The Trans Rights Debate

[archie]

https://www.gov.scot/publications/gender-recognition-reform-scotland-bill-analysis-responses-public-consultation-exercise/

How long should it take?

Two Committee sessions and a rush to stage 3 feels tight. That, coupled with widespread controversy, might suggest a more considered approach.

[Moulin Yarns]

Two Committee sessions and a rush to stage 3 feels tight. That, coupled with widespread controversy, might suggest a more considered approach.

The process began in December 2019, 3 years ago, pre pandemic. That doesn't seem rushed to me.

[archie]

The process began in December 2019, 3 years ago, pre pandemic. That doesn't seem rushed to me.

Political chatter on twitter suggests change to rules in the Parliament to allow proxy voting come in 4 January. Suggestion that Kate Forbes would vote against legislation, so FM would have to sack her. Quick stage 3 avoids this.

[He's here!]

Political chatter on twitter suggests change to rules in the Parliament to allow proxy voting come in 4 January. Suggestion that Kate Forbes would vote against legislation, so FM would have to sack her. Quick stage 3 avoids this.

If that's the case then the fear of losing more ministers would certainly explain the determination to squeeze this in before Christmas. That, plus the fact Sturgeon won't want the issue dogging her 'special party conference' in the new year.

[Moulin Yarns]

Political chatter on twitter suggests change to rules in the Parliament to allow proxy voting come in 4 January. Suggestion that Kate Forbes would vote against legislation, so FM would have to sack her. Quick stage 3 avoids this.

https://www.parliament.scot/about/news/news-listing/holyrood-committee-call-for-introduction-of-proxy-voting

I assume you mean that which is not chatter but a proposal.


Passed unanimously, apparently!

[archie]

https://www.parliament.scot/about/news/news-listing/holyrood-committee-call-for-introduction-of-proxy-voting

I assume you mean that which is not chatter but a proposal.


Passed unanimously, apparently!

Chatter reference speculating re Kate Forbes position. Sorry if not clear.

[CropleyWasGod]

Political chatter on twitter suggests change to rules in the Parliament to allow proxy voting come in 4 January. Suggestion that Kate Forbes would vote against legislation, so FM would have to sack her. Quick stage 3 avoids this.

I'm surprised that we didn't have this already.

Do you know if we have pairing, as they do in Westminster?

[ronaldo7]

If that's the case then the fear of losing more ministers would certainly explain the determination to squeeze this in before Christmas. That, plus the fact Sturgeon won't want the issue dogging her 'special party conference' in the new year.

Get on with the day job... No that fast. 😂

[archie]

I'm surprised that we didn't have this already.

Do you know if we have pairing, as they do in Westminster?

Good question. I don't think so.

[CropleyWasGod]

Good question. I don't think so.

Given that our system is less binary than WM, maybe less of a need. But it would still be helpful IMO

[He's here!]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63909309

UK govt may challenge the legislation.

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63909309

UK govt may challenge the legislation.

Interesting position for the UK to take. Are they going to stop recognising people from Ireland as well or is it only Scotland? Because they already accept documents from Ireland which already has the laws that Scotland is introducing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[He's here!]

https://adulthumanfemale.info/

Interesting and informative documentary which was due to be screened at Edinburgh University but the university have now banned it.

[Stairway 2 7]

https://adulthumanfemale.info/

Interesting and informative documentary which was due to be screened at Edinburgh University but the university have now banned it.

There is one opinion allowed.

[He's here!]

There is one opinion allowed.

By the university or the documentary?

[CropleyWasGod]

https://adulthumanfemale.info/

Interesting and informative documentary which was due to be screened at Edinburgh University but the university have now banned it.

It's the UCU that are calling for it to be blocked, not the University.

[He's here!]

It's the UCU that are calling for it to be blocked, not the University.


You're right, the Evening News headline was misleading.

UCU Edinburgh on Twitter: "It is our branch policy to demand that @EdinburghUni neither host nor facilitate meetings which contain content which is transphobic, biphobic, homophobic or otherwise detrimental to the safety and wellbeing of LGBT+ staff." / Twitter (https://twitter.com/ucuedinburgh/status/1600426122743009281)

Still highly debatable whether the documentary is in any way transphobic though.

[CropleyWasGod]

You're right, the Evening News headline was misleading.

UCU Edinburgh on Twitter: "It is our branch policy to demand that @EdinburghUni neither host nor facilitate meetings which contain content which is transphobic, biphobic, homophobic or otherwise detrimental to the safety and wellbeing of LGBT+ staff." / Twitter (https://twitter.com/ucuedinburgh/status/1600426122743009281)

Still highly debatable whether the documentary is in any way transphobic though.

So it's not been banned then?

[superfurryhibby]

https://adulthumanfemale.info/

Interesting and informative documentary which was due to be screened at Edinburgh University but the university have now banned it.

Great explanation of why women are women and why male appropriation of female gender identity is so dangerous.

If you’re in doubt , watch this.

[147lothian]

https://adulthumanfemale.info/

Interesting and informative documentary which was due to be screened at Edinburgh University but the university have now banned it.

Thanks for posting this, it articulates well importance of the reality of biological sex to be acknowledged for women's sex based rights, I tried to find it on YouTube but its not there, any idea if it's on any other platform?

[He's here!]

So it's not been banned then?

Hopefully not.

[He's here!]

Thanks for posting this, it articulates well importance of the reality of biological sex to be acknowledged for women's sex based rights, I tried to find it on YouTube but its not there, any idea if it's on any other platform?

There are some details about where you can watch it here:

realitymatters (@AHFdoco) / Twitter (https://mobile.twitter.com/ahfdoco)

[147lothian]

Some people think that Nichola Sturgeon's gender recognition certificate or gender self-ID is fine because it's only about being kind to the small amount of people who have the mental health condition gender dysphoria. While feminist's argue that in the real world gender self-ID will be exploited by predatory men and pedophiles, who are normally just straight men who see a loop in the law and exploit it to gain access to woman only spaces, making it a woman's safety and child protection issue.

Gender self-ID is not good for trans people because they are going to be tarred with the same brush when things like this happen a 25 year old male pedophile who identifies as a woman and got a 14 year old girl pregnant. This is what happens when trans rights meets reality.


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

[Moulin Yarns]

Some people think that Nichola Sturgeon's gender recognition certificate or gender self-ID is fine because it's only about being kind to the small amount of people who have the mental health condition gender dysphoria. While feminist's argue that in the real world gender self-ID will be exploited by predatory men and pedophiles, who are normally just straight men who see a loop in the law and exploit it to gain access to woman only spaces, making it a woman's safety and child protection issue.

Gender self-ID is not good for trans people because they are going to be tarred with the same brush when things like this happen a 25 year old male pedophile who identifies as a a woman and got a 14 year old girl pregnant. This is what happens when trans rights meets reality.


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

Switched off as soon as I saw who was 'reporting'

[He's here!]

Some people think that Nichola Sturgeon's gender recognition certificate or gender self-ID is fine because it's only about being kind to the small amount of people who have the mental health condition gender dysphoria. While feminist's argue that in the real world gender self-ID will be exploited by predatory men and pedophiles, who are normally just straight men who see a loop in the law and exploit it to gain access to woman only spaces, making it a woman's safety and child protection issue.

Gender self-ID is not good for trans people because they are going to be tarred with the same brush when things like this happen a 25 year old male pedophile who identifies as a a woman and got a 14 year old girl pregnant. This is what happens when trans rights meets reality.


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

The issues raised in that clip highlight just how absurd the tiptoeing around this issue has become. It would be almost laughable if the consequences in this case hadn't been so devastating.

[archie]

Wow - what a move from JK Rowling https://suzannemoore.substack.com/p/an-exclusive-interview-with-jk-rowling

[superfurryhibby]

Switched off as soon as I saw who was 'reporting'

A horrible source of news but it's an even more horrible story. I wonder what pro GRA activists have to say about this kind of thing? Or is it a case of just brushing it under the carpet, like you so clearly did previously when people posted about the deviant who abused a child and was accommodated at a woman only hostel in Fife?

[superfurryhibby]

Wow - what a move from JK Rowling https://suzannemoore.substack.com/p/an-exclusive-interview-with-jk-rowling

"This is Beira’s Place.  

It is a new support and advocacy service for women who have experienced sexual violence, it has been funded by J.K. Rowling, and it opens today. It has been set up to meet an unmet need from female survivors for a women-only service, as there is not one currently available in the area.  

There is a slight nervousness. How have they kept this all quiet? But they have pulled it off! They are opening today. Anything with Rowling’s name attached is bound to attract attention. The optics of anyone targeting a rape crisis centre would look bad but such is the situation in Scotland that there have been protestors screaming at women going into parliament to give harrowing testimony about their experiences.


Edinburgh’s one Rape Crisis is currently already over subscribed and somewhat controversial. Its stance that survivors may need to be re-educated about trans rights as part of recovering from trauma does not suit many of its users. The idea that survivors who have “unacceptable beliefs” should have their prejudices challenged, begs the question of who the service is for.

This pushing of a political view onto a woman at a time of profound trauma and crisis does not feel appropriate? Is it ethical? Professional? Many survivors do not feel comfortable about all this and repeatedly ask to be cared for by women. And by women only. Some may even refuse this service as a result"

[KWJ]

A horrible source of news but it's an even more horrible story. I wonder what pro GRA activists have to say about this kind of thing? Or is it a case of just brushing it under the carpet, like you so clearly did when people posted about the deviant who abused a child and was accommodated at a woman only hostel in Fife?

