and political opportunism. From my (admittedly limited) understanding, SG's judicial review will have to demonstrate that UKG acted unreasonably. I think that's a pretty high bar. It's a power play by both governments. What a shame it's come to this.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

That's your opinion. There's a lot of legal opinion that says it meets both legal tests. I suspect there was a lot of discussion as to which section to trigger. My guess it was a mix of legal view and political opportunism. From my (admittedly limited) understanding, SG's judicial review will have to demonstrate that UKG acted unreasonably. I think that's a pretty high bar. It's a power play by both governments. What a shame it's come to this.

Problem is, if the court doesn't rule that the UK Government acted unreasonably, they can effectively use Section 35 to reverse any other devolved legislation in the future, claiming that it "impacts equality" in some way. Section 35 is purposefully vague, which can make it the ultimate power grab.

[James310]

Problem is, if the court doesn't rule that the UK Government acted unreasonably, they can effectively use Section 35 to reverse any other devolved legislation in the future, claiming that it "impacts equality" in some way. Section 35 is purposefully vague, which can make it the ultimate power grab.

Why haven't they done that in the past then? I mean this clause has been there since the Scottish Parliament was created. Times used before? 0.

[archie]

Problem is, if the court doesn't rule that the UK Government acted unreasonably, they can effectively use Section 35 to reverse any other devolved legislation in the future, claiming that it "impacts equality" in some way. Section 35 is purposefully vague, which can make it the ultimate power grab.
When the Scotland Act was debated, the thinking was that there would be cooperative engagement to enhance legislation and ensure that all govermental interests were considered. Unfortunately that's not where we are.

[He's here!]

Why haven't they done that in the past then? I mean this clause has been there since the Scottish Parliament was created. Times used before? 0.

Indeed. SG thinking seems to be that this legislated for safeguard should never actually be used, even when the case for it is strong.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Why haven't they done that in the past then? I mean this clause has been there since the Scottish Parliament was created. Times used before? 0.

They haven't been this desperate to roll back devolution before.

[James310]

They haven't been this desperate to roll back devolution before.

That doesn't really add up, the picture you paint is a desperate Tory government doing all they can to stop the SNP and put the Scots in their place. The reality is the for the first time in the history of the Scottish Parliament there is a valid concern that the legislation impacts UK law, and despite giving the Scottish Government plenty of warnings about this Bill they ignored it and now this is the consequence.

But aren't you against devolution? You want to abolish it?

[TrumpIsAPeado]

That doesn't really add up, the picture you paint is a desperate Tory government doing all they can to stop the SNP and put the Scots in their place. The reality is the for the first time in the history of the Scottish Parliament there is a valid concern that the legislation impacts UK law, and despite giving the Scottish Government plenty of warnings about this Bill they ignored it and now this is the consequence.

But aren't you against devolution? You want to abolish it?

If it impacted UK law, the UK Government would have used Section 33, that's what it's for. How many times does it need to be pointed out?

Section 35 allows the UK Government to interpret devolved legislation as they see fit, then block it on that basis. The Secretary of State only has to pretend to "believe" that it has an impact on reserved matters, to serve as justification for enacting the order.

This would have alarm bells ringing in any real democracy.

[James310]

If it impacted UK law, the UK Government would have used Section 33, that's what it's for. How many times does it need to be pointed out?

Section 35 allows the UK Government to interpret devolved legislation as they see fit, then block it on that basis. The Secretary of State only has to pretend to "believe" that it has an impact on reserved matters, to serve as justification for enacting the order.

This would have alarm bells ringing in any real democracy.

And you have ex Supreme Court judges saying you are wrong and a S35 was correct. Just repeating your own opinion doesn't make it fact.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

And you have ex Supreme Court judges saying you are wrong and a S35 was correct. Just repeating your own opinion doesn't make it fact.

You had one ex-supreme court judge come out and say it was correct, without detailing why they thought it was correct. An ex-judge is under no obligation of impartiality.

[He's here!]

You had one ex-supreme court judge come out and say it was correct, without detailing why they thought it was correct. An ex-judge is under no obligation of impartiality.

Lord Sumption is the second ex-Supreme Court Judge to back the move in the last few days. Lord Hope being the other.

They may no longer be bound by impartiality but I'd suggest they're well qualified to give an opinion.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Lord Sumption is the second ex-Supreme Court Judge to back the move in the last few days. Lord Hope being the other.

They may no longer be bound by impartiality but I'd suggest they're well qualified to give an opinion.

They may be qualified to give an opinion, but they're always going to give the opinion that resonates with their own personal views, hence why it's called an "opinion" and not a fact.

[He's here!]

They may be qualified to give an opinion, but they're always going to give the opinion that resonates with their own personal views, hence why it's called an "opinion" and not a fact.

How do you know they are always going to do this? And how can you claim to know what their personal views are?

Why wouldn't they, as exceptionally experienced members of the legal profession, not be giving a legal opinion?

[Kato]

Lord Sumption is the second ex-Supreme Court Judge to back the move in the last few days. Lord Hope being the other.

They may no longer be bound by impartiality but I'd suggest they're well qualified to give an opinion.You do wonder what it is that make Lords stick up for the establishment.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[He's here!]

You do wonder what it is that make Lords stick up for the establishment.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

IIRC the Supreme Court twice ruled against the government in the not too distant past when it came to the triggering of Article 50 plus the proroguing of Parliament.

[grunt]

Lord Sumption is the second ex-Supreme Court Judge to back the move in the last few days. Lord Hope being the other.

They may no longer be bound by impartiality but I'd suggest they're well qualified to give an opinion.

Hmm, Lord Sumption. That name rings a bell. Or is it an alarm?

Sumption has been described as "conservative neo-liberal and libertarian."

On 17 January 2021, Sumption appeared on The Big Questions to discuss the question of whether the lockdown was "punishing too many for the greater good", and said (with reference to the medical concept of quality-adjusted life years) that "I don’t accept that all lives are of equal value. My children’s and my grandchildren’s life is worth much more than mine because they’ve got a lot more of it ahead". When a cancer patient taking part in the debate said that he was saying that her life was "not valuable", Sumption interrupted her, saying: "I didn’t say your life was not valuable, I said it was less valuable."

Just the sort of guy whose opinion I'd not value.

[archie]

Hmm, Lord Sumption. That name rings a bell. Or is it an alarm?

Sumption has been described as "conservative neo-liberal and libertarian."

On 17 January 2021, Sumption appeared on The Big Questions to discuss the question of whether the lockdown was "punishing too many for the greater good", and said (with reference to the medical concept of quality-adjusted life years) that "I don’t accept that all lives are of equal value. My children’s and my grandchildren’s life is worth much more than mine because they’ve got a lot more of it ahead". When a cancer patient taking part in the debate said that he was saying that her life was "not valuable", Sumption interrupted her, saying: "I didn’t say your life was not valuable, I said it was less valuable."

Just the sort of guy whose opinion I'd not value.

We'll all of this is just noise. You'll just have to wait until the JR.

[Bristolhibby]

Second former Supreme Court judge explains why the veto is correct (from the Sunday Times):

This is a fight with Westminster that Sturgeon won't win
by Jonathan Sumption

THE UK government’s veto of the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill has provoked predictable outrage from Bute House. The first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, has called it a “full frontal attack” on Scottish democracy. She threatens a challenge in the courts.
Three streets away in Edinburgh’s New Town, Lord Hope of Craighead, a distinguished Scottish lawyer and former deputy president of the UK Supreme Court, is scathing. Her litigation, he says, will be a hopeless waste of public money. What is going on?
The Edinburgh parliament is a subordinate legislature. It owes its existence and powers entirely to the Scotland Act 1998, an act of the UK parliament. The scheme of the Scotland Act is perfectly rational. It devolves to Scotland everything of exclusive concern to Scotland, while reserving to Westminster a long list of “reserved matters” that concern the whole of the United Kingdom.
Section 35 of the act is part of this scheme. It empowers the UK government to stop a Scottish bill from becoming law, but only if the bill deals with matters reserved to Westminster in a way that adversely affects how the law works.One of these reserved matters is equal opportunities.
What mainly concerns the UK government is that the new bill (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/stonewall-warns-government-not-to-block-gender-recognition-bill-mxtjpls0s) will create a special regime for recognising gender reassignment in Scotland. Trans people will be able to self-identify without satisfying the clinical tests that apply in the rest of the UK and the minimum age will be reduced from 18 to 16. This is achieved by modifying the operation in Scotland of two Westminster statutes, the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the Equality Act 2010, both of which apply throughout the UK.
The changes will not apply in the rest of the UK, but that is heart of the problem. If the bill becomes law, some UK citizens will have a different legal gender in different parts of the UK, depending on where they happen to be.
This poses serious legal and practical problems for employers and public authorities operating on a UK-wide basis. They will have to discriminate between trans people in Scotland and the rest of the UK on such matters as equal pay, gender discrimination, tax, benefits and pensions, all of which are subject to UK-wide statutory regimes.
These are powerful points. It is not clear what the Scottish ministers’ answer is. Unless they can think of one, their judicial review (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sturgeon-challenge-to-gender-law-veto-waste-of-money-says-ex-judge-c68n839tf) will fail. But all that we have heard from them so far is froth and rage.
The suggestion that the UK government’s veto is an attack on Scottish democracy (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/gender-bill-veto-first-of-many-attempts-to-limit-scottish-power-says-sturgeon-llm3g0pgd) is absurd. The matters reserved to Westminster by the Scotland Act concern the whole of the UK. Only Westminster can legitimately speak for the whole of the UK, and Scotland is fully represented there by 59 MPs. They don’t always get their way, but that is democracy for you.
The Scottish parliament represents less than a tenth of the people of the UK. It would be wholly undemocratic for the Scottish tail to be allowed to wag the UK dog on issues such as these.
Scotland has a remarkably generous devolution settlement. Almost everything which really matters to Scots is devolved. This ought to mean that there are few occasions for conflict with Westminster.
But for some years Scottish ministers have been promoting bills in Edinburgh designed to throw grit into the working of the Union in the few areas where there is scope for disagreement. The strategy is to nibble away at the matters reserved to Westminster in order to provoke constitutional rows, which they hope will boost support for independence.
Hence the constant yelling about assaults on Scottish democracy whenever the Scottish parliament comes up against the limits of its powers and the legitimate interests of the UK as a whole.
On this occasion, however, Sturgeon’s famous political skills may have deserted her. The signs are that her Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill is alienating some of her natural supporters north of the border. When opportunities to pick a quarrel with Westminster are so few, it is more important than ever to choose the right ones.

Lord Sumption is a former Justice of the Supreme Court

For me that just explains why England needs to follow Scotlands lead.

Like Johnson during COVID.

Also explains why Scotland NEEDS independence.

J

[James310]

I saw Wings Over Scotland trending on Twitter and thought what's he done now. Yikes! No links as I know it upsets people but backs up the point a few have made that trans extremists have hijacked this and taken the Scottish Government with them.

[grunt]

We'll all of this is just noise. You'll just have to wait until the JR.Wasn't me that brought Sumption into the discussion.

[archie]

I saw Wings Over Scotland trending on Twitter and thought what's he done now. Yikes! No links as I know it upsets people but backs up the point a few have made that trans extremists have hijacked this and taken the Scottish Government with them.
I saw this and decided not to post links. It's an evisceration of some of the key players. Not a comfortable read. He better be right in what he is asserting.

