The Trans Rights Debate

[500miles]

Labour are also backing the proposals.

Like I say, fine. But since we are (correctly in my opinion) restricting the definition of sex to definable and measurable biology, we need to ensure that people who believe in the concept of gender identity are appropriately protected. Labour may actually do that, while Tories are just looking to stir up a fight.

[archie]

Like I say, fine. But since we are (correctly in my opinion) restricting the definition of sex to definable and measurable biology, we need to ensure that people who believe in the concept of gender identity are appropriately protected. Labour may actually do that, while Tories are just looking to stir up a fight.
Isn't the central tension though? How to balance rights of people to a single sex spaces as defined by biology with rights for people who identify as a gender? The Isla Bryson case being an extreme example.

[500miles]

Isn't the central tension though? How to balance rights of people to a single sex spaces as defined by biology with rights for people who identify as a gender? The Isla Bryson case being an extreme example.

It is, but that tension remains by not actually dealing with the reality of the situation that a) there is a need for protections based on biology b) there is a need for protections based on gender.

The current laws don't appear to be designed with the idea of sex and gender as separate and that is the society we live in. Unfortunately we have homophobes who will push back against any gender based protections, and trans extremists who will label sex based protections as transphobic because they don't enshrine a pseudo religious idea of gender at the centre of lawmaking.

[archie]

It is, but that tension remains by not actually dealing with the reality of the situation that a) there is a need for protections based on biology b) there is a need for protections based on gender.

The current laws don't appear to be designed with the idea of sex and gender as separate and that is the society we live in. Unfortunately we have homophobes who will push back against any gender based protections, and trans extremists who will label sex based protections as transphobic because they don't enshrine a pseudo religious idea of gender at the centre of lawmaking.

Fine, but how do you sort that?

[AgentDaleCooper]

There's a really interesting podcast on Spotify, made by one of the people that left the Westboro Baptist Church, looking at Rowling's involvement in the trans rights debate, and the treatment of both trans people and gender-critical people - it's really interesting, though I wouldn't say it settles any issues, as much as it just demonstrates how immovable both sides are. (IMO, Rowling comes across a bit aloof, sort of claiming near-omniscience on the matter, whilst only presenting arguments against the most extreme voices in the pro-GRR debate - which is forgivable given what she has gone through, but also rather demonstrates that she's not really helped the discussion move forward at all).

[500miles]

Fine, but how do you sort that?

Beyond clarifying legislation, I don't think much changes from the status quo other than possibly actively prosecuting people who use thier access to sex protected spaces if they exploit them for sexual gratification. There's evidence on twitter of transwomen using women's spaces as a place to surruptitiously film sexual content. I think other women have as much right to feel threatened by that as they would if a cis male done it, and I would like to see it dealt with as a women's safety issue.

In terms of women's sport, athletes are regularly required to take medical tests, I think the idea that genetic testing would be markedly more invasive is disingenuous.

[CropleyWasGod]

Beyond clarifying legislation, I don't think much changes from the status quo other than possibly actively prosecuting people who use thier access to sex protected spaces if they exploit them for sexual gratification. There's evidence on twitter of transwomen using women's spaces as a place to surruptitiously film sexual content. I think other women have as much right to feel threatened by that as they would if a cis male done it, and I would like to see it dealt with as a women's safety issue.

In terms of women's sport, athletes are regularly required to take medical tests, I think the idea that genetic testing would be markedly more invasive is disingenuous.

And, with all of that, goes education. Just as society was able to come to recognise that gay male teachers weren't, by definition, a threat to kids, so it will come to recognise that trans women, by definition, aren't a threat to cis women.

That, of course, takes time, probably a generation.

[Stairway 2 7]

And, with all of that, goes education. Just as society was able to come to recognise that gay male teachers weren't, by definition, a threat to kids, so it will come to recognise that trans women, by definition, aren't a threat to cis women.

That, of course, takes time, probably a generation.

There's many that don't think they are a threat but want single sex situations. They won't ever be educated as its a valid opinion

[CropleyWasGod]

There's many that don't think they are a threat but want single sex situations. They won't ever be educated as its a valid opinion

In a generation, the likelihood is that they will be in the minority. That's the kind of societal shift that I'm suggesting, again just as it happened with LGB issues.

[Stairway 2 7]

In a generation, the likelihood is that they will be in the minority. That's the kind of societal shift that I'm suggesting, again just as it happened with LGB issues.

I disagree. A large proportion of women will never want male bodied people doing female sports, using female refuges or being in mixed changing rooms even if males wish it. You'll disagree and the argument goes round.

[CropleyWasGod]

I disagree. A large proportion of women will never want male bodied people doing female sports, using female refuges or being in mixed changing rooms even if males wish it. You'll disagree and the argument goes round.

F that. Seen it too often on here to go down that route :greengrin:greengrin

[archie]

In a generation, the likelihood is that they will be in the minority. That's the kind of societal shift that I'm suggesting, again just as it happened with LGB issues.

One of the complaints from single sex space activists is that they are being force teamed with the T. I think the tipping point for many lesbians was being told they were akin to racists for not sleeping with men who 'identified' as women.

[WeeRussell]

One of the complaints from single sex space activists is that they are being force teamed with the T. I think the tipping point for many lesbians was being told they were akin to racists for not sleeping with men who 'identified' as women.

That’s really bad. Who was telling them that?

[500miles]

That’s really bad. Who was telling them that?

Tiktok and twitter extremists. The exact kind of people engagement algorithms promote. If you search "genital preference" on either platform, you'll find some rubbish like.

The problem is that gives them influence over less experienced trans youth. Like Andrew Tate does with young boys.

[archie]

That’s really bad. Who was telling them that?

A lot of it was in relation to this article https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-57853385.amp

This more polemical https://thecritic.co.uk/the-truth-will-out/

[WeeRussell]

Tiktok and twitter extremists. The exact kind of people engagement algorithms promote. If you search "genital preference" on either platform, you'll find some rubbish like.

The problem is that gives them influence over less experienced trans youth. Like Andrew Tate does with young boys.

Ah. So just the usual social media idiots, as expected 👍

[archie]

Ah. So just the usual social media idiots, as expected 👍

Nancy Kelley is the Chief Exec of Stonewall, not a social media random.

[500miles]

Ah. So just the usual social media idiots, as expected 👍

Andrew Tate is just a social media idiot, but the way social media works makes him a real problem, no?

[WeeRussell]

Andrew Tate is just a social media idiot, but the way social media works makes him a real problem, no?

Absolutely - wasn’t intending to dismiss your point at all 👍

[He's here!]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65245498

[Ozyhibby]

https://news.stv.tv/politics/tory-msp-stephen-kerr-apologises-after-suggesting-trans-people-have-learning-difficulties


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ronaldo7]

https://news.stv.tv/politics/tory-msp-stephen-kerr-apologises-after-suggesting-trans-people-have-learning-difficulties


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That'll be why he voted against the bill. 😒

[Ozyhibby]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230419/4ee08a86d16267805b0ae0c497c665b4.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[One Day Soon]

It's just fantastic that an issue that was already becoming fodder for the culture war is now about to be further exploited for political reasons. That can only be really helpful, surely?

[Ozyhibby]

It's just fantastic that an issue that was already becoming fodder for the culture war is now about to be further exploited for political reasons. That can only be really helpful, surely?

About to be? Too late for that now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2023/04/25/chris-mccorkindale-and-aileen-mcharg-rescuing-the-gender-recognition-reform-scotland-bill-the-scottish-governments-challenge-to-the-section-35-order/

Some legal support for the SNP defending the parliament.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ronaldo7]

https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2023/04/25/chris-mccorkindale-and-aileen-mcharg-rescuing-the-gender-recognition-reform-scotland-bill-the-scottish-governments-challenge-to-the-section-35-order/

Some legal support for the SNP defending the parliament.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This has been said many times, and we're still waiting to hear what's to be amended in the bill from the Uk government.

"In addition, Ms Somerville stated that the Scottish Government felt it had “no option” but to pursue legal action because the reasons given by the UK Government for making the Order appear to leave little scope for amending the GRR Bill, and both Alister Jack and the UK Equalities Minister, Kemi Badenoch MP, have refused to assist either the Scottish Government or the Scottish Parliament’s committees in identifying appropriate amendments."

[He's here!]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-65405563

Anyone who has seen this film will be baffled by these protests.

https://twitter.com/DalgetySusan/status/1651499028985593857?s=20

[He's here!]

https://twitter.com/ForWomenScot/status/1651568509200093184?s=20

[Pretty Boy]

I was watching a women's football match last night. SWFL East.

One of the teams had a player who stood out; not really because of her technical ability although she was a decent player but because of her sheer physicality, it was like watching Drogba or big Mixu in an under 17s game. Her team were 1-0 down, she scored 4 goals to turn the game round to 4-1, was subbed and the game ended 5-2. I had a copy of the team lines so after the game I googled this player to see why she wasn't playing at a higher level as she was the best or at least most effective player on the park by a mile. Google threw up a surprising number of results for a player at that level of women's football. Turns out she was born biologically male and has not yet fully transitioned, apparently her social media presence and some of the content has made her something of a local celebrity.

It again left me wondering how you find a solution to a situation like this that satisfies everyone. I find it difficult to argue anyone should be prevented from playing sport but then I also didn't really enjoy the spectacle of someone so physically imposing absolutely rag-dolling a young CB who looked about 18 and was on the verge of tears as she got put on her erse for the 10th time. I know physical mismatches can happen in football but this was beyond that and when the player in question was subbed the game noticeably evened up. I genuinely don't know what the solution is that is fair to all parties in such a scenario.

[superfurryhibby]

I was watching a women's football match last night. SWFL East.

One of the teams had a player who stood out; not really because of her technical ability although she was a decent player but because of her sheer physicality, it was like watching Drogba or big Mixu in an under 17s game. Her team were 1-0 down, she scored 4 goals to turn the game round to 4-1, was subbed and the game ended 5-2. I had a copy of the team lines so after the game I googled this player to see why she wasn't playing at a higher level as she was the best or at least most effective player on the park by a mile. Google threw up a surprising number of results for a player at that level of women's football. Turns out she was born biologically male and has not yet fully transitioned, apparently her social media presence and some of the content has made her something of a local celebrity.

It again left me wondering how you find a solution to a situation like this that satisfies everyone. I find it difficult to argue anyone should be prevented from playing sport but then I also didn't really enjoy the spectacle of someone so physically imposing absolutely rag-dolling a young CB who looked about 18 and was on the verge of tears as she got put on her erse for the 10th time. I know physical mismatches can happen in football but this was beyond that and when the player in question was subbed the game noticeably evened up. I genuinely don't know what the solution is that is fair to all parties in such a scenario.

Is there any barrier to playing "male" Juvenile football for a female or someone who identifies as female? The scenario you describe is ridiculous, completely unsporting.

[Stairway 2 7]

Everyone with common sense knows all male categories should be open and problem solved. Thankfully most sports are going that way, if they are good enough they will make it.

You often get female children playing the adult game in Scotlandin the lower levels. A trans female that has went through male puberty has the bone density and size so permanently damage a female.

I'm not sure how they can get pleasure from hammering girls constantly, surely sport is about the challenge. Its like me joining the 14s league and battering them and then celebrating like Ronaldo when I score

[Ozyhibby]

I was watching a women's football match last night. SWFL East.

One of the teams had a player who stood out; not really because of her technical ability although she was a decent player but because of her sheer physicality, it was like watching Drogba or big Mixu in an under 17s game. Her team were 1-0 down, she scored 4 goals to turn the game round to 4-1, was subbed and the game ended 5-2. I had a copy of the team lines so after the game I googled this player to see why she wasn't playing at a higher level as she was the best or at least most effective player on the park by a mile. Google threw up a surprising number of results for a player at that level of women's football. Turns out she was born biologically male and has not yet fully transitioned, apparently her social media presence and some of the content has made her something of a local celebrity.

It again left me wondering how you find a solution to a situation like this that satisfies everyone. I find it difficult to argue anyone should be prevented from playing sport but then I also didn't really enjoy the spectacle of someone so physically imposing absolutely rag-dolling a young CB who looked about 18 and was on the verge of tears as she got put on her erse for the 10th time. I know physical mismatches can happen in football but this was beyond that and when the player in question was subbed the game noticeably evened up. I genuinely don't know what the solution is that is fair to all parties in such a scenario.

That shouldn’t be happening and the football authorities should be acting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WhileTheChief..]

That shouldn’t be happening and the football authorities should be acting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He shouldn't be playing for the girls team in the first place. It shouldn't take any authorities to act.

Totally unfair on all the girls he's playing against.

[500miles]

I was watching a women's football match last night. SWFL East.

One of the teams had a player who stood out; not really because of her technical ability although she was a decent player but because of her sheer physicality, it was like watching Drogba or big Mixu in an under 17s game. Her team were 1-0 down, she scored 4 goals to turn the game round to 4-1, was subbed and the game ended 5-2. I had a copy of the team lines so after the game I googled this player to see why she wasn't playing at a higher level as she was the best or at least most effective player on the park by a mile. Google threw up a surprising number of results for a player at that level of women's football. Turns out she was born biologically male and has not yet fully transitioned, apparently her social media presence and some of the content has made her something of a local celebrity.

It again left me wondering how you find a solution to a situation like this that satisfies everyone. I find it difficult to argue anyone should be prevented from playing sport but then I also didn't really enjoy the spectacle of someone so physically imposing absolutely rag-dolling a young CB who looked about 18 and was on the verge of tears as she got put on her erse for the 10th time. I know physical mismatches can happen in football but this was beyond that and when the player in question was subbed the game noticeably evened up. I genuinely don't know what the solution is that is fair to all parties in such a scenario.

Apparently there is a game that actually ended 4-2 and has now been given as a 0-3 the other way. Is this possibly the same game

[Pretty Boy]

Apparently there is a game that actually ended 7-2 and has now been given as a 0-3 the other way. Is this possibly the same game

I don't think it will be.

I was watching the game for a mate who coaches a team playing one of the teams involved in a couple of weeks and I know a coach from the opposition from midweek as well and neither have said anything about that happening.

[danhibees1875]

I was watching a women's football match last night. SWFL East.

One of the teams had a player who stood out; not really because of her technical ability although she was a decent player but because of her sheer physicality, it was like watching Drogba or big Mixu in an under 17s game. Her team were 1-0 down, she scored 4 goals to turn the game round to 4-1, was subbed and the game ended 5-2. I had a copy of the team lines so after the game I googled this player to see why she wasn't playing at a higher level as she was the best or at least most effective player on the park by a mile. Google threw up a surprising number of results for a player at that level of women's football. Turns out she was born biologically male and has not yet fully transitioned, apparently her social media presence and some of the content has made her something of a local celebrity.

It again left me wondering how you find a solution to a situation like this that satisfies everyone. I find it difficult to argue anyone should be prevented from playing sport but then I also didn't really enjoy the spectacle of someone so physically imposing absolutely rag-dolling a young CB who looked about 18 and was on the verge of tears as she got put on her erse for the 10th time. I know physical mismatches can happen in football but this was beyond that and when the player in question was subbed the game noticeably evened up. I genuinely don't know what the solution is that is fair to all parties in such a scenario.

I could get shot down for missing something here, and I concede there's no solution which will perfectly suit everyone, but I think there's 2 solutions:

1) A setup exclusively for trans-women. I would imagine there isn't enough demand to set that up for football though, but as a category I think it works for single person events (did London marathon do it recently?)

2) You play in the setup you were born into. So the woman you seen would therefore be limited to the men's football leagues.

The situation as you describe it doesn't seem fair, IMO the above two solutions are less unfair overall.

[He's here!]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-65451979

[heretoday]

The Stand comedy club seems to have lost its sense of humour.