It is a horrible story, here it is on BBC (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-63785679) . It doesn't seem right to me to immediately jump on it being because they are trans, or as I assume you are suggesting, faking being trans. How many stories of transwoman lives happy, kind life would you need to read until the term transwoman isn't a red flag?

There's horrible people out there and they take all forms.

[superfurryhibby]

It is a horrible story, here it is on BBC (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-63785679) . It doesn't seem right to me to immediately jump on it being because they are trans, or as I assume you are suggesting, faking being trans. How many stories of transwoman lives happy, kind life would you need to read until the term transwoman isn't a red flag?

There's horrible people out there and they take all forms.

I totally support people's right to transition and I'm very comfortable with the concept, with some provisos around what the term transition means in terms of accessing female only protected spaces

I'm not really understanding your point when you say this "How many stories of transwoman lives happy, kind life would you need to read until the term transwoman isn't a red flag? ?

[KWJ]

I totally support people's right to transition and I'm very comfortable with the concept, with some provisos around what the term transition means in terms of accessing female only protected spaces

I'm not really understanding your point when you say this "How many stories of transwoman lives happy, kind life would you need to read until the term transwoman isn't a red flag? ?

It read to me that you were sharing the story as if to say See what "transwoman" do!. Good to read that's not the case.

[He's here!]

"This is Beira’s Place.  

It is a new support and advocacy service for women who have experienced sexual violence, it has been funded by J.K. Rowling, and it opens today. It has been set up to meet an unmet need from female survivors for a women-only service, as there is not one currently available in the area.  

There is a slight nervousness. How have they kept this all quiet? But they have pulled it off! They are opening today. Anything with Rowling’s name attached is bound to attract attention. The optics of anyone targeting a rape crisis centre would look bad but such is the situation in Scotland that there have been protestors screaming at women going into parliament to give harrowing testimony about their experiences.


Edinburgh’s one Rape Crisis is currently already over subscribed and somewhat controversial. Its stance that survivors may need to be re-educated about trans rights as part of recovering from trauma does not suit many of its users. The idea that survivors who have “unacceptable beliefs” should have their prejudices challenged, begs the question of who the service is for.

This pushing of a political view onto a woman at a time of profound trauma and crisis does not feel appropriate? Is it ethical? Professional? Many survivors do not feel comfortable about all this and repeatedly ask to be cared for by women. And by women only. Some may even refuse this service as a result"

It's extraordinary that these are issues women who have suffered in this way should even have to be considering.

This is a phenomenal move from JKR. Hats off to her. Wonder what 'real feminist' Sturgeon makes of it.

[superfurryhibby]

It's extraordinary that these are issues women who have suffered in this way should even have to be considering.

This is a phenomenal move from JKR. Hats off to her. Wonder what 'real feminist' Sturgeon makes of it.

It's absolutely shocking that it takes someone willing to bankroll a service in order to unequivocally support female victims of sexual harm in Edinburgh. The Edinburgh Rape Crisis centre has been very deliberately politicised through the appointment of their CEO. It's a ****ing tragedy that a pioneering service that was once at the forefront of supporting women should have become a barrier to offering the support of women in a crisis.

JK Rowling's magnanimous gesture is so welcomed. I'm not a fan of her books or of her views on independence, but she has shown remarkable courage and commitment by continuing to speak out against the madness of the current GRA proposals. Total respect to her for standing up for women's rights and resisting the ignorant cult following fashionistas that have indicated their displeasure in the media.

[He's here!]

Ban alleged rapists changing gender during trial, SNP MSP Michelle Thomson urges Sturgeon | Scotland | The Times (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ban-alleged-rapists-changing-gender-during-trial-snp-msp-michelle-thomson-urges-sturgeon-vsprw6zxb)

Don't imagine Sturgeon will look too favourably on Thomson working with the Tories on this proposed amendment.

[Mcbizz1998]

Switched off as soon as I saw who was 'reporting'

Seems like a good way to remain in your echo chamber.

[Stairway 2 7]

Trans charity announce they will be releasing scientific data this week that shows being trans is a biological condition. They are flooded with hundreds of replies from trans people saying don't release this. It will stop self identification and effect people who don't pass this 'test'

Probably agree, sounds a bit like the search for the gay gene

https://mobile.twitter.com/TransLucent_Org/status/1601975586745991172

[CropleyWasGod]

Probably not for this thread, but it's interesting that Beira's Place supports the Nordic Model for sex workers. By doing so, they are positioning themselves directly in conflict with just about every SW-led organisation in the World.

I also wonder whether they will be open to supporting trans victims of sexual violence.

[Stairway 2 7]

Probably not for this thread, but it's interesting that Beira's Place supports the Nordic Model for sex workers. By doing so, they are positioning themselves directly in conflict with every SW-led organisation in the World.

I also wonder whether they will be open to supporting trans victims of sexual violence.

Don't snp favour a similar style to the nordic model, personally think its backwards.

And isn't beira place for biological females only, so not for biological men?

[CropleyWasGod]

Don't snp favour a similar style to the nordic model, personally think its backwards.

And isn't beira place for biological females only, so not for biological men?

The SNP voted for the NM at their conference a few years ago. I don't think it's been fully adopted yet, as there were so few people who actually voted. Ash Regan was pushing for it before she resigned.

On the second point, does that mean trans men could use the service 🤔?

[Stairway 2 7]

The SNP voted for the NM at their conference a few years ago. I don't think it's been fully adopted yet, as there were so few people who actually voted. Ash Regan was pushing for it before she resigned.

On the second point, does that mean trans men could use the service 🤔?
You'd assume so but maybe they don't want people with high levels of testosterone there. That's a presumption though, I'd look at their website?

[archie]

The SNP voted for the NM at their conference a few years ago. I don't think it's been fully adopted yet, as there were so few people who actually voted. Ash Regan was pushing for it before she resigned.

On the second point, does that mean trans men could use the service 🤔?I think your final question exposes the heart of the issue. My concern with the draft legislation is the vagueness of the definitions. I think people view differently someone who has fully transitioned compared to someone who, say, identifies as a woman but is a man.

[archie]

And tomorrow will be significant https://twitter.com/DSanderson_85/status/1602273566875127808

[superfurryhibby]

The SNP voted for the NM at their conference a few years ago. I don't think it's been fully adopted yet, as there were so few people who actually voted. Ash Regan was pushing for it before she resigned.

On the second point, does that mean trans men could use the service 🤔?

"Our service is open to women only, aged 16 and over and who live in the Lothians (East Lothian, Midlothian/Edinburgh City, and West Lothian). The centre is women only and all staff are women[1].

At Beira’s Place we offer face to face support to survivors of any form of sexual violence, abuse and sexual exploitation, no matter when this has happened in their lives. Support appointments last up to one hour and are usually weekly. If weekly appointments are difficult (for example, for shift workers), this can be changed to suit the woman and her support worker. Some evening appointments will be available"

It's a service for women only, but I suspect you already know this.

Why would a man, trans or whatever want to go there? That seems like a strange question. Do you mean someone with a vulva who self identifies as a man and has been the victim of sexual violence?

[CropleyWasGod]

"Our service is open to women only, aged 16 and over and who live in the Lothians (East Lothian, Midlothian/Edinburgh City, and West Lothian). The centre is women only and all staff are women[1].

At Beira’s Place we offer face to face support to survivors of any form of sexual violence, abuse and sexual exploitation, no matter when this has happened in their lives. Support appointments last up to one hour and are usually weekly. If weekly appointments are difficult (for example, for shift workers), this can be changed to suit the woman and her support worker. Some evening appointments will be available"

It's a service for women only, but I suspect you already know this.

Why would a man, trans or whatever want to go there? That seems like a strange question. Do you mean someone with a vulva who self identifies as a man and has been the victim of sexual violence?

By trans man, I mean someone who has fully transitioned from being a woman to being a man.

I thought it a reasonable question. Much is made of the definition of a woman, and I was genuinely interested.

[James310]

I think your final question exposes the heart of the issue. My concern with the draft legislation is the vagueness of the definitions. I think people view differently someone who has fully transitioned compared to someone who, say, identifies as a woman but is a man.

Someone who has fully transitioned has made a significant life changing commitment. Someone who sits in their bedroom for 3 months and now declares they are a woman by filling in an online form has not. But this bill I believe treats them equally?

[He's here!]

Someone who has fully transitioned has made a significant life changing commitment. Someone who sits in their bedroom for 3 months and now declares they are a woman by filling in an online form has not. But this bill I believe treats them equally?

You wouldn't need to sit in your bedroom for three months, or indeed do anything to prove you've been living in your a acquired gender as under the new legislation no evidence, medical or otherwise, will be required.

[superfurryhibby]

By trans man, I mean someone who has fully transitioned from being a woman to being a man.

I thought it a reasonable question. Much is made of the defiof a woman, and I was genuinely interested.

If they have fully transitioned then they are a man. I have a family member who has done exactly this. He has a beard and a boaby, he's a bloke and if he ever (god forbid) needed a service for support then an all female service wouldn't be appropriate (however, I shall ask his view on that question).

I had assumed your question was rhetorical and you were coming at it from another angle, apologies.

[CropleyWasGod]

If they have fully transitioned then they are a man. I have a family member who has done exactly this. He has a beard and a boaby, he's a bloke and if he ever (god forbid) needed a service for support then an all female service wouldn't be appropriate (however, I shall ask his view on that question).

I had assumed your question was rhetorical and you were coming at it from another angle, apologies.

Ta.

I suppose my question was related to the notion expressed by some GC's that "trans women are not real women" ie they are men. The corollary of that is "trans men are not real men" ie they are women.