[JeMeSouviens]

I saw this and decided not to post links. It's an evisceration of some of the key players. Not a comfortable read. He better be right in what he is asserting.

Incidentally, I saw someone posted a twitter screenshot of Wings responding to a "You Yes Yet?" the other day with, "No", so I think we can officially say he's jumped the dyke to the supporters of the Union side. Best of luck with your new recruit. :wink:

[James310]

Incidentally, I saw someone posted a twitter screenshot of Wings responding to a "You Yes Yet?" the other day with, "No", so I think we can officially say he's jumped the dyke to the supporters of the Union side. Best of luck with your new recruit. :wink:

He doesn't get a vote.

[archie]

Incidentally, I saw someone posted a twitter screenshot of Wings responding to a "You Yes Yet?" the other day with, "No", so I think we can officially say he's jumped the dyke to the supporters of the Union side. Best of luck with your new recruit. :wink:I don't understand the point. Are you saying what he has posted isn't true? My sense is that his issue is with a section of the yes movement rather than independence per se.

[Kato]

I don't understand the point. Are you saying what he has posted isn't true? My sense is that his issue is with a section of the yes movement rather than independence per se.Has a small cadre of, possibly criminal, trans activists hijacked the Scottish Govt?

I don't think that is true, no.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[JeMeSouviens]

I don't understand the point. Are you saying what he has posted isn't true? My sense is that his issue is with a section of the yes movement rather than independence per se.

I don't know, I haven't read it. Having read his stuff about Hillsborough and his Kezia Dugdale fixation, I think he's a bit unhinged tbh. I know he's absolutely obsessed with gender stuff, has been for a few years, is ferociously anti-SNP/Greens and reserves particular poison for Nicola Sturgeon. He is now being embraced by a section of opportunistic anti-Indy people.

Get your longest spoons out would be my advice.

[archie]

Has a small cadre of, possibly criminal, trans activists hijacked the Scottish Govt?

I don't think that is true, no.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Have you read the article? TBF he points the finger at politicos from parties other than Greens/SNP.

[Kato]

Have you read the article? TBF he points the finger at politicos from parties other than Greens/SNP.Sadly I read it.

Has a small cadre of militant trans people hijacked the Scottish Govt?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[archie]

Sadly I read it.

Has a small cadre of militant trans people hijacked the Scottish Govt?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
It's a rough read, which is why I didn't link it. It's also not something for a football site with a mixed age readership. My reading of it wasn't a general hijacking, but that a small group appeared to have a disproportionate influence in pushing the legislation. The underlying tone was why this issue in particular.

[hibby rae]

I don't know, I haven't read it. Having read his stuff about Hillsborough and his Kezia Dugdale fixation, I think he's a bit unhinged tbh. I know he's absolutely obsessed with gender stuff, has been for a few years, is ferociously anti-SNP/Greens and reserves particular poison for Nicola Sturgeon. He is now being embraced by a section of opportunistic anti-Indy people.

Get your longest spoons out would be my advice.

Scrolling up from the bottom of the page I didn't know who was being discussed, then I read this post and though 'ah that'll be Wings Over Scotland'.

The guy is a deranged, angry, little man imo.

[Kato]

It's a rough read, which is why I didn't link it. It's also not something for a football site with a mixed age readership. My reading of it wasn't a general hijacking, but that a small group appeared to have a disproportionate influence in pushing the legislation. The underlying tone was why this issue in particular.He's a bigot claiming the government of Scotland has "surrendered" to a bunch of people he claims are bigots and criminals.

Rather than give him any import my advise is to treat him like any other bigot.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[archie]

He's a bigot claiming the government of Scotland has "surrendered" to a bunch of people he claims are bigots and criminals.

Rather than give him any import my advise is to treat him like any other bigot.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
Just out of interest, in what way is he a bigot?

[ronaldo7]

Badenoch confirms she's not going to bother coming up to the Scottish Parliament to discuss what's wrong with the bill.

They even offered for her to do it virtually.

Feel the love.

[He's here!]

Labour, both at Holyrood and Westminster, seem to be caught in a kind of no-man's land (biological or otherwise) on this issue. Starmer has tied himself in knots, while Sarwar, despite whipping his MSPs to vote in favour of the bill is now calling on the Equalities and Human Rights Commission to step in and resolve 'concerns over its impact on single sex spaces'. Why vote for a bill you had such concerns about?

Gender law impasse can be broken - Sarwar - BBC News (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-64365487)

[He's here!]

Just out of interest, in what way is he a bigot?

He had a long-running defamation battle with Kezia Dugdale who accused him of being homophobic. IIRC the court rejected the homophobia accusations but awarded damages to Dugdale, though I can't remember the full details.

You're right about his latest post being an uncomfortable read and I can't claim to have read it all. I found it all a bit bewildering.

He was spot-on, though, about the furore the SG bill would spark, pointing out its inherent problems several years ago.

[ronaldo7]

Letter from the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Housing and Local Government to the Secretary of State for Scotland regarding the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill and Section 35 order.

Dear Alister

I have noted your letter received on the evening of 16 January, informing us of your intention to make an order under section 35 of the Scotland Act 1998 which you then tabled on 17 January.

As the First Minister has set out, we consider that this unprecedented intervention represents an attack on the democratically elected Scottish Parliament and its ability to make decisions on devolved matters. The Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill is within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, which passed the Bill last month by an overwhelming majority of MSPs with support from members of all five parties.

Your letter provided scant detail on the reasons for the order, and like everyone else we had to wait until publication late on Tuesday afternoon of your policy statement to see any substantive explanation. We will respond in full to the points raised in the appropriate forum which, given the approach taken by the UK Government, is now likely to be through the courts.

My immediate concern, however, is to clarify contradictions in your letter and statement.

You have said that you hope we can work together to find a constructive way forward which respects devolution and the operation of UK legislation. This seems utterly incompatible with your approach of waiting until after the Bill has been passed to implement a power of veto never used before, with no warning communicated about the use of that power or prior attempt to engage on the detailed issues now raised. Please would you clarify how the Scottish Government can work constructively with you under these circumstances.

It is disappointing that you have refused the invitation to appear at the Scottish Parliament’s Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee to explain your decision. This does not seem consistent with your stated aim to do all you can to respect the devolution settlement.

You have said that you are open to consideration of an amended Bill, yet the reasoning you have set out includes a fundamental objection to the existence of two different systems within the UK.

This is in direct contradiction of the position set out in the UK Government’s 2018 consultation on gender recognition reform, which stated:

“Gender recognition is devolved to Scotland. That means Scotland can have its own system for gender recognition if it wants to. Some areas dealt with by the GRA are not devolved, however, such as pension and benefit entitlements. The Scottish Government consultation clearly sets out what is and is not devolved with respect to its proposals and where, in the future, they might have to work with the UK Government.

“The UK Government is committed to working closely with the Scottish Government on its proposals, especially on the implementation of its proposals where powers are not devolved, mutual recognition of certificates issued in different parts of the UK across the UK (this would include those issued under the current system and those issued in the future), residency requirements that applicants might need to meet and the implications of any difference in legal rights conferred by the issuing of a GRC in Scotland as opposed to England and Wales.”

If it is now the UK Government’s position that the existence of two different gender recognition systems within the UK is unacceptable, please clarify what an amended Bill could possibly include, and how this position can be consistent with the recognition both by your Government and by the Equalites and Human Rights Commission that gender recognition is a devolved matter.

I will also note that the positions of the UK and Scottish Governments were broadly consistent, with each proposing similar reforms, until September 2020 when the UK Government announced it would not take forward the proposed reforms set out in its 2018 consultation, despite 64% of respondents agreeing that the requirement for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria should be removed. That was the point when it became clear that there would likely be different approaches within the UK – over two years ago.

The Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill has been years in the making, has involved input from tens of thousands of organisations and individuals through public consultation, extensive evidence-taking and consideration by the Scottish Parliament’s Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, and significant joint working from MSPs of all parties.

The UK Government has had countless opportunities to engage, express views, or request changes since we set out our intention to reform the Gender Recognition Act 2004 in our Programme for Government of September 2016.

This included the two Scottish Government consultations that closed in March 2018 and March 2020, the Scottish Parliament call for views that closed in May 2022, and the Equalities Committee’s detailed consideration of the Bill from March to October 2022.

Officials in the Scottish and and UK Governments have had ongoing and regular cordial discussions on cross-border interaction of the Bill.

There has also been Ministerial engagement on the Bill. I wrote to then Equalities Minister Nadhim Zahawi in October 2022 highlighting relevant policy decisions for the UK Government and committing to work together on an order under section 104 of the Scotland Act, which is the usual process for handling cross-border issues or implications for reserved law.

Kemi Badenoch’s letter of 7 December to me was in response to that letter, two months later. I believe in comments you made during your statement in the House of Commons you may have given the impression that Ms Badenoch initiated this correspondence but that was not the case.

Following that correspondence I met with Ms Badenoch on 19 December. Both Ms Badenoch and I committed to working together constructively, including ongoing official level meetings.

In none of the above opportunities for engagement or actual discussions has the UK Government given any indication it would consider using any powers, let alone a Section 35 power to effectively veto the bill, or that it had issues that could possibly warrant doing so.

The UK Government has only raised concerns about two specific issues with the Bill, both of which were quickly resolved. The first was provision relating to asylum seekers added at Stage 2 by an MSP and which the Scottish Government was clear it did not support. The competence of this amendment was queried by the Office of the Advocate General, and it was removed by a Scottish Government amendment at Stage 3. The second was an issue raised by Ms Badenoch on the morning of 22 December, during the Stage 3 process, in relation to remarks made on the evening of 21 December during the Stage 3 debate. This was resolved the same day through clarification that the existing GRC process will continue to be open to those in Scotland.

Using the Section 35 power to impose a veto on the Bill when already passed by the Scottish Parliament, after ignoring every opportunity to raise these issues or seek changes to the Bill over several years, demonstrates complete disregard for devolution, and flies in the face of the 2013 Memorandum of Understanding between our Governments which states that these powers should be seen “very much as a matter of last resort”.

I therefore ask that if you really want to work together in a partnership of equals, then you should acknowledge that your use of Section 35 in this way is completely incompatible with such a partnership, and you should immediately revoke the order. That would enable constructive discussions about the issues you have raised.

I am of course happy to meet with you to discuss any of these issues as soon as possible, as I would have been at any point throughout the Bill process.

Shona Robison

[James310]

Letter from the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Housing and Local Government to the Secretary of State for Scotland regarding the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill and Section 35 order.

Dear Alister

I have noted your letter received on the evening of 16 January, informing us of your intention to make an order under section 35 of the Scotland Act 1998 which you then tabled on 17 January.

As the First Minister has set out, we consider that this unprecedented intervention represents an attack on the democratically elected Scottish Parliament and its ability to make decisions on devolved matters. The Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill is within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, which passed the Bill last month by an overwhelming majority of MSPs with support from members of all five parties.

Your letter provided scant detail on the reasons for the order, and like everyone else we had to wait until publication late on Tuesday afternoon of your policy statement to see any substantive explanation. We will respond in full to the points raised in the appropriate forum which, given the approach taken by the UK Government, is now likely to be through the courts.

My immediate concern, however, is to clarify contradictions in your letter and statement.