[He's here!]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/c86e241c-e856-11ed-bf4a-7aba37244b0f?shareToken=8dbfa3a2dd7fc737a051167f69 cf0b48

Good editorial.

[He's here!]

https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/sport/fans-and-competitors-share-outrage-after-transgender-athlete-austin-killips-wins-womens-cycling-race-in-new-mexico/news-story/9bf7f5612303ab9acb3f680f0663f0e5

I note that the transgender rules in cycling are leading women to quit the sport.

[He's here!]

https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,jk-rowling-backs-joanna-cherry-after-mps-edinburgh-fringe-show-is-cancelled

Rowling backs Cherry over 'modern McCarthyism'.

[HappyAsHellas]

Basically the Stand are confirming their support of Nazis by denying a speaker they don't agree with. Follows on from the university banning a film last week. The new far right in the guise of wokery. What's next, burning books?

[Ozyhibby]

Basically the Stand are confirming their support of Nazis by denying a speaker they don't agree with. Follows on from the university banning a film last week. The new far right in the guise of wokery. What's next, burning books?

Did the university ban a film?
And the Stand is a private business entitled to take whatever bookings it likes.
I don’t agree with their stance though.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

Did the university ban a film?
And the Stand is a private business entitled to take whatever bookings it likes.
I don’t agree with their stance though.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The University cancelled the film because of security concerns. A private business can book who they like, but they cancelled Joanne Cherry in a way that could be discriminatory.

[Ozyhibby]

The University cancelled the film because of security concerns. A private business can book who they like, but they cancelled Joanne Cherry in a way that could be discriminatory.

So the film wasn’t banned?
I disagree with the protesters and the people at the club but let’s not start trying to portray this as something it’s not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

So the film wasn’t banned?
I disagree with the protesters and the people at the club but let’s not start trying to portray this as something it’s not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It was cancelled because of fear of violence. It's not seeing the film that was the key part It was denying people the chance to meet and discuss it. That's not OK. As for the Stand, do you disbelieve Joanna Cherry? Ask Glasgow and Edinburgh councils about how they got on in court after cancelling events where they didn't like the speakers views.

[Ozyhibby]

It was cancelled because of fear of violence. It's not seeing the film that was the key part It was denying people the chance to meet and discuss it. That's not OK. As for the Stand, do you disbelieve Joanna Cherry? Ask Glasgow and Edinburgh councils about how they got on in court after cancelling events where they didn't like the speakers views.

Councils are public bodies though. Joanna Cherry should book a council venue.
She should be allowed the freedom to speak and the Stand venue should be allowed the freedom not to want it on their premises. There will be no shortage of venues willing to book her.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HappyAsHellas]

So the film wasn’t banned?
I disagree with the protesters and the people at the club but let’s not start trying to portray this as something it’s not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
When you have masked protestors stopping people entering an event I'd call it fascism.

[Ozyhibby]

When you have masked protestors stopping people entering an event I'd call it fascism.

That’s a police matter. It’s not the universities fault though. They were going to show the film.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

Councils are public bodies though. Joanna Cherry should book a council venue.
She should be allowed the freedom to speak and the Stand venue should be allowed the freedom not to want it on their premises. There will be no shortage of venues willing to book her.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

She was booked by the Stand then cancelled because of her views.

[CropleyWasGod]

She was booked by the Stand then cancelled because of her views.

She wasn't booked by them. It was part of a series booked by a third party.

https://www.thestand.co.uk/statement-may-1

[archie]

She wasn't booked by them. It was part of a series booked by a third party.

https://www.thestand.co.uk/statement-may-1
But they made a decision not to allow her to speak at the event. A private business can book who they like, but they can't act in a discriminatory way. Imagine the staff had said they felt uncomfortable in the presence of a black person.

[Ozyhibby]

But they made a decision not to allow her to speak at the event. A private business can book who they like, but they can't act in a discriminatory way. Imagine the staff had said they felt uncomfortable in the presence of a black person.

The didn’t though. They said they didn’t like her views. That’s allowed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

The didn’t though. They said they didn’t like her views. That’s allowed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Is it?

[archie]

https://judiciary.scot/home/sentences-judgments/judgments/2022/10/25/billy-graham-evangelistic-association-v-scottish-event-campus-limited#:~:text=The%20court%20found%20that%20the,n ot%20compatible%20with%20its%20values.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Imagine the staff had said they felt uncomfortable in the presence of a black person.

But their issue isn't with her race, it's with her views. Should staff be any more comfortable with transphobic people as opposed to racist people?

[archie]

But their issue isn't with her race, it's with her views. Should staff be any more comfortable with transphobic people as opposed to racist people?

The point is discrimination against someone with a protected characteristic. Would you be ok with racist staff refusing to work when the venue had been booked by a black person.

[CropleyWasGod]

The point is discrimination against someone with a protected characteristic. Would you be ok with racist staff refusing to work when the venue had been booked by a black person.

What protected characteristic does JC have, that is the basis for discrimination in this case?

[McD]

The point is discrimination against someone with a protected characteristic. Would you be ok with racist staff refusing to work when the venue had been booked by a black person.


She doesn’t have a protected characteristic, she has views about protected characteristics.


i don’t agree with the decision made by the stand, but they aren’t breaking the law.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

The point is discrimination against someone with a protected characteristic. Would you be ok with racist staff refusing to work when the venue had been booked by a black person.

Transphobic views are not a protected characteristic. Again, you're making false equivalences. You can't equate the negative judgement towards a person with transphobic views with the negative judgement towards a person because of their skin colour.

[Hibrandenburg]

When you have masked protestors stopping people entering an event I'd call it fascism.

There's a bit more to fascism that wearing masks and denying people access to something. I'm sure the left wear masks too and are partial to a bit of a stooshie.

[archie]

What protected characteristic does JC have, that is the basis for discrimination in this case?

Recent cases that may be relevant https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/jul/29/tribunal-rulings-for-gender-critical-women-have-key-implications

[archie]

Transphobic views are not a protected characteristic. Again, you're making false equivalences. You can't equate the negative judgement towards a person with transphobic views with the negative judgement towards a person because of their skin colour.

Well you frame it as transphobic which is a contested term. But no one is arguing that.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Well you frame it as transphobic which is a contested term. But no one is arguing that.

Transphobia is no more "contested" than racism, sexism or antisemitism.

[CropleyWasGod]

When you have masked protestors stopping people entering an event I'd call it fascism.

Someone on another thread described TRA's as "radical left".

Which is it, just so I know which badges to wear? :greengrin

[He's here!]

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/trans-activists-will-regret-picking-on-joanna-cherry/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=CampaignMonitor_Editorial&utm_campaign=BLND%20%2020230503%20%20Contra%20%20I H+CID_eb1bdc164c1d592100b4b1f96c091d75

The Stand have acted illegally according uo Roddy Dunlop.

As for India Willoughby's comments about the KKK...what a moron.

Cherry's party colleagues Robertson and Sheppard notably remaining silent.

As Macwhirter says, the Stand have picked the wrong fight here with the likes of Cherry. Good on her for standing up to this nonsense.

[He's here!]

But their issue isn't with her race, it's with her views. Should staff be any more comfortable with transphobic people as opposed to racist people?

Cherry's views are not transphobic. She simply differentiates between biological sex and gender identity, which is a perfectly rational view.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Cherry's views are not transphobic. She simply differentiates between biological sex and gender identity, which is a perfectly rational view.

If that was simply the case, there wouldn't be a problem. But it isn't, as you know. She's fine with people assigning their own gender identity, but she doesn't want it to be legally recognised if it deviates from their biological sex, which creates numerous implications when it comes to the rights of transgender people.

[archie]

What protected characteristic does JC have, that is the basis for discrimination in this case?
Well I'm not a KC, but quotes from her in this Guardian piece https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/02/snp-mp-joanna-cherry-says-she-has-been-cancelled-over-gender-views?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

[archie]

If that was simply the case, there wouldn't be a problem. But it isn't, as you know. She's fine with people assigning their own gender identity, but she doesn't want it to be legally recognised if it deviates from their biological sex, which creates numerous implications when it comes to the rights of transgender people.
Source? I've seen her quoted on self ID, but not existing law.

[He's here!]

If that was simply the case, there wouldn't be a problem. But it isn't, as you know. She's fine with people assigning their own gender identity, but she doesn't want it to be legally recognised if it deviates from their biological sex, which creates numerous implications when it comes to the rights of transgender people.

Depends whether or not you think transgender people already have all the rights they need thanks to the 2010 Equality Act. Like Cherry, I'd argue that they do.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Depends whether or not you think transgender people already have all the rights they need thanks to the 2010 Equality Act. Like Cherry, I'd argue that they do.

If the 2010 equality act went far enough, then why have other countries gone even further?

[archie]

Transphobia is no more "contested" than racism, sexism or antisemitism.

It absolutely is. If a belief in biological sex being real is seen as transphobic then transphobia is contested. What do you think transphobia is?

[TrumpIsAPeado]

It absolutely is. If a belief in biological sex being real is seen as transphobic then transphobia is contested. What do you think transphobia is?

That's not the problem.

[archie]

That's not the problem.

So what is?

[archie]

What protected characteristic does JC have, that is the basis for discrimination in this case?

This guy writes extensively on the issue:

https://www.holyrood.com/comment/view,comedy-club-cancellation-of-joanna-cherry-event-is-almost-certainly-unlawful-discrimination

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/opinion/4357657/joanna-cherry-cancelled-kezia-dugdale/?utm_source=twitter

And for balance here is Forbes article on the subject.
Both make good points IMO.

I DON’T know if you’ve heard, but there’s a coronation this weekend. I say that somewhat sarcastically because the news has been pretty much wall-to-wall.

Shops are full of bunting, Union flags adorn boxes of strawberries and we’re all invited to join in a chorus of allegiance.

There’s an equally vocal backlash to the festivities.

This newspaper recorded citizens in Glasgow on Monday dismissing it as a “load of rubbish” and referring to the King as “an unelected billionaire”. Another said she “didn’t really believe in the monarchy”.

You’ll be relieved to know that this isn’t another column dedicated to the coronation.

Instead, it is a celebration of our freedom to speak our minds. Not that long ago, you’d have had your head on the chopping block for such treachery and treason. Now, even the British Broadcasting Corporation can publish an article asking whether Scotland wants “its kilted King”.

Thank goodness we live in a liberal democracy where differing views can be heard. Such differences of opinion will only get louder in the coming days, rising to a crescendo on Saturday.



The debate on the monarchy illustrates the vital importance of our hard-won rights and freedom to express our views. Freedom of speech is invaluable. In fact, it is the bedrock of every liberal democracy and the cornerstone of every other freedom we enjoy in this country.

It is a fundamental human right, a general standard to which every nation should aspire and all governments must defend and protect. It is a right which is of particular importance to the disenfranchised and powerless.

Of course, freedom of speech, like all individual freedoms, is limited by law in this country, and carries with it the burden of accountability.

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers”.

Freedom of speech isn’t just a nice aspiration, it is a legal right. That means it should not be subject to whether I like your views or indeed whether your views are in accordance with the opinion of the majority.

It is irrelevant whether the political leaders of the day approve your speech as politically acceptable to them – be they the kings and bishops of old or the parties and media moguls that hold sway today.

READ MORE: SNP MPs among Scottish politicians attending King’s coronation

Even with the legal right to freedom of expression, we need to protect the culture that fosters the free and frank exchange of ideas. George Orwell said that “unpopular ideas can be silenced … without the need for any official ban”.

It feels like we are increasingly seeing that, not least this week at Edinburgh University, as protesters blocked the entrance to a venue that was screening a film.

I thought the First Minister was absolutely right when he responded to a question about the protest at First Minister’s Questions last week. He said: “We should ensure that our universities — and society more generally — are places where we can have even robust exchanges of ideas.”

Elsewhere in the great city of the Enlightenment, Joanna Cherry said she has effectively been “cancelled” by a public venue on account of her views.

I’m no lawyer, so I will quote the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, Roddy Dunlop KC, instead, who tweeted that it is “plainly unlawful”.

Other legal commentators have drawn comparisons with Franklin Graham who was “cancelled” by the SECC several years ago. The case went to court and Mr Graham won – at a cost to the public purse – almost £100,000.



Beyond the legal implications, which are for others to consider, I think this “cancellation” decision raises serious issues for all of us in public life.

Firstly, it risks undermining Edinburgh’s international reputation as the home of the Enlightenment.

The free and frank exchange of ideas is required for society’s flourishing. Exploring, interrogating, and dismissing ideas all depend on those ideas being heard in the first place, without fear.

Human progress is propelled by concepts and beliefs that emerge from intellectual, evidenced, and experienced debate.

Although far from perfect, scientists, geologists and economists were able to flourish in Scotland’s Enlightenment because of the freedom to propose ideas, underpinned by evidence, without censorship or cancellation, leading French philosopher Voltaire to argue that “we look to Scotland for all our ideas of civilisation”.

These days, the Edinburgh Fringe draws thousands of visitors from across the world.

They come to enjoy the great talents on display and listen to the exchange of ideas – some controversial, some humorous and some thought-provoking. That exchange can only happen in a forum that allows for freedom of speech and expression, without fear.

As former High Court judge Lord Justice Sedley famously said: “Free speech includes not only the inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative … Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having.”

READ MORE: Watch as Celtic fans sing 'you can shove your coronation up your a***'

Secondly, it is a failure of our mission to disagree well in society. There are few in society or leadership positions or indeed in my own family with whom I agree completely. I don’t think the answer is to censor them or erase them from society.

In a healthy democracy, we make progress through debate between those of different opinions and views. We listen, debate and seek to persuade.

In the recent leadership contest, I strongly emphasised the need for respectful dialogue with those not yet persuaded of the merits of independence.

Such dialogue starts with a listening ear on both sides of the debate. Of course, it must be respectful, sensitive and wise. That’s just one issue of many that require a similar approach.

But I find that when you believe in the strength of your case, you do not fear debate. It’s those without a case to answer who run from arguments. I strongly believe that in a fair, free and respectful debate, the truth always wins.

Lastly, this decision leaves everybody else a bit more vulnerable. As a politician and a successful lawyer, Joanna Cherry has a powerful voice. Already, the decision to “cancel” her has been documented in the press and famous voices have drawn attention to it.



But what about those in society without the same political platform? They can be silenced through fear, or sacked by their boss, without recourse or anybody knowing.

People in other lines of work – not least comedians and journalists – are also at risk if we start “de-platforming” people who are out of step with the unwritten rules on what is beyond the pale.

We must think seriously about what can be done to shore up free expression for the sake of generations to come.

Part of this will be articulating the many positives of free speech for society. It may also require a more robust defence of civil liberties in education and the public square.

Despite all this, I believe that the public are wise to the dangers of cancel culture. They know where it leads, and they reject it.

In the most recent leadership contest, I received huge volumes of correspondence. Most letters started with the lines: “I disagree with your views, but I absolutely defend your right to express them.”

I would expect people to disagree with my arguments in this column. I defend their right to do so, and look forward to considering their alternative views.

That’s how we learn in a society that safeguards freedom of speech.

I hope we can agree that it is a precious thing to be allowed to disagree, and it is to the credit of The National for offering a platform to do so.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[He's here!]

This guy writes extensively on the issue:

https://www.holyrood.com/comment/view,comedy-club-cancellation-of-joanna-cherry-event-is-almost-certainly-unlawful-discrimination

Spot on.

[He's here!]

https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/opinion/4357657/joanna-cherry-cancelled-kezia-dugdale/?utm_source=twitter

And for balance here is Forbes article on the subject.
Both make good points IMO.

I DON’T know if you’ve heard, but there’s a coronation this weekend. I say that somewhat sarcastically because the news has been pretty much wall-to-wall.