For me, your relative is very definitely a man, but you can see that might not be everyone's view.

edit..... Twitter is now very much alive with that very question...... :cb

[archie]

I recognise that this is published by campaigners, but the issues raised highlight where well meaning but ill-considered legislation comes into force https://reduxx.info/men-are-men-norwegian-artist-facing-criminal-charges-potential-prison-sentence-over-gender-comments/

[archie]

And tomorrow will be significant https://twitter.com/DSanderson_85/status/1602273566875127808SG win case.

[ronaldo7]

A JUDGE has ruled that transgender women with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) can legally be defined as women when it comes to legislation that aims to ensure gender balance on public boards.

In her judgment on the second judicial review of the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act Lady Haldane said:

“The meaning of sex for the purposes of the 2010 Act, 'sex' is not limited to biological or birth sex, but includes those in possession of a GRC obtained in accordance with the 2004 Act stating their acquired gender, and thus their sex."

Last year, campaign group For Women Scotland took the Scottish Government to court over its definition of “women” in the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018.

The bill’s intention is to ensure that non-executive members on public boards are made up of at least 50% women.

Ministers had argued that people who were living as a woman or had gone through or intended to undertake the process of gender recognition could be defined as women within the legislation.

However, For Women Scotland argued that this did not accord to the separate definitions of women and transgender woman in the Equality Act 2010 and expressed fears about its wider implications for single-sex spaces.

The campaign group lost the initial judicial review of the bill in 2021 but were then successful upon appeal.

The Scottish Government then revised the legislation, which now states that the definition of “woman” is defined by the Equality Act 2010 and the Gender Recognition Act 2004.

The guidance states: “Where a full gender recognition certificate has been issued to a person that their acquired gender is female, the person’s sex is that of a woman, and where a full gender recognition certificate has been issued to a person that their acquired gender is male, the person’s sex becomes that of a man.”

In practice, this means that transgender women with a gender recognition certificate would be considered women under the bill.

But For Women Scotland were not happy with the revision and called for a second judicial review, the results of which Lady Haldane revealed today.

Lady Haldane's judgment states that while the Equality Act 2010 protects a person's rights based on their sex, the definition of "sex" is not entirely restricted to a person's biological birth sex.

Indeed, she concludes that the ability of a Gender Recognition Certificate to change someone's legal sex "does not offend against, or give rise to any conflict with, legislation where it is clear that 'sex' means biological sex."

In court last month their lawyer, Aidan O’Neill KC, argued that allowing transgender people to change their legal sex with regards to the Equality Act would “run a coach and horses through the preservation of safe spaces for women and single-sex provision for women under the Equality Act".

During debates in the Scottish Parliament regarding the reform of gender recognition in Scotland – which is set to be voted on by MSPs on next week – the Scottish Government has repeatedly argued that making it easier for trans people to obtain a GRC will not impact the protections enshrined for women in the Equality Act 2010, including those regarding single-sex spaces
But For Women Scotland stated that MSPs were voting on the gender reform legislation “blind” because it would come before the ruling on the judicial review, which was not expected to come until after MSPs had cast their final votes on the legislation on December 21.

Lady Haldane's judgment also made clear that it referred only the legislative competence of the Scottish Government in this specific case and should be considered a ruling on the broader rights of transgender people.

[archie]

A JUDGE has ruled that transgender women with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) can legally be defined as women when it comes to legislation that aims to ensure gender balance on public boards.

In her judgment on the second judicial review of the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act Lady Haldane said:

“The meaning of sex for the purposes of the 2010 Act, 'sex' is not limited to biological or birth sex, but includes those in possession of a GRC obtained in accordance with the 2004 Act stating their acquired gender, and thus their sex."

Last year, campaign group For Women Scotland took the Scottish Government to court over its definition of “women” in the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018.

The bill’s intention is to ensure that non-executive members on public boards are made up of at least 50% women.

Ministers had argued that people who were living as a woman or had gone through or intended to undertake the process of gender recognition could be defined as women within the legislation.

However, For Women Scotland argued that this did not accord to the separate definitions of women and transgender woman in the Equality Act 2010 and expressed fears about its wider implications for single-sex spaces.

The campaign group lost the initial judicial review of the bill in 2021 but were then successful upon appeal.

The Scottish Government then revised the legislation, which now states that the definition of “woman” is defined by the Equality Act 2010 and the Gender Recognition Act 2004.

The guidance states: “Where a full gender recognition certificate has been issued to a person that their acquired gender is female, the person’s sex is that of a woman, and where a full gender recognition certificate has been issued to a person that their acquired gender is male, the person’s sex becomes that of a man.”

In practice, this means that transgender women with a gender recognition certificate would be considered women under the bill.

But For Women Scotland were not happy with the revision and called for a second judicial review, the results of which Lady Haldane revealed today.

Lady Haldane's judgment states that while the Equality Act 2010 protects a person's rights based on their sex, the definition of "sex" is not entirely restricted to a person's biological birth sex.

Indeed, she concludes that the ability of a Gender Recognition Certificate to change someone's legal sex "does not offend against, or give rise to any conflict with, legislation where it is clear that 'sex' means biological sex."

In court last month their lawyer, Aidan O’Neill KC, argued that allowing transgender people to change their legal sex with regards to the Equality Act would “run a coach and horses through the preservation of safe spaces for women and single-sex provision for women under the Equality Act".

During debates in the Scottish Parliament regarding the reform of gender recognition in Scotland – which is set to be voted on by MSPs on next week – the Scottish Government has repeatedly argued that making it easier for trans people to obtain a GRC will not impact the protections enshrined for women in the Equality Act 2010, including those regarding single-sex spaces
But For Women Scotland stated that MSPs were voting on the gender reform legislation “blind” because it would come before the ruling on the judicial review, which was not expected to come until after MSPs had cast their final votes on the legislation on December 21.

Lady Haldane's judgment also made clear that it referred only the legislative competence of the Scottish Government in this specific case and should be considered a ruling on the broader rights of transgender people.
So MSPs will vote in the clear knowledge of the implications of what they are voing for.

[ronaldo7]

So MSPs will vote in the clear knowledge of the implications of what they are voing for.

Correct. All parties MSP's

[He's here!]

So MSPs will vote in the clear knowledge of the implications of what they are voing for.

It baffles me that even with that knowledge a majority of MSPs look set to vote for legislation that (to focus on
what was being addressed in the judicial review) will enable a man to change not just their gender but their sex on request.

On that basis how on earth can Sturgeon maintain that the new legislation will not confer significant new rights on anyone?

[Moulin Yarns]

It baffles me that even with that knowledge a majority of MSPs look set to vote for legislation that (to focus on
what was being addressed in the judicial review) will enable a man to change not just their gender but their sex on request.

On that basis how on earth can Sturgeon maintain that the new legislation will not confer significant new rights on anyone?

You do realise that it has cross party support?

[He's here!]

You do realise that it has cross party support?

Yes, bewildering.

[Moulin Yarns]

Yes, bewildering.

So will you have a moan about all the other parties?

[Stairway 2 7]

A thread from a paralysed woman who wants biologically female only care

https://mobile.twitter.com/hen10freeman/status/1603022204467351556

[He's here!]

So will you have a moan about all the other parties?

I've added my name to a letter sent by colleagues in education to MSPs of all parties expressing concern about the level of naivety being shown in failing to recognise the obvious dangers inherent in this legislation. We've focused primarily, however, on the fact it will enable those as young as 16 to change their legal sex rather than the threat to women's safety (which is what tends to command the headlines).

[Stairway 2 7]

Students block the screening of adult human female. Joanna Cherry says we have a neo fascist climate, but isn't it her party pushing this more than any other

https://mobile.twitter.com/joannaccherry/status/1603103707998167040

[He's here!]

https://www.newstatesman.com/quickfire/2022/12/nicola-sturgeon-trans-rights-gender-divisions

[Ozyhibby]

Students block the screening of adult human female. Joanna Cherry says we have a neo fascist climate, but isn't it her party pushing this more than any other

https://mobile.twitter.com/joannaccherry/status/1603103707998167040

Isn’t there two competing free speech arguments here? Aren’t the people protesting the screening exercising their right to protest? I’m not really on one side or the other but JC saying ‘is this what my country has become’ has me thinking I hope so. Two competing ideas out protesting each others views.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

Isn’t there two competing free speech arguments here? Aren’t the people protesting the screening exercising their right to protest? I’m not really on one side or the other but JC saying ‘is this what my country has become’ has me thinking I hope so. Two competing ideas out protesting each others views.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But they aren't just protesting outside peacefully, they are preventing it being shown.

[He's here!]

But they aren't just protesting outside peacefully, they are preventing it being shown.

Exactly.

I'm rarely remotely aligned to Cherry's political views, but she's never anything than spot-on regarding this issue.

[James310]

Isn’t there two competing free speech arguments here? Aren’t the people protesting the screening exercising their right to protest? I’m not really on one side or the other but JC saying ‘is this what my country has become’ has me thinking I hope so. Two competing ideas out protesting each others views.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They never challenged the ideas in the film by using their free speech they just censored it by not allowing people to watch it. Not sure that's the country you want Scotland to become?

Men telling women what they can and cannot do. Using physical force to tell women what they can watch and not watch. How very progressive.

[superfurryhibby]

They never challenged the ideas in the film by using their free speech they just censored it by not allowing people to watch it. Not sure that's the country you want Scotland to become?

Men telling women what they can and cannot do. Using physical force to tell women what they can watch and not watch. How very progressive.

I've just watched some footage on Twitter, disgraceful.