You have said that you hope we can work together to find a constructive way forward which respects devolution and the operation of UK legislation. This seems utterly incompatible with your approach of waiting until after the Bill has been passed to implement a power of veto never used before, with no warning communicated about the use of that power or prior attempt to engage on the detailed issues now raised. Please would you clarify how the Scottish Government can work constructively with you under these circumstances.

It is disappointing that you have refused the invitation to appear at the Scottish Parliament’s Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee to explain your decision. This does not seem consistent with your stated aim to do all you can to respect the devolution settlement.

You have said that you are open to consideration of an amended Bill, yet the reasoning you have set out includes a fundamental objection to the existence of two different systems within the UK.

This is in direct contradiction of the position set out in the UK Government’s 2018 consultation on gender recognition reform, which stated:

“Gender recognition is devolved to Scotland. That means Scotland can have its own system for gender recognition if it wants to. Some areas dealt with by the GRA are not devolved, however, such as pension and benefit entitlements. The Scottish Government consultation clearly sets out what is and is not devolved with respect to its proposals and where, in the future, they might have to work with the UK Government.

“The UK Government is committed to working closely with the Scottish Government on its proposals, especially on the implementation of its proposals where powers are not devolved, mutual recognition of certificates issued in different parts of the UK across the UK (this would include those issued under the current system and those issued in the future), residency requirements that applicants might need to meet and the implications of any difference in legal rights conferred by the issuing of a GRC in Scotland as opposed to England and Wales.”

If it is now the UK Government’s position that the existence of two different gender recognition systems within the UK is unacceptable, please clarify what an amended Bill could possibly include, and how this position can be consistent with the recognition both by your Government and by the Equalites and Human Rights Commission that gender recognition is a devolved matter.

I will also note that the positions of the UK and Scottish Governments were broadly consistent, with each proposing similar reforms, until September 2020 when the UK Government announced it would not take forward the proposed reforms set out in its 2018 consultation, despite 64% of respondents agreeing that the requirement for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria should be removed. That was the point when it became clear that there would likely be different approaches within the UK – over two years ago.

The Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill has been years in the making, has involved input from tens of thousands of organisations and individuals through public consultation, extensive evidence-taking and consideration by the Scottish Parliament’s Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, and significant joint working from MSPs of all parties.

The UK Government has had countless opportunities to engage, express views, or request changes since we set out our intention to reform the Gender Recognition Act 2004 in our Programme for Government of September 2016.

This included the two Scottish Government consultations that closed in March 2018 and March 2020, the Scottish Parliament call for views that closed in May 2022, and the Equalities Committee’s detailed consideration of the Bill from March to October 2022.

Officials in the Scottish and and UK Governments have had ongoing and regular cordial discussions on cross-border interaction of the Bill.

There has also been Ministerial engagement on the Bill. I wrote to then Equalities Minister Nadhim Zahawi in October 2022 highlighting relevant policy decisions for the UK Government and committing to work together on an order under section 104 of the Scotland Act, which is the usual process for handling cross-border issues or implications for reserved law.

Kemi Badenoch’s letter of 7 December to me was in response to that letter, two months later. I believe in comments you made during your statement in the House of Commons you may have given the impression that Ms Badenoch initiated this correspondence but that was not the case.

Following that correspondence I met with Ms Badenoch on 19 December. Both Ms Badenoch and I committed to working together constructively, including ongoing official level meetings.

In none of the above opportunities for engagement or actual discussions has the UK Government given any indication it would consider using any powers, let alone a Section 35 power to effectively veto the bill, or that it had issues that could possibly warrant doing so.

The UK Government has only raised concerns about two specific issues with the Bill, both of which were quickly resolved. The first was provision relating to asylum seekers added at Stage 2 by an MSP and which the Scottish Government was clear it did not support. The competence of this amendment was queried by the Office of the Advocate General, and it was removed by a Scottish Government amendment at Stage 3. The second was an issue raised by Ms Badenoch on the morning of 22 December, during the Stage 3 process, in relation to remarks made on the evening of 21 December during the Stage 3 debate. This was resolved the same day through clarification that the existing GRC process will continue to be open to those in Scotland.

Using the Section 35 power to impose a veto on the Bill when already passed by the Scottish Parliament, after ignoring every opportunity to raise these issues or seek changes to the Bill over several years, demonstrates complete disregard for devolution, and flies in the face of the 2013 Memorandum of Understanding between our Governments which states that these powers should be seen “very much as a matter of last resort”.

I therefore ask that if you really want to work together in a partnership of equals, then you should acknowledge that your use of Section 35 in this way is completely incompatible with such a partnership, and you should immediately revoke the order. That would enable constructive discussions about the issues you have raised.

I am of course happy to meet with you to discuss any of these issues as soon as possible, as I would have been at any point throughout the Bill process.

Shona Robison

If it's going to court is it appropriate for live discussion about it? Generally we here that if it's a live court case politicans and the public in general won't comment.

[ronaldo7]

If it's going to court is it appropriate for live discussion about it? Generally we here that if it's a live court case politicans and the public in general won't comment.

It's not at court is it.

This is in the public domain.

#Pepperami

[James310]

It's not at court is it.

This is in the public domain.

#Pepperami

It's going to court though, the Scottish Government has asked for a judicial review. Will likely end up in Supreme Court.

What's the pepperami reference?

[ronaldo7]

It's going to court though, the Scottish Government has asked for a judicial review. Will likely end up in Supreme Court.

What's the pepperami reference?

The Letter gives clear time line of events which might be too spicy for you. :wink:

[147lothian]

The problem with the GRRB is that it makes being a woman an identity category rather than the reality of biological sex, it actively encourages predatory men to identify as women to gain entry to women only spaces. The GRRB would make the process of changing gender easier and quicker by removing the need for applicants to have a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria, and reducing the time adults are expected to have lived as their acquired gender from two years to three months. The new law would also have lowered the age at which people can apply to change their gender from 18 to 16.

Sunak was right to use the powers enshrined in Section 35 of the Scotland Act, to stop the GRRB, because it would not only be women and children in Scotland who would have been impacted by the new law. There would have been nothing to stop a man moving from England to Scotland for three months, gaining a GRC before heading back down South to live as a woman and access woman only spaces.

Incidentally Starmer might pretend he doesn't know what a woman is, and look terrified when asked if a woman can have a *****, a question any moderately intelligent 6 year old could answer, but if he was in power, the reality of governing would have meant that he would also have used the same powers to stop the GRRB as a safe guarding measure to protect women and children, just as Sunak did.

Here is an example of why the make believe policy of saying 'I identify as' being taken serious over the reality of biological sex is a danger to women and children. Stephen Mallon was jail for raping five women. However Stephen Mallon has now changed his name to Charlene, and boasts that he will be in a woman only prison in three months time.

This is not to say that trans people are predators, it's saying that a small number of men are predators and that safe guarding measures have to be put in place for the protection of women and children. Society has to be have a sex category that is based on the reality of biological sex not the make believe 'I identify as', where any Tom, Dick or Harry can walk into the ladies shower room by simply identifying as something they are not.

http://reduxx.info/scotland-serial-rapist-seeking-transfer-to-womens-prison-following-name-change/

[ronaldo7]

The problem with the GRRB is that it makes being a woman an identity category rather than the reality of biological sex, it actively encourages predatory men to identify as women to gain entry to women only spaces. The GRRB would make the process of changing gender easier and quicker by removing the need for applicants to have a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria, and reducing the time adults are expected to have lived as their acquired gender from two years to three months. The new law would also have lowered the age at which people can apply to change their gender from 18 to 16.

Sunak was right to use the powers enshrined in Section 35 of the Scotland Act, to stop the GRRB, because it would not only be women and children in Scotland who would have been impacted by the new law. There would have been nothing to stop a man moving from England to Scotland for three months, gaining a GRC before heading back down South to live as a woman and access woman only spaces.

Incidentally Starmer might pretend he doesn't know what a woman is, and look terrified when asked if a woman can have a *****, a question any moderately intelligent 6 year old could answer, but if he was in power, the reality of governing would have meant that he would also have used the same powers to stop the GRRB as a safe guarding measure to protect women and children, just as Sunak did.

Here is an example of why the make believe policy of saying 'I identify as' being taken serious over the reality of biological sex is a danger to women and children. Stephen Mallon was jail for raping five women. However Stephen Mallon has now changed his name to Charlene, and boasts that he will be in a woman only prison in three months time.

This is not to say that trans people are predators, it's saying that a small number of men are predators and that safe guarding measures have to be put in place for the protection of women and children. Society has to be have a sex category that is based on the reality of biological sex not the make believe 'I identify as', where any Tom, Dick or Harry can walk into the ladies shower room by simply identifying as something they are not.

http://reduxx.info/scotland-serial-rapist-seeking-transfer-to-womens-prison-following-name-change/

Also from the article you posted.

Ten years later, Mallon is eager to be around women once again, inside sources told The Sun. One fellow inmate reportedly said Mallon has “…been saying to people he has changed his name by deed poll and is going to the women’s hall in three months. But I don’t think he is. I don’t know how they can put a sex offender who rapes women into a women’s hall. I’m sure prison bosses will see through it.”

[Stairway 2 7]

This idiot plus Maggie Chapman before her, some event

https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/politics/scottish-politics/4078987/dundee-snp-councillor-compares-gender-reform-battle-to-auschwitz/

Dundee SNP councillor slammed after comparing gender reform battle to ‘Auschwitz

[archie]

It's not at court is it.

This is in the public domain.

#Pepperami

I think it's a mix of:
- don't do it on legal advice ( coupled with a realistic assessment that SG don't want to 'fix' the Bill)
- power play
- reciprocating for FM declining to attend Westminster
- not giving SG anything to divert attention from what they are going through.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Here is an example of why the make believe policy of saying 'I identify as' being taken serious over the reality of biological sex is a danger to women and children. Stephen Mallon was jail for raping five women. However Stephen Mallon has now changed his name to Charlene, and boasts that he will be in a woman only prison in three months time.

This has been the case for years. The new Gender Reform bill isn't making this possible now, it already was.

[James310]

This idiot plus Maggie Chapman before her, some event

https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/politics/scottish-politics/4078987/dundee-snp-councillor-compares-gender-reform-battle-to-auschwitz/

Dundee SNP councillor slammed after comparing gender reform battle to ‘Auschwitz

Tory Andrew Bridgen got roundly criticised when he made a link between the holocaust and vaccines. I think even the PM waded in and said how unacceptable it was. Surprisingly not a peep from the leadership of the SNP.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Tory Andrew Bridgen got roundly criticised when he made a link between the holocaust and vaccines. I think even the PM waded in and said how unacceptable it was. Surprisingly not a peep from the leadership of the SNP.

They're likely struggling to keep up with it all. Before you even get a chance to criticise the tories on something, there's already something else.

[147lothian]

Also from the article you posted.<br>
<br>
Ten years later, Mallon is eager to be around women once again, inside sources told The Sun. One fellow inmate reportedly said Mallon has “…been saying to people he has changed his name by deed poll and is going to the women’s hall in three months. But I don’t think he is. I don’t know how they can put a sex offender who rapes women into a women’s hall. I’m sure prison bosses will see through it.”