Shops are full of bunting, Union flags adorn boxes of strawberries and we’re all invited to join in a chorus of allegiance.

There’s an equally vocal backlash to the festivities.

This newspaper recorded citizens in Glasgow on Monday dismissing it as a “load of rubbish” and referring to the King as “an unelected billionaire”. Another said she “didn’t really believe in the monarchy”.

You’ll be relieved to know that this isn’t another column dedicated to the coronation.

Instead, it is a celebration of our freedom to speak our minds. Not that long ago, you’d have had your head on the chopping block for such treachery and treason. Now, even the British Broadcasting Corporation can publish an article asking whether Scotland wants “its kilted King”.

Thank goodness we live in a liberal democracy where differing views can be heard. Such differences of opinion will only get louder in the coming days, rising to a crescendo on Saturday.



The debate on the monarchy illustrates the vital importance of our hard-won rights and freedom to express our views. Freedom of speech is invaluable. In fact, it is the bedrock of every liberal democracy and the cornerstone of every other freedom we enjoy in this country.

It is a fundamental human right, a general standard to which every nation should aspire and all governments must defend and protect. It is a right which is of particular importance to the disenfranchised and powerless.

Of course, freedom of speech, like all individual freedoms, is limited by law in this country, and carries with it the burden of accountability.

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers”.

Freedom of speech isn’t just a nice aspiration, it is a legal right. That means it should not be subject to whether I like your views or indeed whether your views are in accordance with the opinion of the majority.

It is irrelevant whether the political leaders of the day approve your speech as politically acceptable to them – be they the kings and bishops of old or the parties and media moguls that hold sway today.

READ MORE: SNP MPs among Scottish politicians attending King’s coronation

Even with the legal right to freedom of expression, we need to protect the culture that fosters the free and frank exchange of ideas. George Orwell said that “unpopular ideas can be silenced … without the need for any official ban”.

It feels like we are increasingly seeing that, not least this week at Edinburgh University, as protesters blocked the entrance to a venue that was screening a film.

I thought the First Minister was absolutely right when he responded to a question about the protest at First Minister’s Questions last week. He said: “We should ensure that our universities — and society more generally — are places where we can have even robust exchanges of ideas.”

Elsewhere in the great city of the Enlightenment, Joanna Cherry said she has effectively been “cancelled” by a public venue on account of her views.

I’m no lawyer, so I will quote the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, Roddy Dunlop KC, instead, who tweeted that it is “plainly unlawful”.

Other legal commentators have drawn comparisons with Franklin Graham who was “cancelled” by the SECC several years ago. The case went to court and Mr Graham won – at a cost to the public purse – almost £100,000.



Beyond the legal implications, which are for others to consider, I think this “cancellation” decision raises serious issues for all of us in public life.

Firstly, it risks undermining Edinburgh’s international reputation as the home of the Enlightenment.

The free and frank exchange of ideas is required for society’s flourishing. Exploring, interrogating, and dismissing ideas all depend on those ideas being heard in the first place, without fear.

Human progress is propelled by concepts and beliefs that emerge from intellectual, evidenced, and experienced debate.

Although far from perfect, scientists, geologists and economists were able to flourish in Scotland’s Enlightenment because of the freedom to propose ideas, underpinned by evidence, without censorship or cancellation, leading French philosopher Voltaire to argue that “we look to Scotland for all our ideas of civilisation”.

These days, the Edinburgh Fringe draws thousands of visitors from across the world.

They come to enjoy the great talents on display and listen to the exchange of ideas – some controversial, some humorous and some thought-provoking. That exchange can only happen in a forum that allows for freedom of speech and expression, without fear.

As former High Court judge Lord Justice Sedley famously said: “Free speech includes not only the inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative … Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having.”

READ MORE: Watch as Celtic fans sing 'you can shove your coronation up your a***'

Secondly, it is a failure of our mission to disagree well in society. There are few in society or leadership positions or indeed in my own family with whom I agree completely. I don’t think the answer is to censor them or erase them from society.

In a healthy democracy, we make progress through debate between those of different opinions and views. We listen, debate and seek to persuade.

In the recent leadership contest, I strongly emphasised the need for respectful dialogue with those not yet persuaded of the merits of independence.

Such dialogue starts with a listening ear on both sides of the debate. Of course, it must be respectful, sensitive and wise. That’s just one issue of many that require a similar approach.

But I find that when you believe in the strength of your case, you do not fear debate. It’s those without a case to answer who run from arguments. I strongly believe that in a fair, free and respectful debate, the truth always wins.

Lastly, this decision leaves everybody else a bit more vulnerable. As a politician and a successful lawyer, Joanna Cherry has a powerful voice. Already, the decision to “cancel” her has been documented in the press and famous voices have drawn attention to it.



But what about those in society without the same political platform? They can be silenced through fear, or sacked by their boss, without recourse or anybody knowing.

People in other lines of work – not least comedians and journalists – are also at risk if we start “de-platforming” people who are out of step with the unwritten rules on what is beyond the pale.

We must think seriously about what can be done to shore up free expression for the sake of generations to come.

Part of this will be articulating the many positives of free speech for society. It may also require a more robust defence of civil liberties in education and the public square.

Despite all this, I believe that the public are wise to the dangers of cancel culture. They know where it leads, and they reject it.

In the most recent leadership contest, I received huge volumes of correspondence. Most letters started with the lines: “I disagree with your views, but I absolutely defend your right to express them.”

I would expect people to disagree with my arguments in this column. I defend their right to do so, and look forward to considering their alternative views.

That’s how we learn in a society that safeguards freedom of speech.

I hope we can agree that it is a precious thing to be allowed to disagree, and it is to the credit of The National for offering a platform to do so.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What a load of drivel from Dugdale in that Courier piece.

[Santa Cruz]

What a load of drivel from Dugdale in that Courier piece.

I wouldn't say it's drivel. I don't agree with her saying if staff don't agree with anyone's views they have a right to refuse to work. They are contracted to provide a service, they're bound to hear a number of conversations on any shift from clients and customers they don't agree with. Different matter if it was their colleagues continually spouting views they took offence to. KD's not living in the real world if she thinks employers can operate a business dependant on staff picking and choosing when and why they are prepared to work in that sector specifically. Do agree with some other points she makes though.

Think KF's article was far better, she comes across very well. I'm surprised at how much she impresses me, knew very little about her until recently.

[147lothian]

Trans ideology doesn't care for fairness in woman's sport.

A biological male Austin Killips who identifies as a woman, has won the Tour of of Gila an elite woman's cycling race in New Mexico US. Killips, who only began cycling in 2019, smashed to victory, finishing 89 seconds clear of second-placed Marcela Prieto, and took home $35,000 prize money. And also won a bonus prize of being named 'Queen of the Mountains'.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/05/03/the -brazen-entitlement-of-trans-athletes/

[Stairway 2 7]

Nitwits call any opinion different from theirs on the subject transphobic. Some say women wanting separate female spaces or situations transphobic, thinking biological males shouldn't play female sports transphobic, lesbians not wanting to sleep with females with a ***** transphobic. If you throw the word around for people who aren't transphobic then it loses all meaning, when there are many that are transphobic then that is stupid.

People should be free to priorities women's rights whether that is right or wrong. Most lawyers I've seen discuss it say the stand are acting illegally, I'm not a lawyer so it would be radge to dispute or agree with that

[archie]

Nitwits call any opinion different from theirs on the subject transphobic. Some say women wanting separate female spaces or situations transphobic, thinking biological males shouldn't play female sports transphobic, lesbians not wanting to sleep with females with a ***** transphobic. If you throw the word around for people who aren't transphobic then it loses all meaning, when there are many that are transphobic then that is stupid.

People should be free to priorities women's rights whether that is right or wrong. Most lawyers I've seen discuss it say the stand are acting illegally, I'm not a lawyer so it would be radge to dispute or agree with that

The issue is the very wide and imprecise definition of what trans means. It ranges from people who have had surgery through to someone who might feel like a woman that day. In terms of law and policy that's unworkable.

[CropleyWasGod]

This guy writes extensively on the issue:

https://www.holyrood.com/comment/view,comedy-club-cancellation-of-joanna-cherry-event-is-almost-certainly-unlawful-discrimination

Presumably, it would be up to JC to prove that it was her GC views that caused the staff to take their stand (pun intended). So far, all that has been mentioned is "her views", without specifying which ones.

Also, IIRC, the Forstater case was an employment tribunal. If JC went down the Court route, is the burden of proof greater?

[archie]

Presumably, it would be up to JC to prove that it was her GC views that caused the staff to take their stand (pun intended). So far, all that has been mentioned is "her views", without specifying which ones.

Also, IIRC, the Forstater case was an employment tribunal. If JC went down the Court route, is the burden of proof greater?
Firstly, I'm not a lawyer. It appears to be material. There's also the cases in Glasgow and Edinburgh where damages were paid to groups who booked venues that were then cancelled because of their religious views about gay people. You raise an interesting point. The Stand has been very vague about staff conerns. Maybe anticipating legal action?

[He's here!]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2023/05/03/joanna-cherry-snp-woke-gen-z-the-stand-edinburgh/

'Self-righteous Stand staff should simply be sacked'

[CropleyWasGod]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2023/05/03/joanna-cherry-snp-woke-gen-z-the-stand-edinburgh/

'Self-righteous Stand staff should simply be sacked'

"The Stand invited Joanna Cherry – the SNP MP for Edinburgh South West – to do a speaking event during this summer’s Edinburgh Festival."

It didn't. She was booked by a third party as one of a series of events they were running.

I'm all for decent debate, but some of the stuff being said is nonsense, which makes that debate difficult.

[archie]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2023/05/03/joanna-cherry-snp-woke-gen-z-the-stand-edinburgh/

'Self-righteous Stand staff should simply be sacked'

I don't entirely agree with this. There has to be a right to withdraw labour. But that has to be done in a legally defensible way. No one would support the staff if it was on the basis of Joanna Cherry being a lesbian. I think it's equally problematic because she holds gender critical views.

[archie]

"The Stand invited Joanna Cherry – the SNP MP for Edinburgh South West – to do a speaking event during this summer’s Edinburgh Festival."

It didn't. She was booked by a third party as one of a series of events they were running.

I'm all for decent debate, but some of the stuff being said is nonsense, which makes that debate difficult.

I don't think that's the get out you think it is. It's the Stand who are refusing her a platform.

If a black person makes an accommodation booking through an agency and the accommodation refuses their booking because they are black, it's not the agency to blame.

[CropleyWasGod]

I don't think that's the get out you think it is. It's the Stand who are refusing her a platform.

I'm not using it as a get out. I am pointing out that there are a lot of untruths being spoken, to support stances. That just frustrates the debating process, which should be based on facts and evidence, and undermines the stances being taken.

[Kato]

I'm not using it as a get out. I am pointing out that there are a lot of untruths being spoken, to support stances. That just frustrates the debating process, which should be based on facts and evidence, and undermines the stances being taken."Self-righteous Telegraph staff will simply say anything to cause trouble."

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[archie]

I'm not using it as a get out. I am pointing out that there are a lot of untruths being spoken, to support stances. That just frustrates the debating process, which should be based on facts and evidence, and undermines the stances being taken.

Sure, but the reality is that it's the Stand who banned her. I'm not saying you are doing this, but opponents of JC are using the third party booking as some kind of gotcha.

[Ozyhibby]

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/holyrood-sources/id1673972192?i=1000611612362

Cherry gives her side of the story.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[superfurryhibby]

At Edinburgh’s recent Beltane Festival, the Green Man ( a symbolic representation of the spirit of male fertility in nature) was actually enacted by a female. All in the interest of inclusivity of course.

SHe “ married” the May Queen, who ironically was actually female.

I wonder when the forces of the pretend woke will waken up to the stereotyping and systemic discrimination directed at working class people?

Can we have protests about the Orcs in Lord of the Rings being portrayed with cockney accents or maybe rise to challenge why people from certain postcode area have such different levels of attainment in education, health, employment etc?

Perhaps the enlightened ones could look at how many of our judges or MP’s went fee paying schools and start addressing these blatant disparities, or is that a bit like getting too close to the things that actually matter?

[archie]

At Edinburgh’s recent Beltane Festival, the Green Man ( a symbolic representation of the spirit of male fertility in nature) was actually enacted by a female. All in the interest of inclusivity of course.

SHe “ married” the May Queen, who ironically was actually female.

I wonder when the forces of the pretend woke will waken up to the stereotyping and systemic discrimination directed at working class people?

Can we have protests about the Orcs in Lord of the Rings being portrayed with cockney accents or maybe rise to challenge why people from certain postcode area have such different levels of attainment in education, health, employment etc?

Perhaps the enlightened ones could look at how many of our judges or MP’s went fee paying schools and start addressing these blatant disparities, or is that a bit like getting too close to the things that actually matter?

I think you've nailed it. It's no consequence radicalism. You can promote how radical you are in a way that does not affect any economic structure in society. You can proclaim that you are attacking 'the patriarchy' while actually reinforcing it.

[superfurryhibby]

I think you've nailed it. It's no consequence radicalism. You can promote how radical you are in a way that does not affect any economic structure in society. You can proclaim that you are attacking 'the patriarchy' while actually reinforcing it.

It's almost like the bourgeois, chattering class, overprivileged get to decide what radicalism is socially acceptable radicalism.

[LewysGot2]

It's almost like the bourgeois, chattering class, overprivileged get to decide what radicalism is socially acceptable radicalism.

It’s not the radicalism of decades gone by. Think back to the 80s and a music scene peppered with political messages with everything from unemployment, apartheid, poverty through to questioning the monarchy…almost all of it class based or championing the disadvantaged. Poll tax action, industrial action, generally fighting for the rights of the poor.


Identity politics are not likely going to be resonating in the same demographic areas as these other issues.

[147lothian]

It's almost like the bourgeois, chattering class, overprivileged get to decide what radicalism is socially acceptable radicalism.

Does this mean your not concerned about the plight of painfully middle class Rupert, who declared himself non-binary last week and is experiencing an unsufferable dilemma over which Edinburgh University loo to go to.

[He's here!]

Kathleen Stock: Protests at Oxford Union as talk goes ahead - BBC News (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-65714821)

Credit to Stock for refusing to be shut down. With Cherry doing likewise in Edinburgh we're hopefully starting to see folk showing a bit of backbone here. Edinburgh University should take note.

[Ozyhibby]

Kathleen Stock: Protests at Oxford Union as talk goes ahead - BBC News (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-65714821)

Credit to Stock for refusing to be shut down. With Cherry doing likewise in Edinburgh we're hopefully starting to see folk showing a bit of backbone here. Edinburgh University should take note.

Board has obviously opened up again. Discussion over and back to point scoring. [emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[147lothian]

Kathleen Stock: Protests at Oxford Union as talk goes ahead - BBC News (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-65714821)

Credit to Stock for refusing to be shut down. With Cherry doing likewise in Edinburgh we're hopefully starting to see folk showing a bit of backbone here. Edinburgh University should take note.

Ironically 95% of people would agree with what Kathleen Stock has to say that a man can't magically become a woman, the 5% who are trying to prevent Kathleen Stock from speaking at the Oxford Union are doing so because they know their arguments don't stand up to scrutiny.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w75i-65HDqY

[J-C]

Board has obviously opened up again. Discussion over and back to point scoring. [emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's been nice and quiet with normal discussions, let's hope the bickering doesn't start again.

[He's here!]

Board has obviously opened up again. Discussion over and back to point scoring. [emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There's surely plenty to discuss around these attempts to shut down free speech?

[He's here!]