[Moulin Yarns]

Students block the screening of adult human female. Joanna Cherry says we have a neo fascist climate, but isn't it her party pushing this more than any other

https://mobile.twitter.com/joannaccherry/status/1603103707998167040


The film is freely available on YouTube.

https://twitter.com/PeakeCondition/status/1603305537688535043?t=8kKvHh_ormqqN9KP-34gmg&s=19


I'm not sure if there was due to be a post screening Q&A or debate, but anyone can watch the film.

[Stairway 2 7]

https://archive.ph/jEcWm

About two thirds of Scots are opposed to the central pillars of Nicola Sturgeon’s gender reform policy, according to a new poll.

[He's here!]

The film is freely available on YouTube.

https://twitter.com/PeakeCondition/status/1603305537688535043?t=8kKvHh_ormqqN9KP-34gmg&s=19


I'm not sure if there was due to be a post screening Q&A or debate, but anyone can watch the film.

That's not the point though is it? Those who wanted to watch the screening at Edinburgh University were prevented from doing so by what appears to be a small number of folk who think their viewpoint entitles them to prevent opposing views being heard. 'Safety could not be guaranteed,' according to the university. Ridiculous - as is the statement from the university's Pride society spokesman claiming that a dozen protestors represent the views of all students.

University of Edinburgh film screening cancelled due to protest - BBC News (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-63986755)

[Moulin Yarns]

That's not the point though is it? Those who wanted to watch the screening at Edinburgh University were prevented from doing so by what appears to be a small number of folk who think their viewpoint entitles them to prevent opposing views being heard. 'Safety could not be guaranteed,' according to the university. Ridiculous - as is the statement from the university's Pride society spokesman claiming that a dozen protestors represent the views of all students.

University of Edinburgh film screening cancelled due to protest - BBC News (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-63986755)

Nobody has been prevented from viewing the film if it is freely available on YouTube.

[Stairway 2 7]

Nobody has been prevented from viewing the film if it is freely available on YouTube.

Ridiculous. A screening and discussion was stopped by people who disagreed with someone else's opinion. I bet the film has more viewings due to the publicity mind

[CropleyWasGod]

Ridiculous. A screening and discussion was stopped by people who disagreed with someone else's opinion. I bet the film has more viewings due to the publicity mind

It's the Life of Brian/Jesus Christ Superstar effect. Those films got huge boosts in popularity because some people didn't see them and still objected.

The cynic in me thinks that the makers are delighted at the controversy. :cb

I'm currently watching it, and have a lot of mixed feelings about it.... anything that Julie Bindel says has me reaching for sharp objects :greengrin..... but it's a view that is entitled to be heard.

[He's here!]

https://archive.ph/jEcWm

About two thirds of Scots are opposed to the central pillars of Nicola Sturgeon’s gender reform policy, according to a new poll.

Doesn't surprise me. Surprised it's not even more actually.

[archie]

It's the Life of Brian/Jesus Christ Superstar effect. Those films got huge boosts in popularity because some people didn't see them and still objected.

The cynic in me thinks that the makers are delighted at the controversy. :cb

I'm currently watching it, and have a lot of mixed feelings about it.... anything that Julie Bindel says has me reaching for sharp objects :greengrin..... but it's a view that is entitled to be heard.

What's behind your view on Julie Bindel?

[Moulin Yarns]

Ridiculous. A screening and discussion was stopped by people who disagreed with someone else's opinion. I bet the film has more viewings due to the publicity mind

I did ask if it was just the film or followed by a Q&A but there was no reply. So that was cancelled but anyone who is interested can still watch the film, CWG being someone who is.

[CropleyWasGod]

What's behind your view on Julie Bindel?

Her views on female sex work.

[archie]

Her views on female sex work.

I guess she's opposed to it?

[CropleyWasGod]

I guess she's opposed to it?

She's opposed to men with testicles.

That may be my prejudices showing.


:greengrin

[archie]

She's opposed to men with testicles.

That may be my prejudices showing.


:greengrin

I thought it was women with testicles...

[archie]

I did ask if it was just the film or followed by a Q&A but there was no reply. So that was cancelled but anyone who is interested can still watch the film, CWG being someone who is.

BBC report suggests it was to be followed by a panel discussion.

[CropleyWasGod]

I thought it was women with testicles...

I think it's probably just testicles then.

[500miles]

It's the Life of Brian/Jesus Christ Superstar effect. Those films got huge boosts in popularity because some people didn't see them and still objected.

The cynic in me thinks that the makers are delighted at the controversy. :cb

I'm currently watching it, and have a lot of mixed feelings about it.... anything that Julie Bindel says has me reaching for sharp objects :greengrin..... but it's a view that is entitled to be heard.

I think its telling that the easiest references we can make to the people protesting this film are to people protesting blasphemous films.

[CropleyWasGod]

Different day, different UN opinion.

BBC News - UN chief backs Scottish government's gender recognition reforms
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-63993415

[archie]

Different day, different UN opinion.

BBC News - UN chief backs Scottish government's gender recognition reforms
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-63993415In many ways this sums up the issue. The UN gender person all for it. The violence against women and girls person is opposed!

[superfurryhibby]

Her views on female sex work.

Bindel has been researching and campaigning against prostitution since the 1970s and has written regularly about it since 1998.[39][40] While working at Leeds Metropolitan University in the 1990s, she coordinated the Kerb Crawlers Re-education Programme, a John school in the city.[39] An abolitionist, she argues strongly against efforts to decriminalise the sex trade as part of promoting "sex workers' rights".[41] Her position is that it is "inherently abusive, and a cause and a consequence of women's inequality ... a one-sided exploitative exchange rooted in male power".[42] For her book The Pimping of Prostitution: Abolishing the Sex Work Myth (2017), she interviewed 250 people in nearly 40 countries, visited brothels, and spoke to prostitutes, pimps and the police.[25]

She has been commissioned several times to write reports about the sex trade for charities and local authorities. While working for the Child and Woman Abuse Studies Unit at London Metropolitan University, she co-authored a report in 2003 on prostitution in Australia, Ireland, the Netherlands, and Sweden.[43] In 2004, she produced a report for Glasgow City Council on lap dancing in the UK.[27] In 2008, she co-wrote (with Helen Atkins) Big Brothel, a report commissioned by the POPPY Project, which examined 921 brothels in London's 33 boroughs.[44] They wrote that 85 percent of the brothels were in residential areas—nearly two-thirds in apartments and one-fifth in houses: "Wherever you are in the city, the likelihood is that buying and selling women is going on under your nose."[45]

Bindel and Atkins recruited male acquaintances to telephone the brothels for them, asking what was on offer. They telephoned only the ones advertised in local newspapers; Bindel estimated that the brothels made £86M to £209.5M a year as a result of this advertising.[45] Penetrative sex was available from £15 to £250, with an average price of £62, and two percent of the brothels offered unprotected penetrative sex for an extra £10 to £200.[44] Many of the women were from Southern or Eastern Europe and Asia.[46] One brothel offered what they said was "a Greek girl who is very, very young".[45] Bindel wrote about the findings in her Guardian column:

When Frank rang a brothel in Enfield, he could hear a baby crying in the background. When Alan called one in Southwark, he could make out the sound of a child asking for his tea. And when Mick called another to inquire about their services, he was told that he could have a "dirty Oriental bitch who will do stag nights, anal, and the rest."[45]

The Big Brothel report was criticised by 27 academics and other researchers involved in research into prostitution, who complained that the study had been conducted without ethical approval or acknowledgement of existing sources, and had been co-written by a researcher with anti-prostitution views.[47] The POPPY Project responded that the report was one they had produced independently, that they were not an academic institution, and that it was important to provide a counterbalance to the positive focus on the sex industry found in the media.[48]

[Ozyhibby]

In many ways this sums up the issue. The UN gender person all for it. The violence against women and girls person is opposed!

Since Ireland has had this legislation for a few years now, are there any specific problems they are having with it? Not hypotheticals which seems to be all we hear in the debate in Scotland but actual problems they are experiencing?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

Since Ireland has had this legislation for a few years now, are there any specific problems they are having with it? Not hypotheticals which seems to be all we hear in the debate in Scotland but actual problems they are experiencing?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quick search throws up these:

https://www.lawsociety.ie/gazette/top-stories/2019/10-october/male-bodied-transgender-inmate-housed-with-women-prisoners

https://gript.ie/the-editors-barbie-kardashian-case-exposes-absurdity-of-the-gender-recognition-act/

[He's here!]

Gender reform will be Sturgeon’s poll tax, says JK Rowling | Scotland | The Times (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b732cf46-7ca3-11ed-bcd8-855e06175970?shareToken=91031b0c43157416ca00f1e246 abc219)

[Ozyhibby]

Quick search throws up these:

https://www.lawsociety.ie/gazette/top-stories/2019/10-october/male-bodied-transgender-inmate-housed-with-women-prisoners

https://gript.ie/the-editors-barbie-kardashian-case-exposes-absurdity-of-the-gender-recognition-act/

First article appears to outline the solutions the Irish have found to the problem. Extra cost for the prison service right enough but it’s doable. And it’s one case in 7 years since it became law?
Has there been any cases where it has resulted in a woman being endangered? I’m not saying it couldn’t, just that it doesn’t really seem to be happening?
Men don’t really seem to need an excuse to endanger woman. They have been doing it for thousands of years without going to the bother of getting a certificate first. I would think if a male wanted access to women, then dressing up as one would reduce the likelihood of that? In fact, I bet most trans people would say that being trans reduces access to people full stop.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

First article appears to outline the solutions the Irish have found to the problem. Extra cost for the prison service right enough but it’s doable. And it’s one case in 7 years since it became law?
Has there been any cases where it has resulted in a woman being endangered? I’m not saying it couldn’t, just that it doesn’t really seem to be happening?
Men don’t really seem to need an excuse to endanger woman. They have been doing it for thousands of years without going to the bother of getting a certificate first. I would think if a male wanted access to women, then dressing up as one would reduce the likelihood of that? In fact, I bet most trans people would say that being trans reduces access to people full stop.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Barbie Kardashian case has caused uproar in Ireland. I guess the issue is how much risk is society prepared to take by putting people like them in a female prison.