Prison bosses have previous for housing prisoners along the make believe 'I identify as' line rather than the reality of biological sex. Look at Stephen Wood who was jailed for a string of offences against woman and children, he had raped one woman who was in her 20's 5 or 6 times, the second woman he raped was two months pregnant, however after a name change to Karen White was transferred to the women only wakefield prison and went on to rape two women there.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/11/transgender-prisoner-who-sexually-assaulted-inmates-jailed-for-life

[ronaldo7]

Prison bosses have previous for housing prisoners along the make believe 'I identify as' line rather than the reality of biological sex. Look at Stephen Wood who was jailed for a string of offences against woman and children, he had raped one woman who was in her 20's 5 or 6 times, the second woman he raped was two months pregnant, however after a name change to Karen White was transferred to the women only wakefield prison and went on to rape two women there.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/11/transgender-prisoner-who-sexually-assaulted-inmates-jailed-for-life

I see this happened over 4 years ago under the current system in England. Did the person have a GRC?

[James310]

I see this happened over 4 years ago under the current system in England. Did the person have a GRC?

It says in the article they had started transitioning, so no. They would only get a GRC after a few years of living in their acquired gender, having a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria and likely taking some strong hormone drugs.

While in Scotland you can sit at home and do nothing for 3 months and hey presto you are now a woman because you say you are.

See the issue?

You seem quick to defend the SG, but why do you personally support allowing convicted sex offenders to get a GRC with no checks?

I am against it because these people have been convicted of some terrible crimes often involving lying and manipulation, so even if they think they will get the tiniest of advantage over a potential victim they will exploit that.

Or maybe you don't support it?

[ronaldo7]

It says in the article they had started transitioning, so no. They would only get a GRC after a few years of living in their acquired gender, having a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria and likely taking some strong hormone drugs.

While in Scotland you can sit at home and do nothing for 3 months and hey presto you are now a woman because you say you are.

See the issue?

You seem quick to defend the SG, but why do you personally support allowing convicted sex offenders to get a GRC with no checks?

I am against it because these people have been convicted of some terrible crimes often involving lying and manipulation, so even if they think they will get the tiniest of advantage over a potential victim they will exploit that.

Or maybe you don't support it?

I don't think I've ever said I support or don't support it as I suppose I'm one of those who don't see it as a pressing issue. This thread has been very informative though.

Lots of things to be taken into consideration and I can understand both sides have their views, and think that they're correct.

Sometimes the facts do get skewed with all the noise around though.

Fulham v Spurs next. See ya. 👍

[147lothian]

A male Edinburgh prisoner called Albert Cabellero who abducted and raped his care worker, has asked to be called Claire and wants transferred to a female prison before being released.

https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/edinburgh-news/sex-offender-edinburgh-prison-requests-26037590?int_source

[TrumpIsAPeado]

A male Edinburgh prisoner called Albert Cabellero who abducted and raped his care worker, has changed name to Claire and wants moved to a female prison before being released.

https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/edinburgh-news/sex-offender-edinburgh-prison-requests-26037590?int_source

Something that they could have done anyway under already existing laws across the UK.

[Betty Boop]

A male Edinburgh prisoner called Albert Cabellero who abducted and raped his care worker, has asked to be called Claire and wants transferred to a female prison before being released.

https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/edinburgh-news/sex-offender-edinburgh-prison-requests-26037590?int_source

I used to work with him a really nasty person.

[JeMeSouviens]

Something that they could have done anyway under already existing laws across the UK.

Well, nothing can be done under the new law, because it didn't make it into law.

[147lothian]

I used to work with him a really nasty person.

I'm just glad that the GRRB was blocked, because any law that makes it easier to Gender Self-ID gives greater scope for predators, it really would have been like a scene out of, the Silence of the Lambs, if a nasty man like Albert Cabellero ever entered a female only space.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/sex-fiend-who-raped-carer-29015322

[He's here!]

I'm just glad that the GRRB was blocked, because any law that makes it easier to Gender Self-ID gives greater scope for predators, it really would have been like a scene out of, the Silence of the Lambs, if a nasty man like Albert Cabellero ever entered a female only space.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/sex-fiend-who-raped-carer-29015322

Pointing this out tends to get shot down by supporters of the bill who argue women are unlikely to be put in danger. But why create such a potential problem in the first place by removing all safeguards around obtaining a GRC?

[147lothian]

Pointing this out tends to get shot down by supporters of the bill who argue women are unlikely to be put in danger. But why create such a potential problem in the first place by removing all safeguards around obtaining a GRC?

I'm not sure if removing the the safeguards makes it a critical social justice policy, a woke policy or identity politics, so I just think of it as the Alice in Wonderland GRRB, because thinking that a policy that is open to everyone would only be applied for by genuine people who are struggling with gender dysphoria is removed from reality.

Society is divided into categories based on sex for a reason, namely the protection of women and children, saying that these categories don't matter is like saying woman and children's single sex protection is not important. For the majority of people it is which is why the safeguards need to be kept in place.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Well, nothing can be done under the new law, because it didn't make it into law.

My point is, the new law wouldn't allow people like that to do anything that they couldn't already do under currently enforced legislation across the UK as a whole. Which pretty much rubbishes the Tory excuses for blocking the bill, which would explain why none of them are willing to appear in front of the equalities committee to justify the measures taken.

[Kato]

Society is divided into categories based on sex for a reason, namely the protection of women and children,

You sure about that?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[archie]

My point is, the new law wouldn't allow people like that to do anything that they couldn't already do under currently enforced legislation across the UK as a whole. Which pretty much rubbishes the Tory excuses for blocking the bill, which would explain why none of them are willing to appear in front of the equalities committee to justify the measures taken.
The legislation fundamentally changed how people get the certificate. How can you say it changes nothing?

[He's here!]

Rapist guilty of attacking women before gender change - BBC News (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-64388669)

Will this transgender rapist go to a women's prison? And, reading between the lines, was the decision to start the process of gender re-assignment made with a view to avoiding a men's prison?

[TrumpIsAPeado]

The legislation fundamentally changed how people get the certificate. How can you say it changes nothing?

The legislation means people can get it in less time and at a younger age. It doesn't grant special privileges that allow people to commit illegal acts.

[He's here!]

I'm not sure if removing the the safeguards makes it a critical social justice policy, a woke policy or identity politics, so I just think of it as the Alice in Wonderland GRRB, because thinking that a policy that is open to everyone would only be applied for by genuine people who are struggling with gender dysphoria is removed from reality.

Society is divided into categories based on sex for a reason, namely the protection of women and children, saying that these categories don't matter is like saying woman and children's single sex protection is not important. For the majority of people it is which is why the safeguards need to be kept in place.

I think that's a fair point. It would only take one assault from a sexual predator who has taken advantage of the new safeguard-free legislation for its folly to be exposed.

[He's here!]

The legislation means people can get it in less time and at a younger age. It doesn't grant special privileges that allow people to commit illegal acts.

Nobody, as far as I'm aware, is arguing that it does. It does, however, make it vastly more straightforward for somebody who would wish to use it for nefarious purposes to do so.

[Just Alf]

Nobody, as far as I'm aware, is arguing that it does. It does, however, make it vastly more straightforward for somebody who would wish to use it for nefarious purposes to do so.What I don't get in this discussion is what difference does letting trans people get the 'correct' paperwork that bit easier and more aligned to WHO guidelines actually make.

What's the specific issue?

As it stands, if I wanted to stick on a dress and go into the womens toilets I could do that bit of paper or not.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Nobody, as far as I'm aware, is arguing that it does. It does, however, make it vastly more straightforward for somebody who would wish to use it for nefarious purposes to do so.

Which takes us back to the argument of why anybody would even bother to do so. Getting a certificate just so they can legally access a place in order to do something illegal anyway. It doesn't make any sense, which is why similar legislation that has been enforced in other countries hasn't led to any notable increase in such instances.

The Spanish Government put a very similar law into force on the same day the Scottish Parliament attempted to do so, minus all of the media hyperbole. But then again, Spain isn't a devolved parliament caught up in a constitutional game with a more powerful government looking to create distractions from their own corruption.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

As it stands, if I wanted to stick on a dress and go into the womens toilets I could do that bit of paper or not.

Correct. The argument that it makes it "easier" to do this is nonsensical. Nobody is standing outside the toilet door asking people to provide their gender ID certificates.

[archie]

Correct. The argument that it makes it "easier" to do this is nonsensical. Nobody is standing outside the toilet door asking people to provide their gender ID certificates.

How is a self ID process with unenforceable penalties and vague criteria the same as two year process which required medical engagement? Why do care so little for the views of people raising concerns?

[James310]

How is a self ID process with unenforceable penalties and vague criteria the same as two year process which required medical engagement? Why do care so little for the views of people raising concerns?

Defend the SG at all costs. Even if you don't have an opinion it seems, as long as the SG aren't seen in a bad light.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

How is a self ID process with unenforceable penalties and vague criteria the same as two year process which required medical engagement? Why do care so little for the views of people raising concerns?

What "unenforceable penalties"? Nothing about the GRC itself has changed. What this legislation does change is how they can be obtained. But the same laws would still apply to people with GRCs as they have done previously. Nothing in that regard has changed.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Defend the SG at all costs. Even if you don't have an opinion it seems, as long as the SG aren't seen in a bad light.

As opposed to attacking the SG at all costs and forever viewing them in a bad light? Even if it means beating down on minority groups with zero justification for doing so.

[Ozyhibby]

What I don't get in this discussion is what difference does letting trans people get the 'correct' paperwork that bit easier and more aligned to WHO guidelines actually make.

What's the specific issue?

As it stands, if I wanted to stick on a dress and go into the womens toilets I could do that bit of paper or not.

They guy at the door would stop you to check all your paperwork was in order.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

What I don't get in this discussion is what difference does letting trans people get the 'correct' paperwork that bit easier and more aligned to WHO guidelines actually make.

What's the specific issue?

As it stands, if I wanted to stick on a dress and go into the womens toilets I could do that bit of paper or not.

Yep.

You might get done for breach of the peace (or worse), depending on what you did there, or the reaction of any occupants. But that's nothing to do with the GRA or the GRRA.

[He's here!]

What I don't get in this discussion is what difference does letting trans people get the 'correct' paperwork that bit easier and more aligned to WHO guidelines actually make.

What's the specific issue?

As it stands, if I wanted to stick on a dress and go into the womens toilets I could do that bit of paper or not.

You wouldn't be a legal woman. And what would be your purpose in doing so?

I think it's easy for men to underestimate the importance of female-only spaces to women as a source of safety and comfort. My wife, for example, recalls being followed in town by a creepy bloke when she was a teenager and she took refuge in the women's changing rooms in a department store until he had gone. It may not be a protected space in the sense that you're stopped at the door and asked for ID, but we're not talking extremes here when it comes to sexual predators. Plenty of these sort of blokes don't take their creepiness beyond voyeurism and will in the vast majority of cases not actually follow a woman into a female changing room. However, if all that's required under the bill is a claim that you've lived as a woman for a couple of months to grant you access to these changing rooms then it's not beyond the realms of possibility that such lax requirements will be exploited. And you certainly wouldn't need to 'stick on a dress' to do so...

[TrumpIsAPeado]

However, if all that's required under the bill is a claim that you've lived as a woman for a couple of months to grant you access to these changing rooms then it's not beyond the realms of possibility that such lax requirements will be exploited. And you certainly wouldn't need to 'stick on a dress' to do so...