Ironically 95% of people would agree with what Kathleen Stock has to say that a man can't magically become a woman, the 5% who are trying to prevent Kathleen Stock from speaking at the Oxford Union are doing so because they know their arguments don't stand up to scrutiny.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w75i-65HDqY

As Stock said last night: "If you don't go with reality it will hit you in the face. You can't overcome your body. When you are lost in the fiction and can't talk about reality you've got a problem."

[Kato]

There's surely plenty to discuss around these attempts to shut down free speech?You weren't too keen when it was Gary Linekar.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[147lothian]

As Stock said last night: "If you don't go with reality it will hit you in the face. You can't overcome your body. When you are lost in the fiction and can't talk about reality you've got a problem."

Isn't it ironic that it was right wingers that had a problem with free speech in 1970's they campaigned to get Monty Pythons, The Life of Brian banned, because it poked fun at religious dogma.

Everyone laughed at the absurdity of Stan when he said that he wanted to be a woman, and that a man can get pregnant. If the Life of Brian was made today, people that call themselves left wing, would be dissolving into a puddle from their own tears at how offensive this would be to them, I would say that there is nothing left wing about these new puritan's, because they say nothing about economic issues and it all goes to show how cancel culture is the midwife of stupidity.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R79yYo2aOZs

[Stairway 2 7]

There was a channel 4 documentary last night on the subject anyone catch it ,I've not yet

Review sounds interesting

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2023/may/30/gender-wars-review-youd-need-hundreds-more-of-these-shows-to-truly-address-the-issues-around-trans-rights?CMP=share_btn_tw

[Moulin Yarns]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/18/there-is-so-much-more-for-us-to-worry-about-than-men-masquerading-as-women-to-access-single-sex-spaces?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other


A very interesting comment piece in the observer.

[J-C]

I had a gay couple in the taxi yesterday, going up to Fountainbridge for brunch, one had a summer dress on, handbag and earrings, other shorts and shirt, it's still a bit strange seeing it but TBH not overly fussed what people want to wear nowadays. I said in a light hearted manner " so it's a summers dress type of day today" he laughed and said yes, he said he still gets looked at strangely but will do his own thing nonetheless. I said said well done you, do what you want and sod anyone who gives you grief, got a decent tip and left a happy punter at his destination. Basically life's too short to worry about others and what they are or what they wear, be nice and accept we're all different, it makes the world a better place.

[Ozyhibby]

I had a gay couple in the taxi yesterday, going up to Fountainbridge for brunch, one had a summer dress on, handbag and earrings, other shorts and shirt, it's still a bit strange seeing it but TBH not overly fussed what people want to wear nowadays. I said in a light hearted manner " so it's a summers dress type of day today" he laughed and said yes, he said he still gets looked at strangely but will do his own thing nonetheless. I said said well done you, do what you want and sod anyone who gives you grief, got a decent tip and left a happy punter at his destination. Basically life's too short to worry about others and what they are or what they wear, be nice and accept we're all different, it makes the world a better place.

Couldn’t agree more.[emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[neil7908]

I had a gay couple in the taxi yesterday, going up to Fountainbridge for brunch, one had a summer dress on, handbag and earrings, other shorts and shirt, it's still a bit strange seeing it but TBH not overly fussed what people want to wear nowadays. I said in a light hearted manner " so it's a summers dress type of day today" he laughed and said yes, he said he still gets looked at strangely but will do his own thing nonetheless. I said said well done you, do what you want and sod anyone who gives you grief, got a decent tip and left a happy punter at his destination. Basically life's too short to worry about others and what they are or what they wear, be nice and accept we're all different, it makes the world a better place.

This x100.

[WeeRussell]

I had a gay couple in the taxi yesterday, going up to Fountainbridge for brunch, one had a summer dress on, handbag and earrings, other shorts and shirt, it's still a bit strange seeing it but TBH not overly fussed what people want to wear nowadays. I said in a light hearted manner " so it's a summers dress type of day today" he laughed and said yes, he said he still gets looked at strangely but will do his own thing nonetheless. I said said well done you, do what you want and sod anyone who gives you grief, got a decent tip and left a happy punter at his destination. Basically life's too short to worry about others and what they are or what they wear, be nice and accept we're all different, it makes the world a better place.

It’s really such an easy thing and would solve a lot of the problems with our world.

[archie]

I had a gay couple in the taxi yesterday, going up to Fountainbridge for brunch, one had a summer dress on, handbag and earrings, other shorts and shirt, it's still a bit strange seeing it but TBH not overly fussed what people want to wear nowadays. I said in a light hearted manner " so it's a summers dress type of day today" he laughed and said yes, he said he still gets looked at strangely but will do his own thing nonetheless. I said said well done you, do what you want and sod anyone who gives you grief, got a decent tip and left a happy punter at his destination. Basically life's too short to worry about others and what they are or what they wear, be nice and accept we're all different, it makes the world a better place.

I think that's all fine. The problems arise when people getting to live their life impacts on others trying to live theirs.

[Hibrandenburg]

I think that's all fine. The problems arise when people getting to live their life impacts on others trying to live theirs.

That would rule out a **** load of freedoms we all take for granted.

[WeeRussell]

That would rule out a **** load of freedoms we all take for granted.

Almost all of them in fact?!

[archie]

That would rule out a **** load of freedoms we all take for granted.

How?

[archie]

Almost all of them in fact?!

Again, how?

[J-C]

I think that's all fine. The problems arise when people getting to live their life impacts on others trying to live theirs.

How would living their lives as they wish impact on others,unless what they do is illegal. We're talking about two gay guys, one wearing a dress and having the freedom to do so without harassment or ridicule, I honestly think you're controversial and argumentative deliberately just to get a reaction and that in my mind is trolling.

[archie]

How would living their lives as they wish impact on others,unless what they do is illegal. We're talking about two gay guys, one wearing a dress and having the freedom to do so without harassment or ridicule, I honestly think you're controversial and argumentative deliberately just to get a reaction and that in my mind is trolling.

I don't see how what I've said is trolling. I genuinely think it's none of my business how people choose to lead their life. Of course they should be able to lead their life without harassment or ridicule. But surely you don't believe that can be unconstrained? You must be familiar in the trans rights debate on the issues around single sex spaces, including prisons, single sex health and social care and so on.

To move it from the trans issue, you might remember the naked rambler. He wanted, for whatever reason, to ramble naked. He wanted to live his life as he choose. Unfortunately in doing that he kept getting lifted and jailed. I couldn't see that him being repeatedly jailed did anyone any good. But what about people who, for whatever reason, didn't want to see him naked? How do you balance his rights with those of others?

[J-C]

I don't see how what I've said is trolling. I genuinely think it's none of my business how people choose to lead their life. Of course they should be able to lead their life without harassment or ridicule. But surely you don't believe that can be unconstrained? You must be familiar in the trans rights debate on the issues around single sex spaces, including prisons, single sex health and social care and so on.

To move it from the trans issue, you might remember the naked rambler. He wanted, for whatever reason, to ramble naked. He wanted to live his life as he choose. Unfortunately in doing that he kept getting lifted and jailed. I couldn't see that him being repeatedly jailed did anyone any good. But what about people who, for whatever reason, didn't want to see him naked? How do you balance his rights with those of others?

My post had nothing to do with the well documented problems with the trans rights issues which I admit the SG got drastically wrong and the naked rambler broke the law around decency in public, so in his case more fool him. I posted a scenario in my taxi that I thought should show that if we all just let people be themselves, the world may be a better place, it was to point out homophobia and hatred should be a thing of the past and maybe life would be a better place.

[Since90+2]

My post had nothing to do with the well documented problems with the trans rights issues which I admit the SG got drastically wrong and the naked rambler broke the law around decency in public, so in his case more fool him. I posted a scenario in my taxi that I thought should show that if we all just let people be themselves, the world may be a better place, it was to point out homophobia and hatred should be a thing of the past and maybe life would be a better place.

To be fair, homophobia has nothing to do with the trans debate going on at the moment. They are two separate issues and we need to be careful not to conflate them.

[archie]

My post had nothing to do with the well documented problems with the trans rights issues which I admit the SG got drastically wrong and the naked rambler broke the law around decency in public, so in his case more fool him. I posted a scenario in my taxi that I thought should show that if we all just let people be themselves, the world may be a better place, it was to point out homophobia and hatred should be a thing of the past and maybe life would be a better place.
Fair enough.

[J-C]

To be fair, homophobia has nothing to do with the trans debate going on at the moment. They are two separate issues and we need to be careful not to conflate them.


The guy was wearing a dress, was he trans or just a gay guy wearing a dress? sometimes we need to look at these people as simply humans doing what they feel is natural and get on with our own lives. If a man is portraying as a woman and he gets grief in the street, that would be homophobia, whether he had a wig on or not.

[Since90+2]

The guy was wearing a dress, was he trans or just a gay guy wearing a dress? sometimes we need to look at these people as simply humans doing what they feel is natural and get on with our own lives. If a man is portraying as a woman and he gets grief in the street, that would be homophobia, whether he had a wig on or not.

To answer your first question, I've absolutely no idea, how could I possibly know that? And to me it makes absolutely no difference. You are the one raising the question about this guys identification.

My point was simply is that this is a very nuanced debate and conflating homophobia with some people's concerns around the trans movement are completely different things.

[Hibrandenburg]

How?

If you smoke, chances are someone will be passive smoking with you. You drive a car it effects the air quality. You have a party at home, neighbours might lose sleep. You eat white rice and valuable farming land for brown rice needed to sustain local nourishment in some countries gets lost.

The list is endless.

[archie]

If you smoke, chances are someone will be passive smoking with you. You drive a car it effects the air quality. You have a party at home, neighbours might lose sleep. You eat white rice and valuable farming land for brown rice needed to sustain local nourishment in some countries gets lost.

The list is endless.

I'm actually staggered that anyone would find the point about how individual freedoms can clash against other people's individual freedoms is an any way exceptional. A key part of government, citizenry and society is how we regulate and control individual freedoms to make society work. That's why so many of these areas are regulated and why we accept it. When the citizenry doesn't accept it the the social contract fails.

I'm genuinely interested in what I'm missing here.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Rishi Sunak caught mocking transgender people in front of the 1922 committee.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jun/19/rishi-sunak-accused-of-mocking-trans-people-in-joke-to-tory-mps

[Hibrandenburg]

I'm actually staggered that anyone would find the point about how individual freedoms can clash against other people's individual freedoms is an any way exceptional. A key part of government, citizenry and society is how we regulate and control individual freedoms to make society work. That's why so many of these areas are regulated and why we accept it. When the citizenry doesn't accept it the the social contract fails.

I'm genuinely interested in what I'm missing here.

You're not missing anything, in fact you've made my point quite well. I guess it boils down in this case to who feels who is being denied individual freedom.

[Stairway 2 7]

It's not the 50s the vast majority don't care who trans people sleep with, marry or wear. The only discussion is how we can give trans people every right without losing any hard gotten rights of biological women. Trying to stear it away from just the discussion on they small nuances is ridiculous.

Almost all on here agree trans women shouldn't play professional female sports, to some that would make us horrible transphobes, obviously to the vast majority that's nonsense.

Female prisons is obviously another that blew up. Yes we want trans to have every right they can, but sorry biological females must be protected there.

Unfortunately one group wants trans to have every right whether they effect women and the other side won't budge from wanting a few caveats, so we're stuck

[Kato]

The guy was wearing a dress, was he trans or just a gay guy wearing a dress? sometimes we need to look at these people as simply humans doing what they feel is natural and get on with our own lives. If a man is portraying as a woman and he gets grief in the street, that would be homophobia, whether he had a wig on or not.I'm reminded of the Kevin Rowland reply, "It's a mans dress."

https://youtube.com/watch?v=r54fZikFOu8&feature=share8

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[archie]

I'm reminded of the Kevin Rowland reply, "It's a mans dress."

https://youtube.com/watch?v=r54fZikFOu8&feature=share8

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

I see your Kevin Rowland and raise you...David Bowie!


https://i.pinimg.com/originals/51/65/f0/5165f05c49ad44ea9b8f69e7c6035700.jpg

[He's here!]

Unfair Play: The Battle for Women’s Sport by Sharron Davies review — women are being cheated of medals (thetimes.co.uk) (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/bdc8e2c0-0b7b-11ee-947c-69265173b330?shareToken=e227f74fc120decd4b309119cb d70031)

Davies certainly knows what she's talking about. Cheated out of gold by one of the testosterone-fuelled East Germans of that era, who essentially enjoyed the advantages biological males are now bringing to 'women's' sport.

[Paul1642]

It's not the 50s the vast majority don't care who trans people sleep with, marry or wear. The only discussion is how we can give trans people every right without losing any hard gotten rights of biological women. Trying to stear it away from just the discussion on they small nuances is ridiculous.

Almost all on here agree trans women shouldn't play professional female sports, to some that would make us horrible transphobes, obviously to the vast majority that's nonsense.

Female prisons is obviously another that blew up. Yes we want trans to have every right they can, but sorry biological females must be protected there.

Unfortunately one group wants trans to have every right whether they effect women and the other side won't budge from wanting a few caveats, so we're stuck

This is 100% the issue. I, and most tolerant people couldn’t give a crap what other people do and have no issues whatsoever with people choosing to be trans.

The big problem here is that women’s rights, safety and privacy are potentially at risk and if woman don’t want someone born a man sharing a changing room then they should be fully entitled to that right.

Also the decisions (mainly in certain American states) allowing children to transition are completely irresponsible. In a country where you can’t drink until your 21 it is insane that irreversible life changing (and life ruining if you later regret it) changes are happening and being almost encouraged by a very vocal minority.

In Scotland we have (wrongly IMO) decided that until you are 25 you are not fully matured and therefore receive much more lenient sentencing at court.

This popped up on my twitter a few days ago.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12209919/amp/Full-audio-Student-rejected-classmates-claim-shes-CAT-scolded-teacher.html

Kids being scolded by a teacher, called despicable and told that they should find a new school for disagreeing that it is normal that their classmate identifies as a cat. The kids come over pretty reasonable and mature in the recording whereas the teacher is very stubborn.

Where do we draw the line? I’m all for people doing what makes them happy but a young teenager identifying as an animal probably needs a lot of help rather than endorsement and encouragement.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Where do we draw the line? I’m all for people doing what makes them happy but a young teenager identifying as an animal probably needs a lot of help rather than endorsement and encouragement.

Do you even have the full context behind this? Perhaps the kid was just messing around, using their imagination. As kids do. The teacher dealt with that conversation poorly. But we don't know absolutely everything that led up to that conversation in the first place. Perhaps the children in that clip were bullying or belittling those who felt unsure about their gender identity, which is not ok either. Unprofessional from the teacher, but you have to wonder what part those kids parents play in their mindset to think that it's ok to single out other people and claim that they're somehow mentally ill, just because they're going through something that they can't fully comprehend.

[speedy_gonzales]

This popped up on my twitter a few days ago.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12209919/amp/Full-audio-Student-rejected-classmates-claim-shes-CAT-scolded-teacher.html

Kids being scolded by a teacher, called despicable and told that they should find a new school for disagreeing that it is normal that their classmate identifies as a cat. The kids come over pretty reasonable and mature in the recording whereas the teacher is very stubborn.

Where do we draw the line? I’m all for people doing what makes them happy but a young teenager identifying as an animal probably needs a lot of help rather than endorsement and encouragement.

And yet in this article, and others, no classmate identified as a cat. The young girl said something along the lines that if someone identified as a cat, that would be crazy.

[Moulin Yarns]

Unfair Play: The Battle for Women’s Sport by Sharron Davies review — women are being cheated of medals (thetimes.co.uk) (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/bdc8e2c0-0b7b-11ee-947c-69265173b330?shareToken=e227f74fc120decd4b309119cb d70031)

Davies certainly knows what she's talking about. Cheated out of gold by one of the testosterone-fuelled East Germans of that era, who essentially enjoyed the advantages biological males are now bringing to 'women's' sport.