[Ozyhibby]

Gender reform will be Sturgeon’s poll tax, says JK Rowling | Scotland | The Times (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b732cf46-7ca3-11ed-bcd8-855e06175970?shareToken=91031b0c43157416ca00f1e246 abc219)

That’s is complete nonsense. I couldn’t say for sure but I’m sure opposition to the poll tax was higher than 60%? Also, people cared about the poll tax. Most people in Scotland only have minimal awareness this is even happening. And the percentage of people directly affected by it is tiny. To compare it with the poll tax is a joke and make Rowling look foolish.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

The Barbie Kardashian case has caused uproar in Ireland. I guess the issue is how much risk is society prepared to take by putting people like them in a female prison.

I’m sure it has but the situation is managed by the prisoner never being allowed to be alone with another prisoner. So the situation is being managed. We can’t make law based on how much outrage the press can generate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

I’m sure it has but the situation is managed by the prisoner never being allowed to be alone with another prisoner. So the situation is being managed. We can’t make law based on how much outrage the press can generate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But we can make laws with reference to womens safety.

[Ozyhibby]

But we can make laws with reference to womens safety.

I know, that’s why I was asking if the law had endangered any women in Ireland in the 7 years it had been law there?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

I know, that’s why I was asking if the law had endangered any women in Ireland in the 7 years it had been law there?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
OK - you either think the risk is acceptable or you don't. My issue with the legislation is that the definition of trans is so broad to be effectively meaningless. That make makes for poor policy and poor enforcement potential. On an anecdotal point, speaking to women in the family, who are actually very supportive to the general issue and also very liberal, they don't want to share facilities like a changing room with a biologically intact male. Why aren't they allowed a voice?

[He's here!]

Former SNP minister Ash Regan: I had to vote with my conscience and resign over gender reform bill | Scotland | The Times (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dd448bcc-7d5a-11ed-bcd8-855e06175970?shareToken=8e6687827411404fcc5687c8a9 87c896)

Hard to imagine Regan returning to the front bench. Wouldn't be surprised if she left the SNP altogether.

As I've said before, my own concerns around this bill extend beyond the headline stories around women's safety, concerning as those are. I cannot understand why Sturgeon remains so blinkered to the dangers inherent in allowing children as young as 16 to change their legal sex, especially bearing in mind how discredited the Mermaids charity and their insistence that gender dysphoria is always an inidicator of a fixed trans identity have become. She has ignored the findings of an English senior paediatrician (Hilary Cass) who has emphasised how in many cases gender dysphoria is transient for all sorts of reasons (puberty, childhood trauma, autism, coming to terms with same sex attraction etc) and whose review has shaped a case by case approach by NHS England. As far as I can see, Sturgeon's refusal to acknowledge the Cass review is based on the implausible view that it doesn't apply to Scottish children.

[Ozyhibby]

OK - you either think the risk is acceptable or you don't. My issue with the legislation is that the definition of trans is so broad to be effectively meaningless. That make makes for poor policy and poor enforcement potential. On an anecdotal point, speaking to women in the family, who are actually very supportive to the general issue and also very liberal, they don't want to share facilities like a changing room with a biologically intact male. Why aren't they allowed a voice?

One thing nobody is being denied is a voice. There has been a long consultation process on this.
Again, rather than anecdotes, is there any evidence of problems in changing rooms in Ireland? Are women avoiding gyms? Have they stopped going to pubs in case a trans woman is in the toilets?
People’s fears can be very irrational. Doesn’t mean they are not real but we can’t make law based on them. In America when they started mixing the schools there was a massive amount of fear in the white community about the dangers this would bring. Should those fears have been taken into account? I would say no.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

One thing nobody is being denied is a voice. There has been a long consultation process on this.
Again, rather than anecdotes, is there any evidence of problems in changing rooms in Ireland? Are women avoiding gyms? Have they stopped going to pubs in case a trans woman is in the toilets?
People’s fears can be very irrational. Doesn’t mean they are not real but we can’t make law based on them. In America when they started mixing the schools there was a massive amount of fear in the white community about the dangers this would bring. Should those fears have been taken into account? I would say no.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So in summary:
- you had your chance in the consultation
- fears are irrational
- Concerns are akin to racism.

Is that it?

[Ozyhibby]

So in summary:
- you had your chance in the consultation
- fears are irrational
- Concerns are akin to racism.

Is that it?

In my defence, I did ask if there was any real evidence from a neighbouring country who have had this policy for 7 years?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

One thing nobody is being denied is a voice. There has been a long consultation process on this.
Again, rather than anecdotes, is there any evidence of problems in changing rooms in Ireland? Are women avoiding gyms? Have they stopped going to pubs in case a trans woman is in the toilets?
People’s fears can be very irrational. Doesn’t mean they are not real but we can’t make law based on them. In America when they started mixing the schools there was a massive amount of fear in the white community about the dangers this would bring. Should those fears have been taken into account? I would say no.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Does it need to be a full rape
What about women not wanting to see a cock in their changing room. You can hit out with the nonsense cliche that this changes nothing in the law there but we all now that's pish. There will be no way to say if someone is trans they will literally be a women, even though the vast majority keep their *****.

Maybe I'm different as I have daughters who are very Liberal politically, but simply don't want *****'s near them when they are naked in the gym or any female only.

Many trans women now chose to have beards, that could be scary to see in the toilets for a rape victim.

It's downright misogyny men telling women what is right and wrong

[Ozyhibby]

Does it need to be a full rape
What about women not wanting to see a cock in their changing room. You can hit out with the nonsense cliche that this changes nothing in the law there but we all now that's pish. There will be no way to say if someone is trans they will literally be a women, even though the vast majority keep their *****.

Maybe I'm different as I have daughters who are very Liberal politically, but simply don't want *****'s near them when they are naked in the gym or any female only.

Many trans women now chose to have beards, that could be scary to see in the toilets for a rape victim.

It's downright misogyny men telling women what is right and wrong

All I’m asking is if this has been a problem in Ireland? You have given hypotheticals?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

So in summary:
- you had your chance in the consultation
- fears are irrational
- Concerns are akin to racism.

Is that it?

The trying to mix it with racism is utterly disgusting imo. Men telling rape victims or people with disabilities that have complained that they are bigoted, is also vile

[Stairway 2 7]

All I’m asking is if this has been a problem in Ireland? You have given hypotheticals?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How's it hypothetical. Most females polled don't want *****'s in the changing room. Females I know don't want it. You are asking for full on rapes.

Father knows best though

[Ozyhibby]

How's it hypothetical. Most females polled don't want *****'s in the changing room. Females I know don't want it. You are asking for full on rapes.

Father knows best though

Has this been a problem in Ireland?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

Has this been a problem in Ireland?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How the hell would we get that information, it's utterly ridiculous and you know it. In the uk females don't want biological males in female spaces, that's all that matters. Or are you telling the females they are wrong

[Moulin Yarns]

Does it need to be a full rape
What about women not wanting to see a cock in their changing room. You can hit out with the nonsense cliche that this changes nothing in the law there but we all now that's pish. There will be no way to say if someone is trans they will literally be a women, even though the vast majority keep their *****.

Maybe I'm different as I have daughters who are very Liberal politically, but simply don't want *****'s near them when they are naked in the gym or any female only.

Many trans women now chose to have beards, that could be scary to see in the toilets for a rape victim.

It's downright misogyny men telling women what is right and wrong

Trans women with beards? 😂😂😂

I think you have mixed up drag artists with real trans women.

[Stairway 2 7]

Trans women with beards? 😂😂😂

I think you have mixed up drag artists with real trans women.

I'm really not, your laughing faces would be seen as quite bigoted by some nowadays. It's a common trend now

https://www.buzzfeed.com/patrickstrudwick/this-transgender-woman-has-a-full-beard-and-she-couldnt-be-h

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.teenvogue.com/story/how-my-beard-affects-my-gender-identity-as-a-trans-femme/amp

[archie]

Has this been a problem in Ireland?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://unherd.com/2021/07/how-the-trans-activists-fooled-ireland/

[ronaldo7]

The Barbie Kardashian case has caused uproar in Ireland. I guess the issue is how much risk is society prepared to take by putting people like them in a female prison.

Uproar, really?

The petition to remove her from limericks prison got to 1817 signatures.

[Ozyhibby]

https://unherd.com/2021/07/how-the-trans-activists-fooled-ireland/

So that’s a no then?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[He's here!]

Good piece from Johann Lamont on the dangers inherent in this bill. Would that more of the current Labour MSPs weren't so timid:



MSPs must not vote for a gender reform Bill they do not really support

We are being invited to believe that sexual predators have never thought to lie before and the safeguards proposed are risible

While the Court of Session ruling was disappointing, it made one thing crystal clear.
The Gender Recognition Reform Bill (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/03/03/gender-change-applications-scotland-set-surge/), which MSPs will vote on next week, poses a huge threat to single-sex spaces and would create a powerful new weapon which predatory men could exploit to harm women and girls.
For years SNP ministers have repeatedly, and shamefully, sought to dodge questions over whether Gender Recognition Certificates – to be handed out without hindrance if Nicola Sturgeon gets her way – change a person’s legal sex for the purposes of the Equality Act.
But Lady Haldane confirmed without any doubt that in the eyes of the law, a biological male with a GRC becomes legally female and gains significant new rights.
While we may not like that verdict, we should be grateful that we finally have legal certainty before MSPs vote on what I believe to be one of the most dangerous and misguided Bills in Holyrood’s history.
The so-called “safeguards” being proposed are utterly risible.
Ministers claim signing a declaration stating that you identify as the opposite sex is a solemn step, with a fraudulent application punishable by up to two years in jail.