Well if they're not going to go to the trouble of sticking on a dress, then why would they go to the trouble of waiting 2 months to get a certificate, that nobody is going to ask them for anyway, when approaching the female space?

I'm sorry, but these "concerns" are completely irrational and ignore how things really work in practice. The right wing hyperbole in the media has a lot to answer for. But then again, they've been getting away with it throughout history whenever it's came to beating down on minority groups.

[James310]

As opposed to attacking the SG at all costs and forever viewing them in a bad light? Even if it means beating down on minority groups with zero justification for doing so.

I am not sure how times this needs said, I don't have a problem with trans people. I have a problem with convicted sex offenders who can change gender without any checks. I also have a problem with a 16yr olds going on a life altering path after potentially literally sitting in their bedroom for a few months and then deciding they are a woman.

How does allowing a convicted sex offender a GRC with no checks advance Trans rights? Can you explain that one to me?

[CropleyWasGod]

I am not sure how times this needs said, I don't have a problem with trans people. I have a problem with convicted sex offenders who can change gender without any checks. I also have a problem with a 16yr olds going on a life altering path after potentially literally sitting in their bedroom for a few months and then deciding they are a woman.

How does allowing a convicted sex offender a GRC with no checks advance Trans rights? Can you explain that one to me?

There are checks.

[archie]

Yep.

You might get done for breach of the peace (or worse), depending on what you did there, or the reaction of any occupants. But that's nothing to do with the GRA or the GRRA.
Not quite. If I walk into a women's changing room and get my kit off I could well be done for breach or indecent exposure. If I have certificate and do exactly the same would there be any law broken?

[archie]

There are checks.
There's a risk assessment. What other 'checks'.

[He's here!]

Well if they're not going to go to the trouble of sticking on a dress, then why would they go to the trouble of waiting 2 months to get a certificate, that nobody is going to ask them for anyway, when approaching the female space?

I'm sorry, but these "concerns" are completely irrational and ignore how things really work in practice. The right wing hyperbole in the media has a lot to answer for. But then again, they've been getting away with it throughout history whenever it's came to beating down on minority groups.

Because the certificate would entitle them to be there if challenged. Not sure why that's hard to understand.

[Moulin Yarns]

Rapist guilty of attacking women before gender change - BBC News (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-64388669)

Will this transgender rapist go to a women's prison? And, reading between the lines, was the decision to start the process of gender re-assignment made with a view to avoiding a men's prison?

Women's prison and isolated in solitary apparently.

[CropleyWasGod]

Not quite. If I walk into a women's changing room and get my kit off I could well be done for breach or indecent exposure. If I have certificate and do exactly the same would there be any law broken?

If someone complains , and it meets the criteria for those offences, then yes.

If a woman undresses in a female changing room, and exposes herself "indecently" (subjective term, of course), the same would apply.

[James310]

There are checks.

If the convicted sex offender who has very likely been convicted of an offence involving lying and manipulation volunteers they are applying for a GRC, which I am sure they all would do.......

But how does this advance Trans Rights which is what the aim of the Bill is?

[CropleyWasGod]

There's a risk assessment. What other 'checks'.

I was pulling the poster up for saying "there are no checks". Which is incorrect.

Whether these checks are appropriate and sufficient..... that was last week's discussion :greengrin.

[James310]

Because the certificate would entitle them to be there if challenged. Not sure why that's hard to understand.

I have no doubt there are sex offenders out there who maybe have in the past thought about a crime but have been put off as they would as a very visible man be in a woman's space. They get a GRC now so much easier than before and it happens to give them that little bit of confidence they never had in the past to go on and commit that offence as if challenged they are now legally a woman and have the paperwork to prove it.

[James310]

I was pulling the poster up for saying "there are no checks". Which is incorrect.

Whether these checks are appropriate and sufficient..... that was last week's discussion :greengrin.

What are the checks?

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Because the certificate would entitle them to be there if challenged. Not sure why that's hard to understand.

Who is going to walk up to them and challenge them for a certificate? That's never happened before and there's no reason to assume it would happen now.

[He's here!]

Who is going to walk up to them and challenge them for a certificate? That's never happened before and there's no reason to assume it would happen now.

I'm not talking about somebody challenging them for a certificate (will it be a requirement to carry one? I don't know) but should a bloke who has been granted one decide to loiter around a women-only space and gets told that he's in, say, the women's changing room, he'll be able to reply 'I am a woman'. Yes, that could apply to someone who has been granted one under the current legislation but there's no question there are a lot less hoops to jump through (ie virtually none) to gain that kind of legal access under the SG bill. It seems entirely understandable that women would feel deeply uncomfortable about that.

[He's here!]

Women's prison and isolated in solitary apparently.

The analysis by David Cowan which has now been added to the story underlines what a messy business this is:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-64388669

That bloke surely cannot be allowed to serve his sentence among women prisoners if holding him in solitary will ultimately breach his human rights.

[archie]

The analysis by David Cowan which has now been added to the story underlines what a messy business this is:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-64388669

That bloke surely cannot be allowed to serve his sentence among women prisoners if holding him in solitary will ultimately breach his human rights.

I genuinely think the only solution is male, female and trans facilities.

[Moulin Yarns]

I genuinely think the only solution is male, female and trans facilities.

But there are trans men and trans women, there isn't just trans?!

[147lothian]

Second former Supreme Court judge explains why the veto is correct (from the Sunday Times):

This is a fight with Westminster that Sturgeon won't win
by Jonathan Sumption

THE UK government’s veto of the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill has provoked predictable outrage from Bute House. The first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, has called it a “full frontal attack” on Scottish democracy. She threatens a challenge in the courts.
Three streets away in Edinburgh’s New Town, Lord Hope of Craighead, a distinguished Scottish lawyer and former deputy president of the UK Supreme Court, is scathing. Her litigation, he says, will be a hopeless waste of public money. What is going on?
The Edinburgh parliament is a subordinate legislature. It owes its existence and powers entirely to the Scotland Act 1998, an act of the UK parliament. The scheme of the Scotland Act is perfectly rational. It devolves to Scotland everything of exclusive concern to Scotland, while reserving to Westminster a long list of “reserved matters” that concern the whole of the United Kingdom.
Section 35 of the act is part of this scheme. It empowers the UK government to stop a Scottish bill from becoming law, but only if the bill deals with matters reserved to Westminster in a way that adversely affects how the law works.One of these reserved matters is equal opportunities.
What mainly concerns the UK government is that the new bill (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/stonewall-warns-government-not-to-block-gender-recognition-bill-mxtjpls0s) will create a special regime for recognising gender reassignment in Scotland. Trans people will be able to self-identify without satisfying the clinical tests that apply in the rest of the UK and the minimum age will be reduced from 18 to 16. This is achieved by modifying the operation in Scotland of two Westminster statutes, the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the Equality Act 2010, both of which apply throughout the UK.
The changes will not apply in the rest of the UK, but that is heart of the problem. If the bill becomes law, some UK citizens will have a different legal gender in different parts of the UK, depending on where they happen to be.
This poses serious legal and practical problems for employers and public authorities operating on a UK-wide basis. They will have to discriminate between trans people in Scotland and the rest of the UK on such matters as equal pay, gender discrimination, tax, benefits and pensions, all of which are subject to UK-wide statutory regimes.
These are powerful points. It is not clear what the Scottish ministers’ answer is. Unless they can think of one, their judicial review (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sturgeon-challenge-to-gender-law-veto-waste-of-money-says-ex-judge-c68n839tf) will fail. But all that we have heard from them so far is froth and rage.
The suggestion that the UK government’s veto is an attack on Scottish democracy (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/gender-bill-veto-first-of-many-attempts-to-limit-scottish-power-says-sturgeon-llm3g0pgd) is absurd. The matters reserved to Westminster by the Scotland Act concern the whole of the UK. Only Westminster can legitimately speak for the whole of the UK, and Scotland is fully represented there by 59 MPs. They don’t always get their way, but that is democracy for you.
The Scottish parliament represents less than a tenth of the people of the UK. It would be wholly undemocratic for the Scottish tail to be allowed to wag the UK dog on issues such as these.
Scotland has a remarkably generous devolution settlement. Almost everything which really matters to Scots is devolved. This ought to mean that there are few occasions for conflict with Westminster.
But for some years Scottish ministers have been promoting bills in Edinburgh designed to throw grit into the working of the Union in the few areas where there is scope for disagreement. The strategy is to nibble away at the matters reserved to Westminster in order to provoke constitutional rows, which they hope will boost support for independence.
Hence the constant yelling about assaults on Scottish democracy whenever the Scottish parliament comes up against the limits of its powers and the legitimate interests of the UK as a whole.
On this occasion, however, Sturgeon’s famous political skills may have deserted her. The signs are that her Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill is alienating some of her natural supporters north of the border. When opportunities to pick a quarrel with Westminster are so few, it is more important than ever to choose the right ones.

Lord Sumption is a former Justice of the Supreme Court

An interesting read, that shows why Westminster had no other option, it had to use section 35 to block the Alice in Wonderland GRRB.

[archie]

I genuinely think the only solution is male, female and trans facilities.

Fair point.

[archie]

But there are trans men and trans women, there isn't just trans?!

Fair point

[archie]

But there are trans men and trans women, there isn't just trans?!

Fair point.

[archie]

Apologies for the multi posts. Dunno what happened there!

[Hibby70]

Apologies for the multi posts. Dunno what happened there!

Fair point

[He's here!]

I genuinely think the only solution is male, female and trans facilities.

This case is just insane. A transwoman found guilty of raping two women is sent to a women's prison because he started transitioning AFTER being charged with the offences. Why wasn't he charged with contempt of court??

[Santa Cruz]

An interesting read, that shows why Westminster had no other option, it had to use section 35 to block the Alice in Wonderland GRRB.

It provided a good explanation for the likes of me that hadn't heard clear examples of how the GRR impacts the Equality Act. Imo the last 3 para's come across as a dislike for the SG which then makes me question how objective the former Judge's view on the Bill is. There was no need to specifically mention the SG/FM, it comes across as being overtly politically biased which has no real basis given the legislation has cross party support.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Will it be a requirement to carry one? I don't know.

No. It wasn't the case before, so it wouldn't be the case now either. There are no checks on people for GRCs when entering gender specific spaces.


but should a bloke who has been granted one decide to loiter around a women-only space and gets told that he's in, say, the women's changing room, he'll be able to reply 'I am a woman'.

Any man could have walked into a women's changing room already and simply claimed that. Why anybody would go to the hassle of getting a GRC in order to gain access to a female changing room in order to say something that they could just say anyway without a GRC is beyond ludicrous.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

This case is just insane. A transwoman found guilty of raping two women is sent to a women's prison because he started transitioning AFTER being charged with the offences. Why wasn't he charged with contempt of court??

Still has nothing to do with the legislation being blocked by Westminster.

[Stairway 2 7]

But there are trans men and trans women, there isn't just trans?!

Most new build council government and university buildings are making gender neutral toilets and changing areas a standard. Each toilet cubicle has toilet sink hand dryer, so no mixing.

I think their should be some as standard in all new build public buildings just like disabled facilities are. Would solve one issue

[James310]

No. It wasn't the case before, so it wouldn't be the case now either. There are no checks on people for GRCs when entering gender specific spaces.