Guess you missed this from a year ago.

https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theguardian.com/sport/2022/jun/19/transgender-swimmers-barred-from-female-competitions-after-fina-vote?amp_gsa=1&amp_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQIUAKwASCAAgM%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16872685511738&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fsport %2F2022%2Fjun%2F19%2Ftransgender-swimmers-barred-from-female-competitions-after-fina-vote

[Moulin Yarns]

I'm reposting this as it seems to have been missed by most.


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/18/there-is-so-much-more-for-us-to-worry-about-than-men-masquerading-as-women-to-access-single-sex-spaces?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

[He's here!]

Guess you missed this from a year ago.

https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theguardian.com/sport/2022/jun/19/transgender-swimmers-barred-from-female-competitions-after-fina-vote?amp_gsa=1&amp_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQIUAKwASCAAgM%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16872685511738&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fsport %2F2022%2Fjun%2F19%2Ftransgender-swimmers-barred-from-female-competitions-after-fina-vote

I didn't miss it, but that's not the issue. The link I posted is a review of her new book (out this week) where she recounts that disgraceful Olympic experience (the East German's gold has still not been rescinded) and the point being made is that those claiming a ban on trans women taking part in women's sports categories is transphobic are choosing to ignore the absurd and destructive advantage they enjoy as biological males.

The abuse Davies has taken (and the loss of the majority of her work) since sticking her head above the parapet on this is outrageous.

[CropleyWasGod]

Interesting.....


https://gayexpress.co.nz/2023/06/worlds-first-trans-male-boxer-wins-third-fight-over-cis-man/

[Stairway 2 7]

Interesting.....


https://gayexpress.co.nz/2023/06/worlds-first-trans-male-boxer-wins-third-fight-over-cis-man/

Not really. If you enjoy boxing you won't really look at the first 8 fights as they are exhibition in all but name. Your not a fan of biology if you think this is going to continue

Boxing has been generally good in banning biological males from smashing females. Unfortunately mma not so. Fallon fox born a male broke her opponents skull, sick imo

[CropleyWasGod]

Not sure whether this belongs here, or in the Tory-bashing thread.

Whatever, it's your Friday funny :greengrin

https://twitter.com/MrJohnNicolson/status/1672259823402926081?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcam p%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

[Just Alf]

Not sure whether this belongs here, or in the Tory-bashing thread.

Whatever, it's your Friday funny :greengrin

https://twitter.com/MrJohnNicolson/status/1672259823402926081?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcam p%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5EtweetLove this reply!

https://twitter.com/Mckendrick36/status/1672269460948889602?t=h2hSz01oTa__5TYdM0KLeQ&s=19

[147lothian]

Love this reply!

https://twitter.com/Mckendrick36/status/1672269460948889602?t=h2hSz01oTa__5TYdM0KLeQ&s=19

Helen Joyce explains very well why gender ideology is nonsense.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-ysKQrRMMU

[Keith_M]

I got a letter from the NHS last week with my name as 'Miss Keith Mc.....'


I blame Nicola Sturgeon!


:grr:

[He's here!]

Maya Forstater: Woman gets payout for discrimination over trans tweets - BBC News (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66076021)

[superfurryhibby]

The number of people who said they were not the same gender as their birth sex amounted to 0.5% of the population that responded, lower than polling by Ipsos last summer in which 3.1% of people said they were trans, non-binary, gender queer or gender fluid, a gender or another gender that was not male or female.

The tally is, however, similar to Canada, which in 2021 became the first country to apply a census to its transgender and non-binary population aged 15 and over, which found they made up 0.33% of the population.

The England and Wales census also recorded sexuality for the first time, with 1.5 million people aged over 15 – or 3.2% – identifying as gay or lesbian, bisexual or other sexual orientation. The charity Stonewall, which has long called for the inclusion of gender and sexual identity questions, described the results as “a historic step”.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/06/england-and-wales-census-counts-trans-and-non-binary-people-for-first-time

[archie]

The number of people who said they were not the same gender as their birth sex amounted to 0.5% of the population that responded, lower than polling by Ipsos last summer in which 3.1% of people said they were trans, non-binary, gender queer or gender fluid, a gender or another gender that was not male or female.

The tally is, however, similar to Canada, which in 2021 became the first country to apply a census to its transgender and non-binary population aged 15 and over, which found they made up 0.33% of the population.

The England and Wales census also recorded sexuality for the first time, with 1.5 million people aged over 15 – or 3.2% – identifying as gay or lesbian, bisexual or other sexual orientation. The charity Stonewall, which has long called for the inclusion of gender and sexual identity questions, described the results as “a historic step”.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/06/england-and-wales-census-counts-trans-and-non-binary-people-for-first-time

Not everyone will like the author, but this piece explores the isue that some people had understanding the question https://unherd.com/2023/04/how-the-trans-census-fooled-britain/

[Ozyhibby]

https://archive.is/KRY73

Bloody SNP.[emoji35]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

https://archive.is/KRY73

Bloody SNP.[emoji35]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Beast should go to a male prison

[He's here!]

Trans charity Mermaids loses challenge against LGB Alliance - BBC News (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65340857)

Common sense prevails.

[He's here!]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-66542300

I'm surprised the original venues were able to cancel his show based on the precedent Joanna Cherry set.

[makaveli1875]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-66542300

I'm surprised the original venues were able to cancel his show based on the precedent Joanna Cherry set.

It's absolutely mental . Who would have thought that free speech would be so viciously attacked in 21st century Scotland , at the Festival of all places .

[archie]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-66542300

I'm surprised the original venues were able to cancel his show based on the precedent Joanna Cherry set.

I think Leith Arches is in for a tricky time. Their statement really damned them.

[He's here!]

I think Leith Arches is in for a tricky time. Their statement really damned them.Cherry's threat of legal action saw the Stand beat a hasty retreat (tho we still saw absurd security measures having to be put in place for her show). I'm wondering whether Linehan considered similar against Leith Arches. Maybe that could still come.

[archie]

Cherry's threat of legal action saw the Stand beat a hasty retreat (tho we still saw absurd security measures having to be put in place for her show). I'm wondering whether Linehan considered similar against Leith Arches. Maybe that could still come.

There's chat about it. TBH I think there was an element of trap about the booking that the venue walked smack into. In some ways I hope there isn't legal action because I suspect they don't have the resources. The Stand did, but saw sense.

[Moulin Yarns]

There's chat about it. TBH I think there was an element of trap about the booking that the venue walked smack into. In some ways I hope there isn't legal action because I suspect they don't have the resources. The Stand did, but saw sense. Both cases, the venue was booked by third parties. It only became apparent later on who the 'acts' were. I think in both cases the 'agents' knew what they were doing by not naming who was to appear until after the booking was confirmed.

[archie]

Both cases, the venue was booked by third parties. It only became apparent later on who the 'acts' were. I think in both cases the 'agents' knew what they were doing by not naming who was to appear until after the booking was confirmed.

I think you are right, though it wouldn't take a phd to work it out. I think the organisers knew there was a chance this would happen and the venue put their foot in the bear trap .

[CropleyWasGod]

Both cases, the venue was booked by third parties. It only became apparent later on who the 'acts' were. I think in both cases the 'agents' knew what they were doing by not naming who was to appear until after the booking was confirmed.


I think you are right, though it wouldn't take a phd to work it out. I think the organisers knew there was a chance this would happen and the venue put their foot in the bear trap .

It's Fringe time. This was all about marketing, and Andrew Doyle has played a blinder here. Of course he knew what he was doing, with the "mystery act" and the "reveal" thereof.

At the end of the day, everyone can claim a wee win:-

The venue (and I'm not sure there was ever more than 1) has satisfied their own integrity.

The punters (100 of them?) got their show.

The extremists got a chance to snarl at each other for a bit.

Linehan got a wee boost to his flagging career.

Comedy Unleashed got some PR for their upcoming London gigs.

Doyle got something to chat about on GB News.

[archie]

It's Fringe time. This was all about marketing, and Andrew Doyle has played a blinder here. Of course he knew what he was doing, with the "mystery act" and the "reveal" thereof.

At the end of the day, everyone can claim a wee win:-

The venue (and I'm not sure there was ever more than 1) has satisfied their own integrity.

The punters (100 of them?) got their show.

The extremists got a chance to snarl at each other for a bit.

Linehan got a wee boost to his flagging career.

Comedy Unleashed got some PR for their upcoming London gigs.

Doyle got something to chat about on GB News.

I agree mostly, but the venue has exposure if legal action was pursued. I'm not sure they will be sued given the wider background.

[CropleyWasGod]

I agree mostly, but the venue has exposure if legal action was pursued. I'm not sure they will be sued given the wider background.

I'm not sure what they would be sued for. There's no loss of earnings , other than perhaps for the venue itself.

Besides, Linehan keeps telling us he has no money. (insert grinny smiley)

[archie]

I'm not sure what they would be sued for. There's no loss of earnings , other than perhaps for the venue itself.

Besides, Linehan keeps telling us he has no money. (insert grinny smiley)
The statement they put out about 'values' was really ill advised. There's been a number of cases recently that have cost venues. That's one of the reasons the Stand folded.

[He's here!]

I'm not sure what they would be sued for. There's no loss of earnings , other than perhaps for the venue itself.

Besides, Linehan keeps telling us he has no money. (insert grinny smiley)

IIRC Cherry's threatened legal action against the Stand was based on their cancelling of her show being unlawful and discriminatory. Her view, like Linehan's (and the overwhelming majority of the population), that sex is immutable is legally protected. Linehan could presumably have mounted a challenge on similar grounds.

[ElginHibbie]

IIRC Cherry's threatened legal action against the Stand was based on their cancelling of her show being unlawful and discriminatory. Her view, like Linehan's (and the overwhelming majority of the population), that sex is immutable is legally protected. Linehan could presumably have mounted a challenge on similar grounds.

Is Linehan’s view that people showing support for Trans people are “abusive groomers”that "almost every trans figure is a nonce" and view about the Trans movement that "it's a pedophilic movement. It has to be destroyed." legally protected?

Linehan is a horrible man, who bullies and harasses those he disagrees with then hides behind he’s doing it cause of “GC views” when challenged.

There’s plenty difference between him and Cherry that I don’t think it’s as straightforward as she won so so will he

[Kato]

Is Linehan’s view that people showing support for Trans people are “abusive groomers”that "almost every trans figure is a nonce" and view about the Trans movement that "it's a pedophilic movement. It has to be destroyed." legally protected?

Linehan is a horrible man, who bullies and harasses those he disagrees with then hides behind he’s doing it cause of “GC views” when challenged.

There’s plenty difference between him and Cherry that I don’t think it’s as straightforward as she won so so will heThat's what I pick up from him. Fair enough you are allowed your views but the manner and the content of some of the stuff he publishes is hugely insulting and way over the top.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[archie]

Is Linehan’s view that people showing support for Trans people are “abusive groomers”that "almost every trans figure is a nonce" and view about the Trans movement that "it's a pedophilic movement. It has to be destroyed." legally protected?

Linehan is a horrible man, who bullies and harasses those he disagrees with then hides behind he’s doing it cause of “GC views” when challenged.

There’s plenty difference between him and Cherry that I don’t think it’s as straightforward as she won so so will he
No case is straightforward and there is definitely a difference in tone between the two. This is a summary of the case law that supported Cherry that could apply https://twitter.com/michaelpforan/status/1655894725231083520

[CropleyWasGod]

Is Linehan’s view that people showing support for Trans people are “abusive groomers”that "almost every trans figure is a nonce" and view about the Trans movement that "it's a pedophilic movement. It has to be destroyed." legally protected?

Linehan is a horrible man, who bullies and harasses those he disagrees with then hides behind he’s doing it cause of “GC views” when challenged.

There’s plenty difference between him and Cherry that I don’t think it’s as straightforward as she won so so will he


No case is straightforward and there is definitely a difference in tone between the two. This is a summary of the case law that supported Cherry that could apply https://twitter.com/michaelpforan/status/1655894725231083520

I am no lawyer, but it's a fairly basic principle that for damages to apply, there almost always has to be loss.

Cherry would have lost out, financially, had the show not gone ahead. Linehan (and the others on the bill, who have largely been forgotten about..... again, that PR thing) haven't lost out. The gig went ahead.

There's no reputational loss either. Depending on where you sit, he's either a hero or a devil. His reputation hasn't been affected by this latest episode, merely reinforced.

[archie]

I am no lawyer, but it's a fairly basic principle that for damages to apply, there almost always has to be loss.

Cherry would have lost out, financially, had the show not gone ahead. Linehan (and the others on the bill, who have largely been forgotten about..... again, that PR thing) haven't lost out. The gig went ahead.

There's no reputational loss either. Depending on where you sit, he's either a hero or a devil. His reputation hasn't been affected by this latest episode, merely reinforced.
The legal issue isn't loss - it's discrimination. Julie Bindel won a case against Nottingham Libraries who cancelled a talk on violence against women because of her views on trans issues. Result - damages and apology.

[CropleyWasGod]

The legal issue isn't loss - it's discrimination. Julie Bindel won a case against Nottingham Libraries who cancelled a talk on violence against women because of her views on trans issues. Result - damages and apology.

How were the damages calculated, though?

"The council has also offered to pay Miss Bindel, Nottingham Women for Change and ticket holders in respect to any losses occurred as a result of the cancellation."

So, probably, ticket costs, appearance fee, travel costs and legal costs.

None of these apply in the Linehan case.

[archie]

How were the damages calculated, though?

"The council has also offered to pay Miss Bindel, Nottingham Women for Change and ticket holders in respect to any losses occurred as a result of the cancellation."

So, probably, ticket costs, appearance fee, travel costs and legal costs.

None of these apply in the Linehan case.

I'm not sure that these wouldn't apply in the Linehan case. But the key win for Bindel wasn't the money. It was the apology and the acknowledgement of discrimination.

[CropleyWasGod]

I'm not sure that these wouldn't apply in the Linehan case. But the key win for Bindel wasn't the money. It was the apology and the acknowledgement of discrimination.

(hate the fact that we can't bold things :)

I can't see that there was any loss (financial or otherwise) to anyone in this case. If anything, as I've said, Andrew Doyle "won".

I do agree with your last sentence. But I'm not sure that is where they'll go. Point made, PR outcomes achieved...... on to the next battle ground at the gigs in London.

[Kato]

No case is straightforward and there is definitely a difference in tone between the two. This is a summary of the case law that supported Cherry that could apply https://twitter.com/michaelpforan/status/1655894725231083520It's not a difference in tone, it's a difference in content. I don't think Cherry has said they are all groomers using a different tone.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[archie]

(hate the fact that we can't bold things :)

I can't see that there was any loss (financial or otherwise) to anyone in this case. If anything, as I've said, Andrew Doyle "won".

I do agree with your last sentence. But I'm not sure that is where they'll go. Point made, PR outcomes achieved...... on to the next battle ground at the gigs in London.

I think it isn't just about comedy. Julie Bindel was talking about violence against women. There's a general principle on what basis can venues refuse bookings because of the 'values' of someone making the booking. This gets a sharp legal focus when there is a protected characteristic.

[archie]

It's not a difference in tone, it's a difference in content. I don't think Cherry has said they are all groomers using a different tone.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

I mean you can argue the difference, but the reality is that the venue cancelled him because it went against their 'values'. Specifically Linehan. It doesn't appear to be tone or content, but his activism.

[Kato]

I mean you can argue the difference, but the reality is that the venue cancelled him because it went against their 'values'. Specifically Linehan. It doesn't appear to be tone or content, but his activism.

That's one interpretation.