But this could not conceivably work.
If gender identity is based solely on how a person feels, how could a court possibly prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a declaration had been made in bad faith?
We are being invited to believe that sexual predators (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/11/24/un-says-nicola-sturgeons-gender-reforms-could-open-door-violent/) have never thought to lie before.
But the lesson of my life is that male abusers will do the most extraordinary things to access vulnerable women and children. Even Ms Sturgeon accepts abusers may take advantage of this system.
So it is utterly sickening that vulnerable women and children are still to be viewed as collateral damage, sacrificed at the altar of gender ideology.
If a convicted rapist, post-conviction, can transition and get placed in a female jail, then all bets are off over how you protect women. And you certainly reveal no understanding of or empathy with traumatised women.
I often wonder how we got here. For most of the 21 years that I sat in parliament, these issues seemed uncontroversial.
I thought the mantra "a trans woman is a woman" was about being kind. Of course, men who wished to live their lives as women were to be treated with dignity and respect.
Then, without anyone really noticing, the narrative changed. Trans women were literally women (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/01/26/nicola-sturgeons-transgender-reforms-wont-protect-women-says/). Men had become the opposite sex.
We never in our wildest moments considered that "being kind" would lead to male-bodied people in sports such as cycling and swimming competing against women and girls.
But the problem was that once you accept that literally "trans women are women", you've conceded the logic of all these other arguments.
It was only by chance that I became interested in the details of the Forensic Medical Services Bill, which was passed in my final months as an MSP.
The committee that examined the legislation had called for it to be amended so that a victim of sexual offences could request to be examined by a woman, to be defined in legislation (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/10/27/snp-minister-resigns-can-vote-against-nicola-sturgeons-transgender/) by their sex, not gender.
The Scottish Government tried its best to pretend this recommendation didn't exist.
But I won an argument within my own party, tabling an amendment in line with the committee's recommendation.
I know Ms Sturgeon did not want to support it. But it led to a debate within the SNP group and to their credit, their MSPs made it clear they would not be whipped into supporting something they did not believe in.
In the end my amendment was passed overwhelmingly with SNP support.
I believe the same thing may be happening now, albeit on a larger scale, and that the same tipping point is being reached.
SNP MSPs, as well as many in the Labour Party, have real concerns over the self-identification system (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2022/03/04/nicola-sturgeon-may-come-regret-rushing-gender-self-id-legislation/). I firmly believe that there is not a majority for it across the Parliament.
SNP rebels have been emboldened rather than cowed. Ash Regan, who bravely quit her ministerial post to vote against the legislation at stage one, has emerged with her political reputation greatly enhanced.
Within my own party, I do not believe there is majority support for the proposals among the membership nor the Holyrood group.
A principled Labour politician would look at this travesty of a Bill and refuse to vote for it on substance.
A cynical one would look at it and say: "Why are we giving Nicola Sturgeon cover (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/12/09/ministers-threaten-legal-action-fears-nicola-sturgeons-gender/) and a way out of a huge political mess?"
Either way, you get to the same place.
Some people have presented the passage of this Bill as a foregone conclusion. I think there is still hope that our lawmakers will pause and reflect.
People like Reem Alsalem, the UN Special Rapporteur on women and girls, are raising grave concerns (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/12/01/nicola-sturgeon-dismisses-un-warning-transgender-laws-not-founded/).
Supporters of self-ID can attempt to traduce old feminists like me or experts like Ms Alsalem as Right-wing bigots or being too stupid to realise we’re being used. But it’s not really credible, is it?
Parliamentarians have an obligation to ask themselves, will this legislation make life more or less safe for vulnerable women and children? Does it empower or disempower male predators?
These are serious questions to which the Scottish Government has given joke answers. And until we get answers that put the safety of women and girls first, MSPs should not be voting for this.
There’s also a question that I’ve been asking myself recently.
Can we be still confident that the people with the power to make the law will not vote for something that, in their hearts, they don't believe in, and risks making the most vulnerable in our society less safe?
In my more optimistic moments, I believe that we can be.

[ronaldo7]

So that’s a no then?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

At least we've had a consultation here before any introduction. Imagine we hadn't.

[archie]

Uproar, really?

The petition to remove her from limericks prison got to 1817 signatures.

And that's the only indicator?

[Stairway 2 7]

So that’s a no then?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Your definition is full rape problem, women being unhappy with a decision no problem. Men should make more decisions for women, we know best

[ronaldo7]

And that's the only indicator?

I just don't think it caused 'uproar'

How many people need to discuss it to cause uproar? A few journalists, or many a couple of interested groups.

[Ozyhibby]

Your definition is full rape problem, women being unhappy with a decision no problem. Men should make more decisions for women, we know best

I didn’t ask if there were people unhappy about it. I can find them. And if you get the right papers on board you can even create more people who will be outraged.
I asked if there was evidence of problems with changing areas in Ireland since it’s introduction?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

I didn’t ask if there were people unhappy about it. I can find them. And if you get the right papers on board you can even create more people who will be outraged.
I asked if there was evidence of problems with changing areas in Ireland since it’s introduction?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But your problem is a full on rape. You think it's a win saying see no rape

Your dismissing women's feelings and opinions. Have they got the right to say they don't want male genitals in their changing rooms, or people with male genitals in rape crisis centres, or people with disabilities being washed by people with male genitalia

You just bash on saying see no rape in Ireland so all of the above is mute, women listen eh

[Ozyhibby]

But your problem is a full on rape. You think it's a win saying see no rape

Your dismissing women's feelings and opinions. Have they got the right to say they don't want male genitals in their changing rooms, or people with male genitals in rape crisis centres, or people with disabilities being washed by people with male genitalia

You just bash on saying see no rape in Ireland so all of the above is mute, women listen eh

Where did I mention rape?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

Where did I mention rape?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well that is the only quantifiable thing you will get from Ireland. What else are you looking for its utterly ridiculous.

[archie]

I didn’t ask if there were people unhappy about it. I can find them. And if you get the right papers on board you can even create more people who will be outraged.
I asked if there was evidence of problems with changing areas in Ireland since it’s introduction?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Here's the isue with what you are looking for. You want hard quantifiable evidence of people's behviours. This is really difficult to establish, but it is there. An example of this is around the energy crisis. By your approach the only indicator of distress would be disconections or maybe pre pay meters being installed. But behind that there is a whole group of people who don't turn on heating, retreat to one room, shower less and so on and so on. These behavioural changes are really difficult to capture over a short period and without detailed research. Similarly, I suspect women will just change behaviour; not go to the gym; avoid shops with certain changing room rules and so on. Is that really a victory?

I could cite the Primark protests here, triggered by this: https://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2022-09-26/primark-reviews-unisex-changing-rooms-as-men-walk-in-on-woman Primark did change their policy. Was this woman a racist or did she have unevidenced fears?

[He's here!]

That’s is complete nonsense. I couldn’t say for sure but I’m sure opposition to the poll tax was higher than 60%? Also, people cared about the poll tax. Most people in Scotland only have minimal awareness this is even happening. And the percentage of people directly affected by it is tiny. To compare it with the poll tax is a joke and make Rowling look foolish.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is one of the major concerns around this legislation - that many won't understand its implications until it becomes law, something Rowling is right to make headlines about.

I'm unclear why you think the percentage of people affected by this legislation will be tiny. The topic may appear niche, but last week's Court of Session judicial review and the forthcoming legislation will affect us all. We're about to see the word 'sex' in Scotland lose its meaning and GRC certificates handed out with no diagnosis, checks or safeguards of any kind. Self identification is all that is required. Sturgeon's claim that her new gender laws do not grant anyone significant new rights simply does not hold water and I find it inconceivable that she's oblivious to the coach and horses she is riding through hard-fought women's rights.

As Sonia Sodha pointed out in the Guardian last week: "Sturgeon has ignored female victims of male violence, treated the concerns of the UN special rapporteur dismissively (https://www.thenational.scot/news/23147252.nicola-sturgeon-uns-trans-law-reform-concerns-will-addressed/) and failed to listen to young people who received appalling care from NHS Scotland and now regret their transition. Her implausible mantra remains that no man will abuse the system, women’s rights are not affected and evidence reviewed by an English paediatrician has no relevance to Scottish children. The most likely outcome is that Sturgeon, a self-professed feminist and nationalist, will leave the door wide open for a Conservative government in Westminster to step in to protect Scottish women, by updating the Equality Act (https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/623243) to clarify its sex-based protections for women apply only to those who are biologically female."

Her final sentence may prove very close to the mark - and who knows, perhaps that what Sturgeon has wanted all along.

[Stairway 2 7]

Here's the isue with what you are looking for. You want hard quantifiable evidence of people's behviours. This is really difficult to establish, but it is there. An example of this is around the energy crisis. By your approach the only indicator of distress would be disconections or maybe pre pay meters being installed. But behind that there is a whole group of people who don't turn on heating, retreat to one room, shower less and so on and so on. These behavioural changes are really difficult to capture over a short period and without detailed research. Similarly, I suspect women will just change behaviour; not go to the gym; avoid shops with certain changing room rules and so on. Is that really a victory?