Any man could have walked into a women's changing room already and simply claimed that. Why anybody would go to the hassle of getting a GRC in order to gain access to a female changing room in order to say something that they could just say anyway without a GRC is beyond ludicrous.

How does allowing a convicted sex offender get a GRC so much easier than the process today advance Trans Rights?

[Moulin Yarns]

Most new build council government and university buildings are making gender neutral toilets and changing areas a standard. Each toilet cubicle has toilet sink hand dryer, so no mixing.

I think their should be some as standard in all new build public buildings just like disabled facilities are. Would solve one issue

That's one of the most sensible posts with an actual solution.

Gender neutral toilets in the Queen's Hall since it was renovated and there is no problem.

As for the women only space such as refuges, they can refuse entry to anyone now and that doesn't change.

[ronaldo7]

Dramatic increase of hate crime against trans people in yesterday's figures produced by the SG. This despite an overall decrease in hate crimes during the same period.

[He's here!]

Still has nothing to do with the legislation being blocked by Westminster.

Not saying it does. This thread goes wider than that though and it's a concerning new development.

[147lothian]

It provided a good explanation for the likes of me that hadn't heard clear examples of how the GRR impacts the Equality Act. Imo the last 3 para's come across as a dislike for the SG which then makes me question how objective the former Judge's view on the Bill is. There was no need to specifically mention the SG/FM, it comes across as being overtly politically biased which has no real basis given the legislation has cross party support.

I thought it wouldn't be long before a supporter of the Scottish government came along with SG good UK gov bad line. However one thing to bare in mind is that if Starmer was in power he would have blocked it too, he would have had no other option because it impacts on the Equality Act.

Also if Nicola Sturgeon wants to waste tax payers money by taking it to court, the judges will also block it, not because they are anti Scottish but because blocking bad legislation that impacts on the Equality Act is the grown up thing to do.

[James310]

https://twitter.com/TimesRadio/status/1618169587236732928?t=eFSI_NPRuWpdcTX48CyjMQ&s=19

A member of the SNP threatened to rape and kill Joanna Cherry because of her views.

"A member of my own party was convicted of threatening to rape me because of my views... trans rights activists threatened to murder me."

[Santa Cruz]

I thought it wouldn't be long before a supporter of the Scottish government came along with SG good UK gov bad line. However one thing to bare in mind is that if Starmer was in power he would have blocked it too, he would have had no other option because it impacts on the Equality Act.

Also if Nicola Sturgeon wants to waste tax payers money by taking it to court, the judges will also block it, not because they are anti Scottish but because blocking bad legislation that impacts on the Equality Act is the grown up thing to do.

I'm not an SNP or Tory voter. I was pointing out the former judge did not sound impartial to me as there really was no need for him to mention his views on the SG/FM, he should have just stuck to the subject issue. I was also pointing out the Bill has cross party support, maybe he should have aimed his critisism at the Scottish Parliament and not singled out the SG. I don't hold extreme views on anything. I like to look at both sides of any issue, then I make up my mind where I stand.

[archie]

Fair point

I agree?

[archie]

Dramatic increase of hate crime against trans people in yesterday's figures produced by the SG. This despite an overall decrease in hate crimes during the same period.

And the definition of hate crimes is?

[Ozyhibby]

This thread is just rehashing the old arguments about sexual predators and changing rooms. Those arguments have been had and it’s been voted on in the Scottish Parliament. None of that really matters now to what happens next. All that matters now, is if the law affects England to the extant that justifies a s35 order.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[He's here!]

Any man could have walked into a women's changing room already and simply claimed that. Why anybody would go to the hassle of getting a GRC in order to gain access to a female changing room in order to say something that they could just say anyway without a GRC is beyond ludicrous.

Again, 'any man' who did that without a GRC would not have the law on his side should he be challenged over his presence there. You seem to be choosing to ignore the very clear reasons why women are entitled to feel uneasy about this aspect of the bill.

The 'Isla Bryson' case, while not relating directly to the bill, does indicate the lengths sexual predators will go to turn a situation to their advantage.

Incidentally IIRC there was an amendment proposed to the bill which would in future have prevented sex offenders doing just what 'Isla' has done but it was voted down by the SNP/Greens and (I think) Lib Dems. Unfathomable really.

[archie]

This thread is just rehashing the old arguments about sexual predators and changing rooms. Those arguments have been had and it’s been voted on in the Scottish Parliament. None of that really matters now to what happens next. All that matters now, is if the law affects England to the extant that justifies a s35 order.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I pretty much agree with this. I think the ramifications of the whole process will resonate for a long time.

[James310]

I pretty much agree with this. I think the ramifications of the whole process will resonate for a long time.

Yet some say it's a niche matter, the general public don't care and it will soon be forgotten about. Maybe wishful thinking I suspect.

[ronaldo7]

And the definition of hate crimes is?

It's on the SG website mate. I'm on my phone so can't link.

[archie]

It's on the SG website mate. I'm on my phone so can't link.

OK I'll have a look.

[Kato]

Dramatic increase of hate crime against trans people in yesterday's figures produced by the SG. This despite an overall decrease in hate crimes during the same period.I suppose if you pick out a group of people and equate them with sex-offenders day after day haters will end up hating.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[ronaldo7]

OK I'll have a look.

Back home. Here you go.

Recording of hate crime by police
What is the definition of a police recorded hate crime?
This report draws on information recorded by Police Scotland and adopts the categorisations and definitions used by them when they do this. Further information on how Police Scotland record hate crimes is provided below.

For the purposes of this report, a hate crime is any crime which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated (wholly or partly) by malice and ill-will towards a social group.

In Scotland, the law recognises hate crimes as crimes motivated by prejudice based on the characteristics listed below. Further information on the legislation used by the police to record hate crime is also available within Section One of the earlier 'Developing Information on Hate Crime Recorded by the Police in Scotland' report.

Disability,
Race,
Religion,
Sexual orientation,
Transgender identity.

https://www.gov.scot/publications/study-characteristics-police-recorded-hate-crime-scotland/

[James310]

I suppose if you pick out a group of people and equate them with sex-offenders day after day haters will end up hating.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Literally nobody is doing that. It seems you want that to be true but it's not. You are copying Maggie Chapman, I will let you decide if that's someone you think you should be copying. Even the SNP members shouted her down when she did this.

How does allowing a convicted sex offender getting a GRC so easily with this change advance Trans Rights, which you are so obviously concerned about.

[Kato]

Literally nobody is doing that. It seems you want that to be true but it's not.

Nobody is doing that? Do you monitor every social platform in existence?

If you mention fruit in your answer don't expect a reply.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[James310]

Nobody is doing that? Do you monitor every social platform in existence?

If you mention fruit in your answer don't expect a reply.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

I see people concerned about sex offenders, I see very few people saying Trans people are all sex offenders which is what you were implying.

I can ask again, how does allowing a convicted sex offender get a GRC so much easier than before advance Trans Rights? How?

[Hibrandenburg]

Nobody is doing that? Do you monitor every social platform in existence?

If you mention fruit in your answer don't expect a reply.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

:tee hee:

[Kato]

I see people concerned about sex offenders, I see very few people saying Trans people are all sex offenders which is what you were implying.




The rhetorical habit of mentioning both groups in the same sentence every day, day after day leads to a conflation. There doesn't have to be intent from the writer, the repeated juxtaposition is enough to trigger some folk toward hatred.

Do you monitor every social platform?

What reason would you say there is to explain the increase in hate crimes?


Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

The rhetorical habit of mentioning both groups in the same sentence every day, day after day leads to a conflation. There doesn't have to be intent from the writer, the repeated juxtaposition is enough to trigger some folk toward hatred.

Do you monitor every social platform?

What reason would you say there is to explain the increase in hate crimes?


Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

I'd like to think that more of these crimes are being reported, which would increase the numbers in those stats.

However, part of me worries that the number of actual attacks is increasing. Just like post 9-11 with Muslims and in the 80's against gay men after decriminalisation, there could be a similar pattern; shine a light on a minority, highlight something "bad" about them and there's your excuse for violence.

[James310]

The rhetorical habit of mentioning both groups in the same sentence every day, day after day leads to a conflation. There doesn't have to be intent from the writer, the repeated juxtaposition is enough to trigger some folk toward hatred.

Do you monitor every social platform?

What reason would you say there is to explain the increase in hate crimes?


Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

But why does changing the process to now allow a convicted sex offender get a GRC much easier than before advance Trans Rights? How does this change help trans people?

[Kato]

But why does changing the process to now allow a convicted sex offender get a GRC much easier than before advance Trans Rights? How does this change help trans people?Your doing the thing that I am highlighting again and again without addressing a possible outcome of what you are doing.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Kato]

I'd like to think that more of these crimes are being reported, which would increase the numbers in those stats.

However, part of me worries that the number of actual attacks is increasing. Just like post 9-11 with Muslims and in the 80's against gay men after decriminalisation, there could be a similar pattern; shine a light on a minority, highlight something "bad" about them and there's your excuse for violence.Of course it's going to happen. Not everyone understands nuance. If a narrative is constructed whereby trans people are persistently juxtaposed to sex offenders, as happened with gay rights legislation, thickos will act as they see fit and lash out.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[hibsbollah]

The rhetorical habit of mentioning both groups in the same sentence every day, day after day leads to a conflation. There doesn't have to be intent from the writer, the repeated juxtaposition is enough to trigger some folk toward hatred.

Do you monitor every social platform?

What reason would you say there is to explain the increase in hate crimes?


Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Exactly. We saw the same thing with the shameful and largely underreported rise in hate crime against the Asian predominantly Chinese ethnic population across the west during Covid. Make repeated connections between an ethnic group and any threatening phenomena, (death dealing pandemic and sexual violence playing the same role) connecting with ‘The Chinese’ and ‘blokes wearing a dress’ respectively, and you have a potent toxic brew where you are creating a target for othering and worse.

Sigh, why can’t we just get along with each other. John Lennon required here.

[James310]

Your doing the thing that I am highlighting again and again without addressing a possible outcome of what you are doing.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Fair enough, don't answer the question then, I only asked it about 3 times.

A consequence of the change in law makes it easier for everyone to apply for a GRC, lots of people have valid concerns due to this change but rather than address those concerns it's much easier to just shout them down like Maggie Chapman and say people are saying Trans people are sex offenders when nobody is doing that.

Are Joanna Cherry and JK Rowling and lots of other feminists all wrong? Are they saying Trans people are sex offenders or do they as woman have valid concerns that should be addressed?

We are going round in circles though so I am off for an apple, or maybe a pear.

[He's here!]

https://twitter.com/TimesRadio/status/1618169587236732928?t=eFSI_NPRuWpdcTX48CyjMQ&s=19

A member of the SNP threatened to rape and kill Joanna Cherry because of her views.

"A member of my own party was convicted of threatening to rape me because of my views... trans rights activists threatened to murder me."

She's spot on about 'Isla' gaming the system to get a placed in a women's prison. I do wonder how long Cherry will feel she can in good conscience remain an SNP member.

Seems an appropriate day to turn to the words of Burns:

'Amid this mighty fuss just let me mention,
The Rights of Woman merit some attention'.

[hibby rae]

And the definition of hate crimes is?

The Scottish Government defines Hate Crime as crime committed against a person or property that is motivated by ‘malice or ill-will towards an identifiable social group’.

You can be a victim of a hate crime if you believe that someone has targeted you because of their prejudice against certain characteristics.