He values abusing a whole group of people with accusations that are wholly unwarranted. He does it again and again so it must be of value to him.



Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[147lothian]

I think it isn't just about comedy. Julie Bindel was talking about violence against women. There's a general principle on what basis can venues refuse bookings because of the 'values' of someone making the booking. This gets a sharp legal focus when there is a protected characteristic.

Graham Linehan, believes that a person with a ***** is male, that there is no such thing as her ***** and that the only pronoun that can go before ***** is his, I,e Graham Linehan believes in the reality of biological sex.

Believing in the reality biological sex is a protected point of view, if you cancel someone because they have an opinion then this is discrimination. Two venues cancelled Graham Linehan because a small group of activists from the trans lobby emailed the venues, when It was announced that Graham Linehan had a 10 minute set and the venues capitulated, this brings shame on the Edinburgh Festival, because it shows that there is only one view you are allowed to have. Its group think.

Graham Linehan will be able to sue the venues if he can show that they cancelled him because he believes in the reality of biological sex.

[marinello59]

Scottish government abandons court case over gender law veto https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-67773606

And that’s that. I suspect Yousaf will be secretly pleased.

[Moulin Yarns]

Scottish government abandons court case over gender law veto https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-67773606

And that’s that. I suspect Yousaf will be secretly pleased.

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/politics/welsh-government-plan-make-easier-26174624

Meanwhile, in Wales.

[Bishop Hibee]

https://cass.independent-review.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Cass-Review-Interim-Report-Final-Web-Accessible.pdf

There’s plenty politicians, celebrities etc wishing they hadn’t backed the wrong horse.

[CropleyWasGod]

https://cass.independent-review.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Cass-Review-Interim-Report-Final-Web-Accessible.pdf

There’s plenty politicians, celebrities etc wishing they hadn’t backed the wrong horse.

Did you post the wrong link? That's from February 2022.

The final report has been published recently.

[Stairway 2 7]

That's from February 2022.

https://archive.ph/LtF3L

Rundown on the salient points. It's absolutely damming for the likes of stonewall and clinics like Tavistock. Thankfully Scot Gov has paused blocking children's puberty without looking at the effects, I fear they would be facing much litigation in the future if they didn't listen to the report.

Patrick Harvey has made a fool of himself saying he's not read the report but has read stuff against it. He's going against the science just like climate denialists he fights against. Why would the greens be so determined to give puberty blockers to children when the first major report says it should be paused. Thankfully the Scottish chief medical officer has already halted it at Sandyford

[marinello59]

https://archive.ph/LtF3L

Rundown on the salient points. It's absolutely damming for the likes of stonewall and clinics like Tavistock. Thankfully Scot Gov has paused blocking children's puberty without looking at the effects, I fear they would be facing much litigation in the future if they didn't listen to the report.

Patrick Harvey has made a fool of himself saying he's not read the report but has read stuff against it. He's going against the science just like climate denialists he fights against. Why would the greens be so determined to give puberty blockers to children when the first major report says it should be paused. Thankfully the Scottish chief medical officer has already halted it at Sandyford

They didn't , it was a clinical decision taken by the health board. There had been silence from SNP Ministers. I see they have made what amounts to a holding statement now though.

[Bishop Hibee]

Did you post the wrong link? That's from February 2022.

The final report has been published recently.

Apologies

[RyeSloan]

https://archive.ph/LtF3L

Rundown on the salient points. It's absolutely damming for the likes of stonewall and clinics like Tavistock. Thankfully Scot Gov has paused blocking children's puberty without looking at the effects, I fear they would be facing much litigation in the future if they didn't listen to the report.

Patrick Harvey has made a fool of himself saying he's not read the report but has read stuff against it. He's going against the science just like climate denialists he fights against. Why would the greens be so determined to give puberty blockers to children when the first major report says it should be paused. Thankfully the Scottish chief medical officer has already halted it at Sandyford

Patrick Harvie making a fool of himself!?! Whatever next [emoji2957]

I see he’s threatening to quit as leader if they vote to leave the power sharing agreement…

Seems a rather odd party the Greens with a seemingly quite powerful ‘rainbow greens’ faction that seem to use the party as a vehicle for their rather specialist agendas.

[Bishop Hibee]

https://cass.independent-review.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/CassReview_Final.pdf

Correct link to the final report.

[147lothian]

Patrick Harvie making a fool of himself!?! Whatever next [emoji2957]

I see he’s threatening to quit as leader if they vote to leave the power sharing agreement…

Seems a rather odd party the Greens with a seemingly quite powerful ‘rainbow greens’ faction that seem to use the party as a vehicle for their rather specialist agendas.

The Greens' reaction to the Cass Review into children's gender clinics was the final straw for the SNP. Harvie simply refused to accept its conclusions. This was part of a pattern. Leading Green MSP Ross Green publicly challenged the methodology used by Dr Hillary Cass, the Green Party's LGBTQ+ group, the Rainbow Greens, called the Cass Review a murder charter when the Sandyford, Scotland's youth gender clinic, announced that it would no longer prescribe puberty blockers in response to Cass's finding that they are unsafe and ineffective, the Greens condemned the decision, making the Greens look like flat earthers.

[superfurryhibby]

Patrick Harvie making a fool of himself!?! Whatever next [emoji2957]

I see he’s threatening to quit as leader if they vote to leave the power sharing agreement…

Seems a rather odd party the Greens with a seemingly quite powerful ‘rainbow greens’ faction that seem to use the party as a vehicle for their rather specialist agendas.

It's an old story isn't it. There's always been activists with differing agendas who are able to work there way into positions of influence in any party. I remember joining the Labour Party as a laddie, c 1980. The Labour Party Young Socialists movement was in effect a recruiting ground for the Militant Tendency. Hindsight tells me that Militant had an agenda that didn't really align with the wider party, nor did it reflects the wishes of the Labour supporting electorate. Nonetheless, Militant had a big influence on MP's, the Trade Union movement and ultimately the conflict created by the extreme left made Labour unelectable for nearly a generation.

The Green movement is older and much a more important issue than the radicalised agenda of Harvie and his cabal. He will hopefully become a footnote in the Scottish Green movement's history before long. A missed opportunity to influence a Green agenda with the focus on rights that were divisive, already in situ and of little interest to the wider public.

[marinello59]

It's an old story isn't it. There's always been activists with differing agendas who are able to work there way into positions of influence in any party. I remember joining the Labour Party as a laddie, c 1980. The Labour Party Young Socialists movement was in effect a recruiting ground for the Militant Tendency. Hindsight tells me that Militant had an agenda that didn't really align with the wider party, nor did it reflects the wishes of the Labour supporting electorate. Nonetheless, Militant had a big influence on MP's, the Trade Union movement and ultimately the conflict created by the extreme left made Labour unelectable for nearly a generation.

The Green movement is older and much a more important issue than the radicalised agenda of Harvie and his cabal. He will hopefully become a footnote in the Scottish Green movement's history before long. A missed opportunity to influence a more radical Green agenda with the focus on rights that were divisive, already in situ and of little interest to the wider public.

It must be a first when they end up taking over and influencing another party as well though. :greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

The Greens' reaction to the Cass Review into children's gender clinics was the final straw for the SNP. Harvie simply refused to accept its conclusions. This was part of a pattern. Leading Green MSP Ross Green publicly challenged the methodology used by Dr Hillary Cass, the Green Party's LGBTQ+ group, the Rainbow Greens, called the Cass Review a murder charter when the Sandyford, Scotland's youth gender clinic, announced that it would no longer prescribe puberty blockers in response to Cass's finding that they are unsafe and ineffective, the Greens condemned the decision, making the Greens look like flat earthers.


It's an old story isn't it. There's always been activists with differing agendas who are able to work there way into positions of influence in any party. I remember joining the Labour Party as a laddie, c 1980. The Labour Party Young Socialists movement was in effect a recruiting ground for the Militant Tendency. Hindsight tells me that Militant had an agenda that didn't really align with the wider party, nor did it reflects the wishes of the Labour supporting electorate. Nonetheless, Militant had a big influence on MP's, the Trade Union movement and ultimately the conflict created by the extreme left made Labour unelectable for nearly a generation.

The Green movement is older and much a more important issue than the radicalised agenda of Harvie and his cabal. He will hopefully become a footnote in the Scottish Green movement's history before long. A missed opportunity to influence a more radical Green agenda with the focus on rights that were divisive, already in situ and of little interest to the wider public.


It must be a first when they end up taking over and influencing another party as well though. :greengrin

IMO the trans rights debate should never have been a party political one. By doing so, it has polarised and radicalised what should have been an incremental societal shift and human-rights based progression, similar to the LGB experience.

Time will tell of course, but the party political aspect has definitely undermined political support for some parties, and has perhaps set the moderate progression of trans rights back quite a bit.

[marinello59]

IMO the trans rights debate should never have been a party political one. By doing so, it has polarised and radicalised what should have been an incremental societal shift and human-rights based progression, similar to the LGB experience.

Time will tell of course, but the party political aspect has definitely undermined political support for some parties, and has perhaps set the moderate progression of trans rights back quite a bit.

:agree:

[147lothian]

IMO the trans rights debate should never have been a party political one. By doing so, it has polarised and radicalised what should have been an incremental societal shift and human-rights based progression, similar to the LGB experience.

Time will tell of course, but the party political aspect has definitely undermined political support for some parties, and has perhaps set the moderate progression of trans rights back quite a bit.

https://cass.independent-review.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Cass-Review-Interim-Report-Final-Web-Accessible.pdf

The most common reaction from cheerleaders of trans ideology has been to meekly plead ignorance. Dr Hillary Cass's report into the NHS's treatment of gender-confused kids has radically transformed the trans debate, exposing 'gender-affirming care' as a dangerous experiment. Now, the disciples of trans ideology are scrambling to save face.

The fact is, it is incredibly difficult for trans activists to obscure their roles in this scandal. Cass's report reveals what was really going on inside the NHS's Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS). She concludes that the 'gender affirming ' medical treatments it provided, like puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, are based on 'wholly inadequate' evidence.

Doctors are usually cautious when adopting new treatments, but Cass says 'quite the reverse happened in the field of gender care for children'. Instead, thousands of children were put on an unproven medical pathway. Worse still, medical professionals seemed largely uninterested in uncovering the side effects and long-term risks of these drugs.

It truly is a scandal that children and youngsters were put on a pathway to medicalisation and then promptly abandoned.

[CropleyWasGod]

cass.independent-review.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/CassReview_Final.pdf

The most common reaction from cheerleaders of trans ideology has been to meekly plead ignorance. Dr Hillary Cass's report into the NHS's treatment of gender-confused kids has radically transformed the trans debate, exposing 'gender-affirming care' as a dangerous experiment. Now, the disciples of trans ideology are scrambling to save face.

The fact is, it is incredibly difficult for trans activists to obscure their roles in this scandal. Cass's report reveals what was really going on inside the NHS's Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS). She concludes that the 'gender affirming ' medical treatments it provided, like puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, are based on 'wholly inadequate' evidence.

Doctors are usually cautious when adopting new treatments, but Cass says 'quite the reverse happened in the field of gender care for children'. Instead, thousands of children were put on an unproven medical pathway. Worse still, medical professionals seemed largely uninterested in uncovering the side effects and long-term risks of these drugs.

It truly is a scandal that children and youngsters were put on a pathway to medicalisation and then promptly abandoned.

Not sure how this addresses my point. :confused:

[Keith_M]

IMO the trans rights debate should never have been a party political one. By doing so, it has polarised and radicalised what should have been an incremental societal shift and human-rights based progression, similar to the LGB experience.

Time will tell of course, but the party political aspect has definitely undermined political support for some parties, and has perhaps set the moderate progression of trans rights back quite a bit.


:agree:

[500miles]

IMO the trans rights debate should never have been a party political one. By doing so, it has polarised and radicalised what should have been an incremental societal shift and human-rights based progression, similar to the LGB experience.

Time will tell of course, but the party political aspect has definitely undermined political support for some parties, and has perhaps set the moderate progression of trans rights back quite a bit.

The debate will be polarised until there's agreement on both sides regarding the material reality of sex and gender. There is no shared reality viewed from different points of view, there are two contrary realities. In one reality sex is measurable and definable, in the other these measures and definitions are discarded for personal experience and belief.

This issue of shared reality pervades politics and society on a wider scale, from MAGA alternative facts, to religious extremism. With each of these sections of society building their own online bubbles where those realities are nurtured , I see little hope for reconciliation.

[CropleyWasGod]

The debate will be polarised until there's agreement on both sides regarding the material reality of sex and gender. There is no shared reality viewed from different points of view, there are two contrary realities. In one reality sex is measurable and definable, in the other these measures and definitions are discarded for personal experience and belief.

This issue of shared reality pervades politics and society on a wider scale, from MAGA alternative facts, to religious extremism. With each of these sections of society building their own online bubbles where those realities are nurtured , I see little hope for reconciliation.

All very true as society stands today.

But, as many have pointed out, there are so many parallels with the LGB movement. A generation or so ago, that debate was also polarised. The idea of same-sex marriage was so far off the radar then as to be unthinkable, even within the gay community. Gay men were often demonised as potential child abusers; parents had misgivings about their kids being taught by gay men and women. Nowadays, our kids ask "why was there even a debate?".

The progress that has been made on LGB rights has partly come about by campaigning and what some would call extremism. But the biggest factor has been through society becoming more comfortable and tolerant of "difference". People have gay friends, kids, colleagues, which has largely taken the sting out of the previous debate. It's only relatively recently that politicians have become involved to reinforce, through legislation, what society had already accepted.

What you describe as the "online bubbles" is true, of course. There seems to be no place online for nuance and compromise. But that isn't everyone's reality. As general society becomes more exposed to, and comfortable, with trans friends, family, colleagues etc. , that's where the toxicity will fade away, just as it did with LGB rights. There will always be extremists, of course, but they will be the exception.

[500miles]

All very true as society stands today.

But, as many have pointed out, there are so many parallels with the LGB movement. A generation or so ago, that debate was also polarised. The idea of same-sex marriage was so far off the radar then as to be unthinkable, even within the gay community. Gay men were often demonised as potential child abusers; parents had misgivings about their kids being taught by gay men and women. Nowadays, our kids ask "why was there even a debate?".

The progress that has been made on LGB rights has partly come about by campaigning and what some would call extremism. But the biggest factor has been through society becoming more comfortable and tolerant of "difference". People have gay friends, kids, colleagues, which has largely taken the sting out of the previous debate. It's only relatively recently that politicians have become involved to reinforce, through legislation, what society had already accepted.

What you describe as the "online bubbles" is true, of course. There seems to be no place online for nuance and compromise. But that isn't everyone's reality. As general society becomes more exposed to, and comfortable, with trans friends, family, colleagues etc. , that's where the toxicity will fade away, just as it did with LGB rights. There will always be extremists, of course, but they will be the exception.

I'm not convinced it's the same. You can demonstrate Sexuality by behaviour. You can't really demonstrate gender. You can demonstrate sex by metric and definition.

As long as people are compelled to speak and behave according to a philosophy they don't believe in, you'll get strong pushback - and not just from one political or social section. It's really difficult to form a shared reality under those circumstances.

The compromise would have to be gender, like religion, is a protected characteristic, and sex is a separately protected characteristic. What you have to keep in mind however is that religion doesn't have the same degree of protection as others. I can go around saying how stupid religious people are with very little fear. I can't do that with other protected characteristics.

[Bristolhibby]

I'm not convinced it's the same. You can demonstrate Sexuality by behaviour. You can't really demonstrate gender. You can demonstrate sex by metric and definition.

As long as people are compelled to speak and behave according to a philosophy they don't believe in, you'll get strong pushback - and not just from one political or social section. It's really difficult to form a shared reality under those circumstances.