I could cite the Primark protests here, triggered by this: https://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2022-09-26/primark-reviews-unisex-changing-rooms-as-men-walk-in-on-woman Primark did change their policy. Was this woman a racist or did she have unevidenced fears?

Further back I put up a article from a paralysed woman who was petrified at the thought trans women would be able to give her intimate care. Not quantifiable, so not a problem I guess..

[He's here!]

Further back I put up a article from a paralysed woman who was petrified at the thought trans women would be able to give her intimate care. Not quantifiable, so not a problem I guess..

Good point.

[Ozyhibby]

Further back I put up a article from a paralysed woman who was petrified at the thought trans women would be able to give her intimate care. Not quantifiable, so not a problem I guess..

Another hypothetical.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

Another hypothetical.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

She's literally a real person, who is terrified because the rule change will mean she won't be able to refuse as it will be a woman doing it. Just because it doesn't effect you, you don't care if women aren't happy or there wishes are listened to.

[James310]

Another hypothetical.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You as a man are basically telling a disabled woman her fears are not valid and she just needs to get on with it?

[LewysGot2]

You as a man are basically telling a disabled woman her fears are not valid and she just needs to get on with it?

For the virtue signalling purist it is political. "Progressive" is the new camouflage vehicle for political intolerance.

For some males it's misogyny, sadly.

For many males it is naively not realising it is simply their privilege that makes them think its not a problem. Maybe they don't have daughters or sisters or wives...but they all have mothers. Even if it was hypothetical that someone might abuse a disabled women or elderly it's the anxiety and vulnerability that is being dismissed. The vulnerable person's voice being dismissed.

My mum was in a care home. She needed full personal care. Had she got that from anyone other than a person of the same biological sex she would have refused personal care. Her dignity and comfort isnt hypothetical. If women feel safer with other women who are we to dismiss that?

[James310]

For the virtue signalling purist it is political. "Progressive" is the new camouflage vehicle for political intolerance.

For some males it's misogyny, sadly.

For many males it is naively not realising it is simply their privilege that makes them think its not a problem. Maybe they don't have daughters or sisters or wives...but they all have mothers. Even if it was hypothetical that someone might abuse a disabled women or elderly it's the anxiety and vulnerability that is being dismissed. The vulnerable person's voice being dismissed.

My mum was in a care home. She needed full personal care. Had she got that from anyone other than a person of the same biological sex she would have refused personal care. Her dignity and comfort isnt hypothetical. If women feel safer with other women who are we to dismiss that?

Men telling woman that their fears and anxiety are not valid because the situation that you are anxious about hasn't happened is an argument that makes no sense. Have a look at the mental health thread on here, quite a few people suffer from anxiety and imagine telling them to basically get on with it and their fears are not valid because the thing they are anxious about is hypothetical and hasn't actually happened.

[neil7908]

For the virtue signalling purist it is political. "Progressive" is the new camouflage vehicle for political intolerance.

For some males it's misogyny, sadly.

For many males it is naively not realising it is simply their privilege that makes them think its not a problem. Maybe they don't have daughters or sisters or wives...but they all have mothers. Even if it was hypothetical that someone might abuse a disabled women or elderly it's the anxiety and vulnerability that is being dismissed. The vulnerable person's voice being dismissed.

My mum was in a care home. She needed full personal care. Had she got that from anyone other than a person of the same biological sex she would have refused personal care. Her dignity and comfort isnt hypothetical. If women feel safer with other women who are we to dismiss that?

There has been a bit of decent debate on here from both sides but as soon as I read "virtue signalling purist" I immediately stopped reading.

[He's here!]

For the virtue signalling purist it is political. "Progressive" is the new camouflage vehicle for political intolerance.

For some males it's misogyny, sadly.

For many males it is naively not realising it is simply their privilege that makes them think its not a problem. Maybe they don't have daughters or sisters or wives...but they all have mothers. Even if it was hypothetical that someone might abuse a disabled women or elderly it's the anxiety and vulnerability that is being dismissed. The vulnerable person's voice being dismissed.

My mum was in a care home. She needed full personal care. Had she got that from anyone other than a person of the same biological sex she would have refused personal care. Her dignity and comfort isnt hypothetical. If women feel safer with other women who are we to dismiss that?

Indeed. Working across various primary schools, I am very much in a minority as a male and whenever this legislation is raised in staff rooms there's a consensus that it's hard for men to fully appreciate just how valued protected spaces for women are. On the flip side I'm not aware of any regular female posters on this particular forum and it's interesting to see numerous posts along the lines of 'what's the worst that can happen?'.

[He's here!]

There has been a bit of decent debate on here from both sides but as soon as I read "virtue signalling purist" I immediately stopped reading.

If you read beyond that you'll find he makes a good point.

[He's here!]

Lord McConnell calls for a pause to the legislation and a cross-party summit to address concerns.

Gender law could lure sex offenders to Scotland, claims former First Minister - Daily Record (https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/gender-law-could-lure-sex-28760928)

I know that neither he nor Johann Lamont are MSPs, but in light of the strength of their opposition to the legislation I imagine Labour are torn on the issue.

[Ozyhibby]

Lord McConnell calls for a pause to the legislation and a cross-party summit to address concerns.

Gender law could lure sex offenders to Scotland, claims former First Minister - Daily Record (https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/gender-law-could-lure-sex-28760928)

I know that neither he nor Johann Lamont are MSPs, but in light of the strength of their opposition to the legislation I imagine Labour are torn on the issue.

Doesn’t the legislation have cross party support? Why would it then need a pause for a cross party summit?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LewysGot2]

If you read beyond that you'll find he makes a good point.

It was deliberate. The order and range of reasons for people responding the way they do. Unfortunately, some people don't want to listen to another viewpoint- these people DO exist. They are not the majority. But those who prevented women meeting to discuss their thoughts on issues connected to this debate were stifling debate.

If people don't read beyond that first discussion point then I'm not offended but I'm also not surprised.

[marinello59]

Doesn’t the legislation have cross party support? Why would it then need a pause for a cross party summit?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’ve mainly avoided this one because i genuinely find some of it confusing and there’s a lot of it I don’t feel qualified to address as a male. So I make no comment about the issue itself. :greengrin

We don’t have a second chamber in Scotland, maybe pausing for breath and letting a cross party summit serve that purpose would not be a bad thing. If it’s good legislation then it will still be passed.

[archie]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/dec/18/scotland-controversial-proposed-gender-reforms?CMP=share_btn_tw

[He's here!]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/dec/18/scotland-controversial-proposed-gender-reforms?CMP=share_btn_tw

Well worth a read.

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/gender-reform-risks-providing-incentive-for-sex-offenders-to-come-to-scotland-says-jack-mcconnell-3958190

Both sides of this debate can make good points and have genuine concerns. Then there is this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pretty Boy]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/dec/18/scotland-controversial-proposed-gender-reforms?CMP=share_btn_tw

An interesting read.

It's a far more eloquent extension of my views on the subject. The debate has become so polarised and so dominated by sloganeering that the sensible compromises put forward in the editorial have become unpalatable to the extremes on both sides.

A pause for thought, further debate and additional independent advice would be the sensible move in Scotland right now. It's become such a toxic issue though, even if only among a minority, that there seems an insatiable desire just to get it done.

[Moulin Yarns]

https://news.stv.tv/politics/women-who-support-gender-reforms-left-voiceless-claims-former-scottish-labour-leader-kezia-dugdale

[He's here!]

An interesting read.

It's a far more eloquent extension of my views on the subject. The debate has become so polarised and so dominated by sloganeering that the sensible compromises put forward in the editorial have become unpalatable to the extremes on both sides.

A pause for thought, further debate and additional independent advice would be the sensible move in Scotland right now. It's become such a toxic issue though, even if only among a minority, that there seems an insatiable desire just to get it done.

My thoughts exactly. The Observer editorial is excellent and everyone on both sides of this furore should take the time to read it.

[WhileTheChief..]

If a man self-identifies as a woman, and is subsequently convicted of a crime which would usually carry a custodial sentence for a man, what happens?

Do the courts treat him as a male and lock him up or as female and she gets a lesser sentence?

[Ozyhibby]

If a man self-identifies as a woman, and is subsequently convicted of a crime which would usually carry a custodial sentence for a man, what happens?

Do the courts treat him as a male and lock him up or as female and she gets a lesser sentence?

No idea. Do we have gender specific sentencing?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[degenerated]

Doesn’t the legislation have cross party support? Why would it then need a pause for a cross party summit?


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkWould be interesting to know if sex offenders been lured to anywhere else that has this legislation already in place.

[archie]

https://wingsoverscotland.com/why-do-snp-voters-hate-women/

[Ozyhibby]

https://wingsoverscotland.com/why-do-snp-voters-hate-women/

Perfect example of how things get polarised. No voters favourite blogger claiming SNP voters hate women. [emoji849]
Still if you think that helps your case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[He's here!]

If a man self-identifies as a woman, and is subsequently convicted of a crime which would usually carry a custodial sentence for a man, what happens?

Do the courts treat him as a male and lock him up or as female and she gets a lesser sentence?

Police Scotland have stated that their policy if a woman is raped by a man who self declares as a woman then the rape will be recorded as having been committed by a woman. Needless to say the flak this has attracted has seen the policy reviewed.
Another absurdity is that if a woman who identifies as a man is raped and gets pregnant then her rights under the Abortion Act will be compromised.

[archie]

Perfect example of how things get polarised. No voters favourite blogger claiming SNP voters hate women. [emoji849]
Still if you think that helps your case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I actually posted it without comment.