In Scotland, the law currently recognises hate crimes as crimes motivated by prejudice based on:

race
religion
sexual orientation
transgender identity
disability
You do not need to be a member of a minority community to be a victim of hate crime. The law is quite clear that the identity of the victim is irrelevant as to whether something is a hate crime or not. The motivation of the perpetrator is the key factor in defining a hate crime.

Hate Crimes can take a number of forms, including, but not limited to:

Threatening behaviour
Verbal abuse or insults including name-calling
Assault
Damage to property
Encouraging others to commit hate crimes
Harassment
Online abuse on sites like Facebook or Twitter

[Kato]

Fair enough, don't answer the question then, I only asked it about 3 times.

A consequence of the change in law makes it easier for everyone to apply for a GRC, lots of people have valid concerns due to this change but rather than address those concerns it's much easier to just shout them down like Maggie Chapman and say people are saying Trans people are sex offenders when nobody is doing that.

Are Joanna Cherry and JK Rowling and lots of other feminists all wrong? Are they saying Trans people are sex offenders or do they as woman have valid concerns that should be addressed?

We are going round in circles though so I am off for an apple, or maybe a pear.You of course are repeatedly refusing to answer questions too. Enjoy your pair of apples.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[James310]

You of course are repeatedly refusing to answer questions too. Enjoy your pair of apples.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

What question did I refuse to answer? Fire away.

[James310]

https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1618212057496817670?t=hswgh97GYgkA8c1bUB8Khw&s=19

"Men defining what a woman is, what women should and shouldn’t fear, what women should and shouldn’t say, what rights women should be fine with giving up and, of course, what constitutes ‘real’ misogyny: get a bloody mirror. That’s real misogyny, looking right back at you."

Some of the men on here should pay attention.

[He's here!]

https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1618212057496817670?t=hswgh97GYgkA8c1bUB8Khw&s=19

"Men defining what a woman is, what women should and shouldn’t fear, what women should and shouldn’t say, what rights women should be fine with giving up and, of course, what constitutes ‘real’ misogyny: get a bloody mirror. That’s real misogyny, looking right back at you."

Some of the men on here should pay attention.

She's always spot on about this issue. As she is further down the page re Rosie Duffield's breezily mysogynistic treatment by her own party:

https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1617586725030592520?s=20&t=jq4OAnWe6KKYbID8AZ5Hxg

[He's here!]

Fair enough, don't answer the question then, I only asked it about 3 times.

A consequence of the change in law makes it easier for everyone to apply for a GRC, lots of people have valid concerns due to this change but rather than address those concerns it's much easier to just shout them down like Maggie Chapman and say people are saying Trans people are sex offenders when nobody is doing that.

Are Joanna Cherry and JK Rowling and lots of other feminists all wrong? Are they saying Trans people are sex offenders or do they as woman have valid concerns that should be addressed?

We are going round in circles though so I am off for an apple, or maybe a pear.

The difficulty certain posters have with answering that question is that either a) they refuse to concede that any SG bill can be open to criticism and therefore won't engage in debate about its contents (the move on, nothing to see here approach) or b) the fact that Westminster has taken a stance on the matter is deemed beyond the pale and the bill must therefore be backed unconditionally. In some cases it's both.

I think the bill is a mess and would think so no matter which political party was behind it. The supposed cross-party backing is something of a smokescreen for its defenders when the majority of MSPs were whipped to support it. I know that a number of Labour MSPs were privately conflicted, though unfortunately didn't have the courage of conviction shown by a number of SNP MSPs to simply vote with their conscience.

[147lothian]

https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1618212057496817670?t=hswgh97GYgkA8c1bUB8Khw&s=19

"Men defining what a woman is, what women should and shouldn’t fear, what women should and shouldn’t say, what rights women should be fine with giving up and, of course, what constitutes ‘real’ misogyny: get a bloody mirror. That’s real misogyny, looking right back at you."

Some of the men on here should pay attention.

Spot on, I would like to here anyone try to defend this a man who rapes to woman as a man, declaring he is now a woman after being charged and being transferred to a woman only prison.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gylb2ABWhuA

[Kato]

The difficulty certain posters have with answering that question is that either a) they refuse to concede that any SG bill can be open to criticism and therefore won't engage in debate about its contents (the move on, nothing to see here approach) or b) the fact that Westminster has taken a stance on the matter is deemed beyond the pale and the bill must therefore be backed unconditionally. In some cases it's both.

I think the bill is a mess and would think so no matter which political party was behind it. The supposed cross-party backing is something of a smokescreen for its defenders when the majority of MSPs were whipped to support it. I know that a number of Labour MSPs were privately conflicted, though unfortunately didn't have the courage of conviction shown by a number of SNP MSPs to simply vote with their conscience.I've not posted in support of the Bill or in support of the Scottish govt on the matter because the idea of rights based legislation sometimes doesn't sit right with me, whether it's the Scottish govt or not. It codifys people's identities along lines which future, more authoritarian Govt might exploit to those groups' disadvantage. There was a lobbying group of people in Brazil when race based rights legislation was in process there, arguing that the debunked 19thC idea of racial difference shouldn't be expressed in any legislation. Sometimes all that legislation does is amplify ire towards the group in question.

Which is why I brought up the rhetoric surrounding this particular discussion and its conflating the trans group with sex offenders - in almost every post, yesterday and today with some posters. My questions were met with total denial but, gratefully, without having to choose a fruit.

Who is more likely to attack a woman....

...another woman?
...a man?
...a met police officer?
...a trans-person?

If the last mentioned is last on the list you have to wonder why the ear peircing, screeching discussions about the possibility of a trans person attacking women is so imbalanced when other more pressing concerns are way more palpable.

My is guess its a chance to have a go at wee nicky, hence the pile-on.

You're perfectly entitled to do so but the attempts at appearing "concerned" about women isn't really washing with me personally.



Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

I've not posted in support of the Bill or in support of the Scottish govt on the matter because the idea of rights based legislation sometimes doesn't sit right with me, whether it's the Scottish govt or not. It codifys people's identities along lines which future, more authoritarian Govt might exploit to those groups' disadvantage. There was a lobbying group of people in Brazil when race based rights legislation was in process there, arguing that the debunked 19thC idea of racial difference shouldn't be expressed in any legislation. Sometimes all that legislation does is amplify ire towards the group in question.

Which is why I brought up the rhetoric surrounding this particular discussion and its conflating the trans group with sex offenders - in almost every post, yesterday and today with some posters. My questions were met with total denial but, gratefully, without having to choose a fruit.

Who is more likely to attack a woman....

...another woman?
...a man?
...a met police officer?
...a trans-person?

If the last mentioned is last on the list you have to wonder why the ear peircing, screeching discussions about the possibility of a trans person attacking women is so imbalanced when other more pressing concerns are way more palpable.

My is guess its a chance to have a go at wee nicky, hence the pile-on.

You're perfectly entitled to do so but the attempts at appearing "concerned" about women isn't really washing with me personally.



Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Especially when they don’t go near the other thread about women’s safety.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kato]

Spot on, I would like to here anyone try to defend this a man who rapes to woman as a man, declaring he is now a woman after being charged and being transferred to a woman only prison.


https://www.youtube.com/watch/v=gyl62ABWhuAHas anyone defended it yet?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[147lothian]

Has anyone defended it yet?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Some people defend the Gender Recognition Bill which allows anyone to declare they are a different sex without the need for a medical certificate of gender dysphoria


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gylb2ABWhuA

[Ozyhibby]

Some people defend the Gender Recognition Bill which allows anyone to declare they are a different sex without the need for a medical certificate of gender dysphoria


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gylb2ABWhuA

Kelvin Mackenzie. [emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kato]

Kelvin Mackenzie. [emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkHe's got species dysphoria, a homo sapien transitioning into a reptile.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

He's got species dysphoria, a homo sapien transitioning into a reptile.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Since sapiens means "wise", he left that particular species a while ago.

[Kato]

Some people defend the Gender Recognition Bill which allows anyone to declare they are a different sex without the need for a medical certificate of gender dysphoria


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gylb2ABWhuADo you watch GB News with your critical faculties switched or as a source of actual news?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[He's here!]

I've not posted in support of the Bill or in support of the Scottish govt on the matter because the idea of rights based legislation sometimes doesn't sit right with me, whether it's the Scottish govt or not. It codifys people's identities along lines which future, more authoritarian Govt might exploit to those groups' disadvantage. There was a lobbying group of people in Brazil when race based rights legislation was in process there, arguing that the debunked 19thC idea of racial difference shouldn't be expressed in any legislation. Sometimes all that legislation does is amplify ire towards the group in question.

Which is why I brought up the rhetoric surrounding this particular discussion and its conflating the trans group with sex offenders - in almost every post, yesterday and today with some posters. My questions were met with total denial but, gratefully, without having to choose a fruit.

Who is more likely to attack a woman....

...another woman?
...a man?
...a met police officer?
...a trans-person?

If the last mentioned is last on the list you have to wonder why the ear peircing, screeching discussions about the possibility of a trans person attacking women is so imbalanced when other more pressing concerns are way more palpable.

My is guess its a chance to have a go at wee nicky, hence the pile-on.

You're perfectly entitled to do so but the attempts at appearing "concerned" about women isn't really washing with me personally.



Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

I doubt anyone would deny the likelihood of attacks on women by trans-people lies further down your list, but when women have long been under threat by more 'palpable' concerns why make another potential route to diminishing their protections easier to access? That's what women are rightly concerned about with this bill. Sturgeon is in the firing line for sure, but only because it was her government which brought the bill to life.

[Kato]

I doubt anyone would deny the likelihood of attacks on women by trans-people lies further down your list, but when women have long been under threat by more 'palpable' concerns why make another potential route to diminishing their protections easier to access? That's what women are rightly concerned about with this bill. Sturgeon is in the firing line for sure, but only because it was her government which brought the bill to life.You're not persuading me on your level of concern re- women's safety by doubling down on the, mainly hypothetical, threat to women from trans people when a woman or three have probably been harrased or assaulted by men in the time it has taken me to write this post.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[He's here!]

Has anyone defended it yet?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

No rational person could defend him IMHO but as already mentioned an amendment to the SG bill which would in future have explicitly forbidden men like 'Isla' from applying to change their sex while on or awaiting trial for rape (or other sexual offences) was inexplicably voted down.

MSPs scoffing at the idea of sex offenders trying to get GRCs in bad faith seems baffling when they then go on to object to an amendment which would prevent sex offenders getting a GRC in bad faith.

[CropleyWasGod]

No rational person could defend him IMHO but as already mentioned an amendment to the SG bill which would in future have explicitly forbidden men like 'Isla' from applying to change their sex while on or awaiting trial for rape (or other sexual offences) was inexplicably voted down.

MSPs scoffing at the idea of sex offenders trying to get GRCs in bad faith seems baffling when they then go on to object to an amendment which would prevent sex offenders getting a GRC in bad faith.

The justification for that being voted down was that, until found guilty, they're not sex offenders in the eyes of the law at that point. That is why that amendment was replaced by the later one.

[He's here!]

The justification for that being voted down was that, until found guilty, they're not sex offenders in the eyes of the law at that point. That is why that amendment was replaced by the later one.

Might be wrong, but I thought the amendment stipulated that the accused would be prevented from seeking to change gender until their case was concluded?