The compromise would have to be gender, like religion, is a protected characteristic, and sex is a separately protected characteristic. What you have to keep in mind however is that religion doesn't have the same degree of protection as others. I can go around saying how stupid religious people are with very little fear. I can't do that with other protected characteristics.

My sister in law works in the urology department of Great Ormond Street. She is in a fairly niche area and has treated kids born with one testicle and an internal urethra. Kids born with both testicles and ovaries. All sorts of complications.

The term intersex is well established. There isn’t necessarily a binary option. Often a decision is made about these children’s gender that turns out to be completely opposite to what they actually were. Sadly the suicide rate when they grow up is higher than the normal rate.

Look at Caster Semenya and her case.

“Semenya has said that she was born with a vagina and internal undescended testes; she has no uterus or fallopian tubes and does not menstruate. Her internal testes produce natural testosterone levels in the typical male range Semenya has rejected the label of "intersex", calling herself "a different kind of woman."

So if someone can physically be different, it’s not a massive leap of faith and science to say your brain can simply be in the wrong body, without having any outward signs of say having a testicle and a vagina, or the wrong chromosome makeup.

Just some food for thought.

J

[500miles]

My sister in law works in the urology department of Great Ormond Street. She is in a fairly niche area and has treated kids born with one testicle and an internal urethra. Kids born with both testicles and ovaries. All sorts of complications.

The term intersex is well established. There isn’t necessarily a binary option. Often a decision is made about these children’s gender that turns out to be completely opposite to what they actually were. Sadly the suicide rate when they grow up is higher than the normal rate.

Look at Caster Semenya and her case.

“Semenya has said that she was born with a vagina and internal undescended testes; she has no uterus or fallopian tubes and does not menstruate. Her internal testes produce natural testosterone levels in the typical male range Semenya has rejected the label of "intersex", calling herself "a different kind of woman."

So if someone can physically be different, it’s not a massive leap of faith and science to say your brain can simply be in the wrong body, without having any outward signs of say having a testicle and a vagina, or the wrong chromosome makeup.

Just some food for thought.

J

My wife and I done IVF and as part of some private scans we had done, we were given a decent run through of intersex conditions as something that can be picked up. Intersex people can still be assessed (overwhelmingly, quite easily) as male or female based on gamate production. While I didn't memorise all the rarer forms of intersex conditions, I didn't come across one that existed outwith the binary. Sexual development can be complicated, it's results are still binary.

It's also something of a strawman in general, as we aren't talking about people who have measurable and definable conditions, we're talking about an idea of gender that people feel.

Semenya is an interesting case. Given the heavy rumours she was the sperms donor for her own children, a potential scandal.

[lapsedhibee]

My wife and I done IVF and as part of some private scans we had done, we were given a decent run through of intersex conditions as something that can be picked up. Intersex people can still be assessed (overwhelmingly, quite easily) as male or female based on gamate production. While I didn't memorise all the rarer forms of intersex conditions, I didn't come across one that existed outwith the binary. Sexual development can be complicated, it's results are still binary.

It's also something of a strawman in general, as we aren't talking about people who have measurable and definable conditions, we're talking about an idea of gender that people feel.

Semenya is an interesting case. Given the heavy rumours she was the sperms donor for her own children, a potential scandal.

Sorry, struggling a bit with this post. Are you saying there's only two sexes, male and female, and if you are, which of the two is Semenya?

[500miles]

Sorry, struggling a bit with this post. Are you saying there's only two sexes, male and female, and if you are, which of the two is Semenya?
Aye. That's not just based on my ivf experience I just brought that up because that was my first introduction to the concept, that's Dawkins position, etc.

Semenya has had children with her wife. The allegations are that she is actually an intersex male, and as such provided the sperm for the ivf, rather than a donor. Quite an unkind rumour to raise out of nowhere, but I think worth raising when Semenya is used as evidence as someone existing outside the binary.

[Stairway 2 7]

The greens have expelled 14 members who signed a form saying they believe sex is a biological reality. Surely the is a faith based opinion for the greens. Surely you should be allowed to have an opinion that isn't that controversial.

Regardless the amount of energy time and finance the greens spend on non green issues is baffling. Hopefully someone starts a green party where our dying planet is the priority, it doesn't matter if we are gay straight or trans it's probably the most important issue facing us all

https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,scottish-greens-expel-gender-rebels-deemed-threat-to-trans-members

[marinello59]

The greens have expelled 14 members who signed a form saying they believe sex is a biological reality. Surely the is a faith based opinion for the greens. Surely you should be allowed to have an opinion that isn't that controversial.

Regardless the amount of energy time and finance the greens spend on non green issues is baffling. Hopefully someone starts a green party where our dying planet is the priority, it doesn't matter if we are gay straight or trans it's probably the most important issue facing us all

https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,scottish-greens-expel-gender-rebels-deemed-threat-to-trans-members

Hopefully those who have been expelled start a breakaway Green Party worthy of the name.

[AgentDaleCooper]

Hopefully those who have been expelled start a breakaway Green Party worthy of the name.

Andy Wightman should be leading the party IMO

[Bishop Hibee]

Trump gets his biggest cheer at his inauguration when he says there are only two genders, male and female.

[Colr]

Trump gets his biggest cheer at his inauguration when he says there are only two genders, male and female.

The hermaphrodite vote is very small!

[Moulin Yarns]

The hermaphrodite vote is very small!

The lgbtq population of the USA is 7.9%. Not an insignificant number of voters.

[Ozyhibby]

The lgbtq population of the USA is 7.9%. Not an insignificant number of voters.

On the trans issue that’s not a unified voting block. I would advise any political party anywhere to stay well clear of the issue full stop.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[superfurryhibby]

The lgbtq population of the USA is 7.9%. Not an insignificant number of voters.

The trans identifying group probably amounts to around a fraction of a %. There is no way there is any unanimity amongst lesbian, gay, bisexual people on the militant misguided trans agenda. There isn't even agreement amongst those who identify as trans (based on conversation with family member who has undergone surgical procedure).

[Paulie Walnuts]

The trans identifying group probably amounts to around a fraction of a %. There is no way there is any unanimity amongst lesbian, gay, bisexual people on the militant misguided trans agenda. There isn't even agreement amongst those who identify as trans (based on conversation with family member who has undergone surgical procedure).

Sure I read it’s about 0.2%.

[Bristolhibby]

How about we take a leaf out of Bill and Teds Excellent Adventure.

Where we just need to “Be Excellent to each other”.

Simple. If someone identifies as a woman but was born male. Sure.

If someone is a woman and born a woman, fine too.

Be Excellent to each other. Everyone has their race to run in life, and it’s their race.

J

[Smartie]

How about we take a leaf out of Bill and Teds Excellent Adventure.

Where we just need to “Be Excellent to each other”.

Simple. If someone identifies as a woman but was born male. Sure.

If someone is a woman and born a woman, fine too.

Be Excellent to each other. Everyone has their race to run in life, and it’s their race.

J

I definitely wouldn’t disagree with the sentiment here but it’s easy to be simplistic on the outside of it looking in and it’s hard to find a comfortable, reasonable middle ground where you can be excellent to everyone. When the flashpoints come round you have to pick a side and an opinion. For example - should a woman using a changing room for women be forced to be excellent to someone she considers to be a man, even though that man identifies as a woman and wants to use the same changing room as her? Should a female sportsperson be excellent to someone who went through puberty as a man then wiped the floor with her in a sporting competition?

My opinion goes back and forward on this and I wish it were black and white, where good guys could be excellent to each other and bad guys be intolerant dicks.

It’s a great way to live your life btw and to be applauded.

[Bristolhibby]

I definitely wouldn’t disagree with the sentiment here but it’s easy to be simplistic on the outside of it looking in and it’s hard to find a comfortable, reasonable middle ground where you can be excellent to everyone. When the flashpoints come round you have to pick a side and an opinion. For example - should a woman using a changing room for women be forced to be excellent to someone she considers to be a man, even though that man identifies as a woman and wants to use the same changing room as her? Should a female sportsperson be excellent to someone who went through puberty as a man then wiped the floor with her in a sporting competition?

My opinion goes back and forward on this and I wish it were black and white, where good guys could be excellent to each other and bad guys be intolerant dicks.

It’s a great way to live your life btw and to be applauded.

Have any women with penises been in woman changing rooms with their wang out.

It’s an often used trope, but not one that my wife, her friends or any of the hundreds of school girls that she teaches have come across.

J

[Paulie Walnuts]

Have any women with penises been in woman changing rooms with their wang out.

It’s an often used trope, but not one that my wife, her friends or any of the hundreds of school girls that she teaches have come across.

J

Funnily enough I had a similar conversation this morning with a colleague. Apparently we need someone like Trump because they’re teaching our kids in schools to be trans.

When I asked what schools are doing that as none of the teachers I know teach that there’s obviously no coherent answer comes back.

Comes back to what some of us were discussing on another thread. You don’t need to have facts to back up your opinion. You just need a made up story that suits the narrative. If that story is false, who cares, it still backs you up.

[CropleyWasGod]

Funnily enough I had a similar conversation this morning with a colleague. Apparently we need someone like Trump because they’re teaching our kids in schools to be trans.

When I asked what schools are doing that as none of the teachers I know teach that there’s obviously no coherent answer comes back.

Comes back to what some of us were discussing on another thread. You don’t need to have facts to back up your opinion. You just need a made up story that suits the narrative. If that story is false, who cares, it still backs you up.

There's echoes of the Section 28 debate here. Back then, "they're teaching our kids to be gay" was an oft-heard expression. Nuts, of course.

What kids were being taught, and presumably continue to be taught, is how to be respectful of "difference". No problem in that.

As an aside, this latest attempt by Trump to further marginalise the Trans community has got f all to do with his desire to support and protect women's rights, no matter what his fans might say. Were that the case, he wouldn't be looking to extend the anti-abortion legislation.

[jamie_1875]

Have any women with penises been in woman changing rooms with their wang out.

It’s an often used trope, but not one that my wife, her friends or any of the hundreds of school girls that she teaches have come across.

J

Yes, and worse. Remember when some politicians claimed nobody would pretend to be a woman to take advantage of women and girls?

"Andrew Miller, who abducted a primary school pupil while dressed as a woman before sexually assaulting the girl repeatedly over more than 24 hours, has been jailed for 20 years"

https://news.sky.com/story/andrew-miller-jailed-for-20-years-for-abducting-and-sexually-assaulting-girl-in-scottish-borders-12983829

"He added that Miller being dressed as a woman was an aggravating factor as he doubted that the girl would have gotten into the car if Miller had presented as a man"

This was in the Scottish Borders a few years ago.

[Paulie Walnuts]

There's echoes of the Section 28 debate here. Back then, "they're teaching our kids to be gay" was an oft-heard expression. Nuts, of course.

What kids were being taught, and presumably continue to be taught, is how to be respectful of "difference". No problem in that.



Yup. And on top of that, I still remember being taught about transsexuals at school in sex education. It’s not a new ‘woke’ thing that’s been introduced and my colleague would have been taught the same as they’re a couple years younger than me. It’s been ‘taught’ for decades. They may well be discussing it using more modern terminology, but the teachings will almost certainly be much the same as what my generation learned.

Their concern is likely the nonsensical idea that kids will decide to become trans off the back of these teachings, much like your example where people were concerned kids were going to be taught to be gay. I remember as part of sex education we had a man who was HIV+ come in to give us a talk on HIV. It didn’t make me want to be HIV+, much like sex education didn’t make me want to be gay or trans.

Of course being ‘taught’ to be gay or trans is absolutely not how it works, but you’re never going to get through to these people.

[superfurryhibby]

Yup. And on top of that, I still remember being taught about transsexuals at school in sex education. It’s not a new ‘woke’ thing that’s been introduced and my colleague would have been taught the same as they’re a couple years younger than me. It’s been ‘taught’ for decades. They may well be discussing it using more modern terminology, but the teachings will almost certainly be much the same as what my generation learned.

Their concern is likely the nonsensical idea that kids will decide to become trans off the back of these teachings, much like your example where people were concerned kids were going to be taught to be gay. I remember as part of sex education we had a man who was HIV+ come in to give us a talk on HIV. It didn’t make me want to be HIV+, much like sex education didn’t make me want to be gay or trans.

Of course being ‘taught’ to be gay or trans is absolutely not how it works, but you’re never going to get through to these people.

Excellent memory. I was part of that team all those years ago. We started out with a remit around HIV, safe sex and STI's, but it grew into a much wider discussion. The guy who had HIV was a brave man, putting his head above the parapet.

There was some opposition to the work of the sexual health team in the mid 1990's, including the crap about promoting homosexuality. As if I, a straight man, knew how to do that or would have had any interest in doing so. We did promote the idea that families could be made up of many diverse elements and that how people expressed themselves through sexuality and identity was a matter of individual choice and that diversity and choices should be respected

I was always touched by the feed back forms we got afterwards. Demographics were a factor, young people in certain schools were much more likely to have had families affected by HIV and would often thank us for speaking up, reducing stigma and helping to educate the ill-informed.

[Kato]

Yes, and worse. Remember when some politicians claimed nobody would pretend to be a woman to take advantage of women and girls?

"Andrew Miller, who abducted a primary school pupil while dressed as a woman before sexually assaulting the girl repeatedly over more than 24 hours, has been jailed for 20 years"

https://news.sky.com/story/andrew-miller-jailed-for-20-years-for-abducting-and-sexually-assaulting-girl-in-scottish-borders-12983829

"He added that Miller being dressed as a woman was an aggravating factor as he doubted that the girl would have gotten into the car if Miller had presented as a man"

This was in the Scottish Borders a few years ago.Men, eh.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Keith_M]

I realise it's not popular with many, but my personal opinion is that... aside from a minute number of people born with mixed/confusing genitalia... there are only two sexes, and it's fairly simple to distinguish between the two.

However, I know people that self identify differently to their physical gender and my personal view is to live and let live. If that's what makes them happy then fair enough.

[Hibrandenburg]

I realise it's not popular with many, but my personal opinion is that... aside from a minute number of people born with mixed/confusing genitalia... there are only two sexes, and it's fairly simple to distinguish between the two.

However, I know people that self identify differently to their physical gender and my personal view is to live and let live. If that's what makes them happy then fair enough.

I take it you were never in Berghain whilst in Berlin. :greengrin

[Keith_M]

I take it you were never in Berghain whilst in Berlin. :greengrin


Niemals!


I leave that sort of thing to my bother in law, Tommy the Commy


:greengrin

[500miles]

Their concern is likely the nonsensical idea that kids will decide to become trans off the back of these teachings, much like your example where people were concerned kids were going to be taught to be gay. I remember as part of sex education we had a man who was HIV+ come in to give us a talk on HIV. It didn’t make me want to be HIV+, much like sex education didn’t make me want to be gay or trans.


I need to challenge that a bit. The concern is teaching kids that it is possible to change sex and that there is an innate gender identity in everyone, unrelated to thier biological sex.

There is no evidence for that, and if that is to be taught in any classroom, it should be RE, because it's purely philosophical. When we start treating it as scientific fact, then there's a risk you can end up medicalising gender non conforming kids. In that respect it can be as much about how adults respond to the kids as it is the kids themselves.

[Bishop Hibee]

Personally, I don’t believe anybody is ‘born in the wrong body’ and I believe sex is observed at birth not assigned. I’ve nothing against folk being androgynous. My mates daughter identifies as non- binary and changed her name to a gender neutral one. Chatted away to her at ER last week. I just don’t believe anybody man becomes a woman by declaring it or visa-versa.

[Colr]

I need to challenge that a bit. The concern is teaching kids that it is possible to change sex and that there is an innate gender identity in everyone, unrelated to thier biological sex.