[He's here!]

Interesting article (especially prescient when it alludes to the 'hurricane' coming Scotland's way) from a few years back by a trans-woman about what led to the current furore:

The inconvenient truth about transwomen - UnHerd (https://unherd.com/2020/01/scotlands-gender-recognition-act-is-a-hostage-to-fortune/?=refinnar)

These paragraphs stands out:

The inconvenient truth is that transwomen are male, and — as a group — we present the same hazard that men present. Women can no more differentiate nice trans from nasty trans than they can distinguish nice men from nasty men. Allowing us to declare ourselves to be trans and then immediately self-identify into women’s spaces makes the boundaries meaningless. It is a safeguarding nightmare.

While the Scottish government may claim in their consultation (https://www.gov.scot/publications/gender-recognition-reform-scotland-bill-consultation-scottish-government/) (Para 3.20) that they do “not wish trans people to go through procedures which are demeaning, intrusive, distressing and stressful”, it’s a matter of debate whether being asked to provide medical evidence of a need to change your legal sex is demeaning. I don’t think it is, though like many trans people I have never felt the need to change the sex on my birth certificate in any case. We shouldn’t need to lie about the past in order to live in the present.

[Ozyhibby]

Interesting article (especially prescient when it alludes to the 'hurricane' coming Scotland's way) from a few years back by a trans-woman about what led to the current furore:

The inconvenient truth about transwomen - UnHerd (https://unherd.com/2020/01/scotlands-gender-recognition-act-is-a-hostage-to-fortune/?=refinnar)

These paragraphs stands out:

The inconvenient truth is that transwomen are male, and — as a group — we present the same hazard that men present. Women can no more differentiate nice trans from nasty trans than they can distinguish nice men from nasty men. Allowing us to declare ourselves to be trans and then immediately self-identify into women’s spaces makes the boundaries meaningless. It is a safeguarding nightmare.

While the Scottish government may claim in their consultation (https://www.gov.scot/publications/gender-recognition-reform-scotland-bill-consultation-scottish-government/) (Para 3.20) that they do “not wish trans people to go through procedures which are demeaning, intrusive, distressing and stressful”, it’s a matter of debate whether being asked to provide medical evidence of a need to change your legal sex is demeaning. I don’t think it is, though like many trans people I have never felt the need to change the sex on my birth certificate in any case. We shouldn’t need to lie about the past in order to live in the present.

Has this hurricane hit Ireland yet?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hibby rae]

Has this hurricane hit Ireland yet?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What was it Kezia Dugdale pointed out? Given similar legislation exists in a lot of other countries you have a possible case study from a combined population of approx. 300m (?) to pull data from, yet nothing has happened in those countries.

[Kato]

Has this hurricane hit Ireland yet?


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkIt's impossible to compare those countries. It would be like comparing a potato to a tumshie.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

It's impossible to compare those countries. It would be like comparing a potato to a tumshie.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Fair enough, best they get back to shouting sex offender and trans in the same sentence as much as possible and see if that works.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[James310]

Fair enough, best they get back to shouting sex offender and trans in the same sentence as much as possible and see if that works.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You really are not liking this one bit, a niche subject that the public don't care about was your analysis. How is that working out?

Quickly forgot about you said, how is that working out?

Nobody really cares?

As pointed out time after time it seems only you and others linking trans people to sex offenders. Even your beloved SNP were shouting down people who keep doing this, and guess what it wasn't people opposed to the Bill it was those like you supporting it who were shouted down by the SNP.

[Moulin Yarns]

It's impossible to compare those countries. It would be like comparing a potato to a tumshie.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

I think you know your onions 👍

[Ozyhibby]

You really are not liking this one bit, a niche subject that the public don't care about was your analysis. How is that working out?

Quickly forgot about you said, how is that working out?

Nobody really cares?

As pointed out time after time it seems only you and others linking trans people to sex offenders. Even your beloved SNP were shouting down people who keep doing this, and guess what it wasn't people opposed to the Bill it was those like you supporting it who were shouted down by the SNP.

My analysis is still the same. The public still don’t care about this issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AgentDaleCooper]

Some people defend the Gender Recognition Bill which allows anyone to declare they are a different sex without the need for a medical certificate of gender dysphoria


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gylb2ABWhuA

There's no way I'm going to watch anything involving that absolute snake. The most disingenuous ****** on the planet.

[CropleyWasGod]

There's no way I'm going to watch anything involving that absolute snake. The most disingenuous ****** on the planet.

C'mon now......Snake rights matter. :cb

[archie]

The justification for that being voted down was that, until found guilty, they're not sex offenders in the eyes of the law at that point. That is why that amendment was replaced by the later one.

Except the state can place restrictions on someone accused of a crime. Remand is a restriction of liberty.

[archie]

The rhetorical habit of mentioning both groups in the same sentence every day, day after day leads to a conflation. There doesn't have to be intent from the writer, the repeated juxtaposition is enough to trigger some folk toward hatred.

Do you monitor every social platform?

What reason would you say there is to explain the increase in hate crimes?


Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
I think some care is needed with your use of 'hate crimes'. These are self reported and can be subject to a very wide interpretation. I'm not diminishing the issue, but you need to be clearer what you are actually referring to.

[Stairway 2 7]

Closer than I thought


Redfield & Wilton Strategies
@RedfieldWilton
·
1h
Do Britons support or oppose the decision of the UK Government to block the gender reform legislation passed by the Scottish parliament? (18 January)

Support 48%
Oppose 21%

Glad only 14% said they shouldn't

RedfieldWilton
1h
At what age do British voters believe people should be allowed to decide to legally change their gender? (18 January)

16: 13%
18: 31%
21: 22%
25: 11%
Never: 14%
Don't know: 9%

[CropleyWasGod]

Except the state can place restrictions on someone accused of a crime. Remand is a restriction of liberty.

Not disagreeing with that. Just interpreting what happened. IIRC, there was some mention of EHRC issues that would have conflicted with the proposed amendment.

[Kato]

I think some care is needed with your use of 'hate crimes'. These are self reported and can be subject to a very wide interpretation. I'm not diminishing the issue, but you need to be clearer what you are actually referring to.I don't need to do that at all actually but the stats are in this article.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/23272652.transgender-hate-crimes-rising-faster-scotland/

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Again, 'any man' who did that without a GRC would not have the law on his side should he be challenged over his presence there.

Again, a GRC does not grant special legal privileges to people who commit such offences. Saying that a GRC would somehow put the law on their side is based on absolutely nothing whatsoever.


The 'Isla Bryson' case, while not relating directly to the bill, does indicate the lengths sexual predators will go to turn a situation to their advantage

What advantage? The person in question is going to jail. The same person in question will be isolated from the general prison population as sex offenders generally are. Having a GRC doesn't change any of that.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Closer than I thought


Redfield & Wilton Strategies
@RedfieldWilton
·
1h
Do Britons support or oppose the decision of the UK Government to block the gender reform legislation passed by the Scottish parliament? (18 January)

Support 48%
Oppose 21%

Glad only 14% said they shouldn't

RedfieldWilton
1h
At what age do British voters believe people should be allowed to decide to legally change their gender? (18 January)

16: 13%
18: 31%
21: 22%
25: 11%
Never: 14%
Don't know: 9%

A British poll backing the British Government over the Scottish Government. Shockaroonie.

[147lothian]

A male rapist Adam Graham raped two women, after being charged there was a name change to Isla Bryson, in court the victims had to refer to the rapist using the pronouns she/her and the rapist is now in a women only prison.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbR9k9f9clU

[Kato]

A male rapist Adam Graham raped two women, after being charged there was a name change to Isley Bryson, in court the victims had to refer to the rapist using the pronouns she/her and the rapist is now in a women only prison.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbR9k9f9clUDo you enjoy Julia Hartley-Brewers "style" of journalism?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[TrumpIsAPeado]

A male rapist Adam Graham raped two women, after being charged there was a name change to Isley Bryson, in court the victims had to refer to the rapist using the pronouns she/her and the rapist is now in a women only prison.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbR9k9f9clU

Does your right wing, anti-minority source mention that the person in question is also being kept isolated from the general population of prisoners, as is the case with all imprisoned sex offenders in Scotland?

What is their take on how well they think the female guards running the prison will treat this particular individual?

[James310]

Does your right wing, anti-minority source mention that the person in question is also being kept isolated from the general population of prisoners, as is the case with all imprisoned sex offenders in Scotland?

What is their take on how well they think the female guards running the prison will treat this particular individual?

Why are they being kept isolated? A hunch is because a man shouldn't be in a woman's prison, especially a convicted rapist?

[Stairway 2 7]

Does your right wing, anti-minority source mention that the person in question is also being kept isolated from the general population of prisoners, as is the case with all imprisoned sex offenders in Scotland?

What is their take on how well they think the female guards running the prison will treat this particular individual?

They will be kept in Ross house it's a shared section with other women, shared showers gym ect. It's populated with largely mentally ill people they don't have enough female sex offenders for a wing

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Why are they being kept isolated? A hunch is because a man shouldn't be in a woman's prison, especially a convicted rapist?

Sex offenders don't mix with the general population of prisoners for very obvious reasons. Male, female, transgender.... etc. It makes no difference. The same applies regardless.

It's easy just to point out overly simplistic pieces of information such as "male transgender gets sent to female prison", without any additional context applied in order to put those "thoughts" into people's heads. The right wing media excels when it comes to deliberately vague narratives.

[James310]

Sex offenders don't mix with the general population of prisoners for very obvious reasons. Male, female, transgender.... etc. It makes no difference. The same applies regardless.

It's easy just to point out overly simplistic pieces of information such as "male transgender gets sent to female prison", without any additional context applied in order to put those "thoughts" into people's heads. The right wing media excels when it comes to deliberately vague narratives.

Do you agree with him being sent to a woman's prison?

[Stairway 2 7]

Sex offenders don't mix with the general population of prisoners for very obvious reasons. Male, female, transgender.... etc. It makes no difference. The same applies regardless.

It's easy just to point out overly simplistic pieces of information such as "male transgender gets sent to female prison", without any additional context applied in order to put those "thoughts" into people's heads. The right wing media excels when it comes to deliberately vague narratives.

Your making it sound like she will be in isolation. She'll be mixed almost exclusively with women who aren't sex offenders, most will have mental health issues

[TrumpIsAPeado]

They will be kept in Ross house it's a shared section with other women, shared showers gym ect. It's populated with largely mentally ill people they don't have enough female sex offenders for a wing

A prisoner can be kept in the same wing, but still be kept isolated. They're given a different schedule from the other prisoners in order to avoid potentially problematic situations.

Prisons are not some free for all like they're depicted in the movies.

[He's here!]

Again, a GRC does not grant special legal privileges to people who commit such offences. Saying that a GRC would somehow put the law on their side is based on absolutely nothing whatsoever.



What advantage? The person in question is going to jail. The same person in question will be isolated from the general prison population as sex offenders generally are. Having a GRC doesn't change any of that.

As I said before, we're not necessarily talking worst case scenario. Simply the fact that the proposed legislation will make it easier for any man who wishes to exploit it to enter women-only spaces.

Re 'Isla', I don't think it's hard to figure that whether isolated or not 'she' would prefer to be housed in a women's prison where she will be a figure of fear for many inmates rather than a men's prison where a convicted rapist would be fearful for their own safety.