There is no evidence for that, and if that is to be taught in any classroom, it should be RE, because it's purely philosophical. When we start treating it as scientific fact, then there's a risk you can end up medicalising gender non conforming kids. In that respect it can be as much about how adults respond to the kids as it is the kids themselves.
If only RE could be changed to Philosophy.

[Ozyhibby]

If only RE could be changed to Philosophy.

It is I think.
Pretty sure it’s called RMPS these days. Religious, Moral and Philosophical studies. My eldest did it through to higher.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Colr]

It is I think.
Pretty sure it’s called RMPS these days. Religious, Moral and Philosophical studies. My eldest did it through to higher.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In England, Gove rode back the philosophy part in favour of religion. At primary level its ALL religion - shouldn’t be

[wookie70]

I find this subject really difficult. It doesn't bother me what anyone calls themselves in terms of gender and I hope I would treat everyone equally assuming what they are doing is not harming anyone else. I do have women friends who are concerned about genetic men playing contact sport such as Rugby against their daughters but on the flip side I know Scottish International Women Rugby players who are hugely supportive of the other side of the argument. The simple truth is I don't know enough to really hold a strong opinion in terms of the topic and it doesn't really impact me in any way and is way down my list of things the world needs to deal with.

I do hold a strong opinion in term of the bandwidth and influence the topic is having. For example, I attend a trade union conference every year. Last year the conference, which is supposed to represent 200K members in a members led union, talked more about Trans issues than it did about pay and conditions. I have no issue that these topics are debated but they have simply taken over the left and trade unionism and as we all fight about Trans issues v Women's rights the employers sit back and watch. I think the same could be argued for the more progressive political parties who have been derailed by this issue and the far right have accepted the opportunity with open arms. There are so many problems in society that effect the vast majority of us and I would far rather stand shoulder to shoulder with all types of working people facing these universal issues which if solved may well remove much of the hate and intolerance that trans people are facing.

[Bristolhibby]

I find this subject really difficult. It doesn't bother me what anyone calls themselves in terms of gender and I hope I would treat everyone equally assuming what they are doing is not harming anyone else. I do have women friends who are concerned about genetic men playing contact sport such as Rugby against their daughters but on the flip side I know Scottish International Women Rugby players who are hugely supportive of the other side of the argument. The simple truth is I don't know enough to really hold a strong opinion in terms of the topic and it doesn't really impact me in any way and is way down my list of things the world needs to deal with.

I do hold a strong opinion in term of the bandwidth and influence the topic is having. For example, I attend a trade union conference every year. Last year the conference, which is supposed to represent 200K members in a members led union, talked more about Trans issues than it did about pay and conditions. I have no issue that these topics are debated but they have simply taken over the left and trade unionism and as we all fight about Trans issues v Women's rights the employers sit back and watch. I think the same could be argued for the more progressive political parties who have been derailed by this issue and the far right have accepted the opportunity with open arms. There are so many problems in society that effect the vast majority of us and I would far rather stand shoulder to shoulder with all types of working people facing these universal issues which if solved may well remove much of the hate and intolerance that trans people are facing.

Quite. It all adds up to the “Let the Left eat itself” that the right are inherently designed not to do.

Even if you break it down to pure extreme right (one leader, one party) vs extreme Left, many people represented by many bodies and sub committees, all equal, all rise ring of a voice.

I often hark back to the Spanish Civil war. The Nationalists could gather round Franco, one supreme leader restoring the aristocracy and church. The left meanwhile was split into Communists (backed by Russia), Anarchists, Syndicasts, Socialists, democrats, anti Monarchy, anti Church, land reformers, atheists.

In the end they were not united enough and vying for power amongst themselves. The Right won, and stayed in power until the 1970s.

The SNP and Independence movement in general needs to been the same way. Unite round one message. The time for squabbling comes post independence. Then everyone can have a democratic go at government.

But for now, Trans Issues for example seem to be something that progressive / left leaning parties and governments tie themselves in knots while the opposition / conservatives sit back and rub their hands. It’s almost an unsolvable riddle. That I agree, takes up too much air time and plays into the hands of the right.

J

[Kato]

I find this subject really difficult. It doesn't bother me what anyone calls themselves in terms of gender and I hope I would treat everyone equally assuming what they are doing is not harming anyone else. I do have women friends who are concerned about genetic men playing contact sport such as Rugby against their daughters but on the flip side I know Scottish International Women Rugby players who are hugely supportive of the other side of the argument. The simple truth is I don't know enough to really hold a strong opinion in terms of the topic and it doesn't really impact me in any way and is way down my list of things the world needs to deal with.

I do hold a strong opinion in term of the bandwidth and influence the topic is having. For example, I attend a trade union conference every year. Last year the conference, which is supposed to represent 200K members in a members led union, talked more about Trans issues than it did about pay and conditions. I have no issue that these topics are debated but they have simply taken over the left and trade unionism and as we all fight about Trans issues v Women's rights the employers sit back and watch. I think the same could be argued for the more progressive political parties who have been derailed by this issue and the far right have accepted the opportunity with open arms. There are so many problems in society that effect the vast majority of us and I would far rather stand shoulder to shoulder with all types of working people facing these universal issues which if solved may well remove much of the hate and intolerance that trans people are facing.The "Left" can't discuss economics as they have conceded that ground to neolibariĺsim which by its very nature is designed to be anti-civic, anti-municipal, anti-organised workforces and anti-"rights".

Blair thought he could put a sticking plaster on it but you can't as the next lot rip it off.

The conversations on the "left" therefore centre around civil "movements" and minority concerns. The right know this and tie the left in knots needling them being anti those minority concerns. So the conversation becomes mired.


Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[JimBHibees]

Quite. It all adds up to the “Let the Left eat itself” that the right are inherently designed not to do.

Even if you break it down to pure extreme right (one leader, one party) vs extreme Left, many people represented by many bodies and sub committees, all equal, all rise ring of a voice.

I often hark back to the Spanish Civil war. The Nationalists could gather round Franco, one supreme leader restoring the aristocracy and church. The left meanwhile was split into Communists (backed by Russia), Anarchists, Syndicasts, Socialists, democrats, anti Monarchy, anti Church, land reformers, atheists.

In the end they were not united enough and vying for power amongst themselves. The Right won, and stayed in power until the 1970s.

The SNP and Independence movement in general needs to been the same way. Unite round one message. The time for squabbling comes post independence. Then everyone can have a democratic go at government.

But for now, Trans Issues for example seem to be something that progressive / left leaning parties and governments tie themselves in knots while the opposition / conservatives sit back and rub their hands. It’s almost an unsolvable riddle. That I agree, takes up too much air time and plays into the hands of the right.

J

I wouldn’t underestimate the importance of the support Franco got from Hitler and Mussolini in Spanish civil war while Britain and France stood by.

[superfurryhibby]

The "Left" can't discuss economics as they have conceded that ground to neolibariĺsim which by its very nature is designed to be anti-civic, anti-municipal, anti-organised workforces and anti-"rights".

Blair thought he could put a sticking plaster on it but you can't as the next lot rip it off.

The conversations on the "left" therefore centre around civil "movements" and minority concerns. The right know this and tie the left in knots needling them being anti those minority concerns. So the conversation becomes mired.


Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Blair delivered peace in Northern Ireland, a minimum wage, working tax credits (I think ) and Scottish and Welsh Parliament, all still fully functioning. There were significant economic strategies too, although not all of them worked that well.

If a government has a mandate then surely an elected left would have the opportunity to bring about radical change. Corbyn put an alternative to the people and 1st time round, he came close to convincing them, despite the massive opposition from vested interests.

It took the Tories 30 year before they started dismantling the reforms made by the 1st majority Labour government. Perhaps times have changed but the grip of neoliberalism on political power is exaggerated, maybe they want us to believe that there is no scope for any radicalism?

[Pretty Boy]

Is it wrong for me to say I don't know what I think on this topic? I could post at length today about it then read something else tomorrow that swings me the other way. Even experts in the field seem unable to form any broad consensus on the subject.

I find people who can reduce it to 'trans women are women' or 'there are only two genders' with no scope for movement at all baffling tbh. It seems way too complex for 'stop the boats' style sloganeering. Maybe I'm just a bit thick and it really is that simple but I'm not convinced (on the simplicity part, I make no comment on my own intelligence or lack thereof).

[Colr]

I see Trump has kicked the trannies out of the US army.

[147lothian]

I see Trump has kicked the trannies out of the US army.

Trump has also kicked the trannies out of female only prisons, this was probably to prevent any repeat of what happened in the New Jersey prison when two inmates were impregnated by a fellow prisoner.

[jamie_1875]

Have any women with penises been in woman changing rooms with their wang out.

It’s an often used trope, but not one that my wife, her friends or any of the hundreds of school girls that she teaches have come across.

J

Another example:

https://telegraph.co.uk/gift/f1fb9edc8aec10a9

"A transgender NHS doctor who got changed in front of women colleagues has claimed to be a biological female.

Dr Beth Upton, who was born male and now identifies as a woman, stated in evidence to an employment tribunal “I’m biologically female” and said that sex had “no defined or agreed meaning in science”.

General question not directed at you in particular but how can a man claim to be a biological female?

[lapsedhibee]

Another example:

https://telegraph.co.uk/gift/f1fb9edc8aec10a9

"A transgender NHS doctor who got changed in front of women colleagues has claimed to be a biological female.

Dr Beth Upton, who was born male and now identifies as a woman, stated in evidence to an employment tribunal “I’m biologically female” and said that sex had “no defined or agreed meaning in science”.

General question not directed at you in particular but how can a man claim to be a biological female?

Lewis Carroll had this one covered:

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

[CropleyWasGod]

Another example:

https://telegraph.co.uk/gift/f1fb9edc8aec10a9

"A transgender NHS doctor who got changed in front of women colleagues has claimed to be a biological female.

Dr Beth Upton, who was born male and now identifies as a woman, stated in evidence to an employment tribunal “I’m biologically female” and said that sex had “no defined or agreed meaning in science”.

General question not directed at you in particular but how can a man claim to be a biological female?

The big difference in this case is that the doctor doesn't have a *****. She has gone through transition AFAIK.

That case is ongoing, but a question I would have asked the nurse is "would you feel threatened if a gay woman got undressed beside you?".

[jamie_1875]

The big difference in this case is that the doctor doesn't have a *****. She has gone through transition AFAIK.

That case is ongoing, but a question I would have asked the nurse is "would you feel threatened if a gay woman got undressed beside you?".

And if she said no I wouldn't because that's not a man...?

[CropleyWasGod]

And if she said no I wouldn't because that's not a man...?

I'd just like to hear her answer. No speculation.

It's key to the whole case, I would have thought, for both sides of the argument.

[jamie_1875]

I'd just like to hear her answer. No speculation.

It's key to the whole case, I would have thought, for both sides of the argument.

I am guessing she has over many years of being a female nurse changed next to many gay females so without knowing for definite then I would suggest she is fine with that, but not fine getting changed and watching a man get changed next to her.

There is no history or her having issues changing next to females.

She complained and then got suspended and then the NHS Fife Board tried to have the tribunal heard in secret.

[CropleyWasGod]

I am guessing she has over many years of being a female nurse changed next to many gay female so without knowing for definite then I would suggest she is fine with that, but not fine getting changed and watching a man get changed next to her.

She complained and then got suspended and then the NHS Fife Board tried to have the tribunal heard in secret.

Like I say :wink:

[jamie_1875]

Like I say :wink:

I think you are clutching at straws there but fair enough. Having been a nurse for over 30 years it's a pretty strong assumption to suggest she doesn't have an issue with gay females changing with her. I am also sure if she did it would be relevant for this case and it isn't referred to anywhere.

But if she did say she had no problems with that what do you think?

[CropleyWasGod]

I think you are clutching at straws there but fair enough. Having been a nurse for over 30 years it's a pretty strong assumption to suggest she doesn't have an issue with gay females changing with her.

But if she did say she had no problems with that what do you think?

I'm not sure what you mean by clutching at straws.

I'd just like to hear her answer.

[jamie_1875]

I'm not sure what you mean by clutching at straws.

I'd just like to hear her answer.

Well I am saying after 30 years of being a nurse and no history of having issues of changing next to gay females then she doesn't have a problem with it.

I was asking what your answer was if she said no she doesn't have a problem? You did say you would ask her and I am asking what your response would be if she answered your question and said she was fine with it.

[CropleyWasGod]

Well I am saying after 30 years of being a nurse and no history of having issues of changing next to gay females then she doesn't have a problem with it.

I was asking what your answer was if she said no she doesn't have a problem?

You're guessing that part, though, no?

I'm not going to speculate.

[Stairway 2 7]

The big difference in this case is that the doctor doesn't have a *****. She has gone through transition AFAIK.

That case is ongoing, but a question I would have asked the nurse is "would you feel threatened if a gay woman got undressed beside you?".

She is pre-op the incident only happened 14 months after she decided to live as a female, so too early to get a GRC in Scotland which is given after living as a female for 2 years.

Over 99% of sexual assaults are committed by males so the lesbian comparison doesn't work imo. It isn't that trans are more likely to assault females, it's women should have spaces away from biological males.

Turning one toilet small toilet in a hospital into a single gender neutral changing room would sort this

[jamie_1875]

You're guessing that part, though, no?

I'm not going to speculate.

You did say you would ask her that question though. I was merely asking if she said she didn't have a problem changing next to gay females what your response to the question you wanted to ask would be?

Seeing as she has been a female nurse and will have been getting changed next to many many gay women over 3 decades of nursing without any history of having a problem with it I think it's very clear she didn't have a problem with it. But that's nothing to do with the case that is being heard, it's kind of meaningless so why would you have wanted to ask her?

[CropleyWasGod]

She is pre-op the incident only happened 14 months after she decided to live as a female, so too early to get a GRC in Scotland which is given after living as a female for 2 years.

Over 99% of sexual assaults are committed by males so the lesbian comparison doesn't work imo. It isn't that trans are more likely to assault females, it's women should have spaces away from biological males.

Turning one toilet small toilet in a hospital into a single gender neutral changing room would sort this

Thanks for clarifying .

[speedy_gonzales]

Re this Kirkcaldy nurse/Dr story, I don't know if it's a true representation of factual happenings or a twist by the various media outlets, but the nurse seems to come across as bullying/spoiling for a fight. The trans Dr seems to have tried their best to not provoke the situation.
I also find it strange that no other colleagues have came forward with the complainant (although she was well supported when she arrived at the tribunal last week).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gx07xdpw5o

[Pretty Boy]

The issue I have in this case is the nurse seems like a thoroughly disagreeable individual.

I accept that doesn't really matter if her argument is valid; which it may be, I'm not a woman so I'm not going to speak on her behalf, there is enough of that goes on in this debate and beyond.

Her general conduct around the situation seems tactless at best though and some of her beliefs around other issues that have been touched upon during the tribunal mean she will likely do her cause more harm than good regardless of the outcome. I've always found myself leaning towards believing there has to be certain lines in the sand around safe, or rather private, spaces for women. I remember being utterly appalled when I saw someone on here suggest a rape victim who objected to dealing with a counsellor who was born biologically male should be 'reeducated' and thought that crossed a line. However in this instance everything I read makes me think the nurse was something of a bully and she was deliberately nasty and hurtful. Her insistence on calling the doctor a man during the tribunal just seems needlessly petty; the point about the changing situation still stands without such small supposed victories. I suppose the doctors claim that biological sex is 'nebulous' is the other side of that coin and reducing womanhood to some state of mind is also pretty objectionable and arguably a philosophical rather than scientific argument.

It feels to me like there is a lot to playing to the gallery going on and this could have been sorted out internally with a bit of basic respect on all sides, compromise and a fairly inexpensive installation of some private changing cubicles in a communal space.