[WhileTheChief..]

No idea. Do we have gender specific sentencing?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think in general terms yes. The courts will usually not want to imprison females where possible.

[He's here!]

I gather (from my local Labour MSP) that they'll be tabling some stronger amendments to the Bill, having become frustrated at being portrayed as the SG's willing stooges in getting this legislation through. I get the impression that privately the party is all over the place on this issue and that Johann Lamont is correct in asserting that a majority aren't in favour. Think tomorrow's debate ahead of the vote is expected to drag on for many hours.

[Stairway 2 7]

Scot gov trying to whip so no ammendments, as that would risk a delay?

https://mobile.twitter.com/holyroodmandy/status/1604961008086405146

[He's here!]

Scot gov trying to whip so no ammendments, as that would risk a delay?

https://mobile.twitter.com/holyroodmandy/status/1604961008086405146

Sturgeon will rue the day she allowed Harvie and Slater a sniff of power I reckon.

Even if they force it through, the UK govt has the power to intervene (and, I suspect, may well do so):

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/623243

[He's here!]

Scot gov trying to whip so no ammendments, as that would risk a delay?

https://mobile.twitter.com/holyroodmandy/status/1604961008086405146

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-64032916

I see the MSPs Robison has written to asking then to drop their amendments are from all parties, including Michelle Thomson.

[neil7908]

It was deliberate. The order and range of reasons for people responding the way they do. Unfortunately, some people don't want to listen to another viewpoint- these people DO exist. They are not the majority. But those who prevented women meeting to discuss their thoughts on issues connected to this debate were stifling debate.

If people don't read beyond that first discussion point then I'm not offended but I'm also not surprised.

I've read plenty of good points on here from posters who I disagree with. Its an extremely complex issue with no easy answers and I'm genuinely a bit unsure what my own position is in all this.

But as soon as I read or see someone use words like virtue signalling, woke etc then I will save myself time and not proceed any further as from my experience, 99% of what follows is best ignored.

[James310]

Thought I would tune in to Parliament TV to see the final debate on this, Parliament has been suspended though and it all looked like a bit of a farce. Points of order all over the place. Apparently over 150 amendments to be debated.

[WeeRussell]

Thought I would tune in to Parliament TV to see the final debate on this, Parliament has been suspended though and it all looked like a bit of a farce. Points of order all over the place. Apparently over 150 amendments to be debated.

Do you reckon anyone in particular is to blame for the farce?

[James310]

Do you reckon anyone in particular is to blame for the farce?

Looks like they all don't know what they are doing.

As for 150 amendments, that suggests poor legislation.

[Ozyhibby]

Looks like they all don't know what they are doing.

As for 150 amendments, that suggests poor legislation.

Or opposition trying to derail it?
I think it’s good that everyone is getting their say today in parliament. That’s why we elect them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[James310]

Or opposition trying to derail it?
I think it’s good that everyone is getting their say today in parliament. That’s why we elect them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There was an amendment just rejected about everyone getting a say.

[JeMeSouviens]

https://wingsoverscotland.com/why-do-snp-voters-hate-women/

Maths clearly not his strongpoint or he might have realised that the 44% (ex Don't Knows) of SNP voters who disagreed the reforms "pose a safety risk to women" contain enough people (114) to more than cover the 28% (inc Don't Knows) of SNP voters who said it made them more likely to vote SNP (103).

So his statement "SNP voters say they’re MORE likely to vote for the SNP specifically because of a policy that they themselves think puts women in danger" can be (perhaps appositely) summed up in one word - bollocks.

[Ozyhibby]

There was an amendment just rejected about everyone getting a say.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20221220/cf6223b975e84a30573205c46fdda71a.jpg

There is your reason right there. Not debating the issues, just trying to sabotage democracy. I guess once you start down that road it’s easy to keep going.[emoji6]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JeMeSouviens]

Away from the actual issue and going off on a political tangent for a second, it seems the Tories are desperate to try and force the resignation (or not) of Kate Forbes.


Philip Sim @BBCPhilipSim

Row about process continues: almost descending into a sort of filibuster as Conservative MSPs rise to request a range of different ministerial statements tomorrow instead of the scheduled gender reform debate, presumably all with the same result of pushing it into January

Aiui, if it goes to January, she can't avoid the vote by being on maternity leave.

[James310]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20221220/cf6223b975e84a30573205c46fdda71a.jpg

There is your reason right there. Not debating the issues, just trying to sabotage democracy. I guess once you start down that road it’s easy to keep going.[emoji6]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I thought you would be outraged that an amendment to allow everyone to have a say was rejected. Democracy and all that stuff. 😉

[archie]

Away from the actual issue and going off on a political tangent for a second, it seems the Tories are desperate to try and force the resignation (or not) of Kate Forbes.



Aiui, if it goes to January, she can't avoid the vote by being on maternity leave.

There is the introduction of a proxy vote system at the start of next year.

[Ozyhibby]

Away from the actual issue and going off on a political tangent for a second, it seems the Tories are desperate to try and force the resignation (or not) of Kate Forbes.



Aiui, if it goes to January, she can't avoid the vote by being on maternity leave.

You mean it’s not about women’s rights? Shocked.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[James310]

You mean it’s not about women’s rights? Shocked.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Of course that's one side of the coin, the other side is the SNP are railroading this through before Xmas to avoid having to sack Kate Forbes. But all about women's rights and not having to sack a front bench minister. Shocked.

Even a quick listen shows the legislation is flawed. Basic definitions are missing.

[Ozyhibby]

Of course that's one side of the coin, the other side is the SNP are railroading this through before Xmas to avoid having to sack Kate Forbes. But all about women's rights and not having to sack a front bench minister.

Even a quick listen shows the legislation is flawed. Basic definitions are missing.

Yes, the whole thing is rushed right enough.[emoji849] Isn’t this one of the most consulted bits of legislation brought before Holyrood? Think the rushed accusation just doesn’t stack up against the facts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[James310]

Yes, the whole thing is rushed right enough.[emoji849] Isn’t this one of the most consulted bits of legislation brought before Holyrood? Think the rushed accusation just doesn’t stack up against the facts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A quick listen would show you the legislation itself is flawed, the process has been consulted on but the parliamentary process can be counted in single digits in terms of the number of weeks. There was an emergency session last night and they are saying the debate could last until midnight tonight, so the facts do stack up this is being rushed through Parliament. So much for a family friendly Parliament having debates going on until midnight, if I remember correctly there were a number of MSPs standing down as they struggled to fit the work around family and caring responsibility. Having emergency sessions and debates at midnight doesn't sound like a Bill that's had the time it needs.

[JeMeSouviens]

Yes, the whole thing is rushed right enough.[emoji849] Isn’t this one of the most consulted bits of legislation brought before Holyrood? Think the rushed accusation just doesn’t stack up against the facts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Opposition is split between the principled and those gleefully seeking an anti-Indy wedge issue. Pretty clear we're getting both on this thread as well as in the parliament.

[JeMeSouviens]

There is the introduction of a proxy vote system at the start of next year.

Thanks.

[James310]

Kenny Gibson talking well there is not something I thought I would ever say.

[James310]

Opposition is split between the principled and those gleefully seeking an anti-Indy wedge issue. Pretty clear we're getting both on this thread as well as in the parliament.

You think emergency evidence sessions with the UN the night before the vote and debates going on until midnight is the sign of a Bill going through normal parliamentary process?

[James310]

Clearly quite a few MSPs from all parties have concerns about allowing 16 and 17 year olds to get a GRC and potentially starting transition. Under the UN anyone under 18 is a child so I understand the concerns.

[He's here!]

Yes, the whole thing is rushed right enough.[emoji849] Isn’t this one of the most consulted bits of legislation brought before Holyrood? Think the rushed accusation just doesn’t stack up against the facts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As already discussed on here the controversy around the consultation process was how heavily weighted it was in favour of government-funded lobby groups who are passionately in favour of these reforms, while IIRC feminist groups who oppose the legislation were denied a voice.

[He's here!]

Opposition is split between the principled and those gleefully seeking an anti-Indy wedge issue. Pretty clear we're getting both on this thread as well as in the parliament.

That might be the case at Holyrood where the Tories (who have nevertheless allowed a free vote I think?) will be keen to upset the applecart, but I think it would be unfair to suggest that the majority of opposition to this legislation is anything but heartfelt. I remain baffled by Sturgeon's intransigence on an issue which will impact so significantly on women's rights, while any parent should be apprehensive about its potential impact on children as young as 16. Sturgeon's personal life is obviously hers alone but I do sometimes wonder if she might be a little less inflexible on this had she had children of her own.

No amount of suggested amendments will derail this bill because a majority of Labour MSPs will help it pass. However, I think the real battle lines will be drawn only after it passes into law. Now is the time for sensible compromise on a piece of legislation which in parts is simply wrong. The compromises suggested in the Observer editorial posted a couple of days ago are very much in line with what I feel is required.

[archie]

Opposition is split between the principled and those gleefully seeking an anti-Indy wedge issue. Pretty clear we're getting both on this thread as well as in the parliament.I think this is an issue that doesn't really split down constitutional lines. Tories opposed, Lab and SNP ostensibly for , but fissures in the parties about the issue. Greens totally for and, I think, the Lib Dems are. That's not to say that parties don't see political opportunities. But is that so surprising? Fundamentally, the legislation is a mess, starting with the definitional issues.

[superfurryhibby]

It's time for SNP MSP's to take a principled stand and vote against this bill. Sturgeon and Murrell need a rocket right up them, they're so utterly entrenched that they think they are untouchable. It will be a huge mistake to pass this bill and will count against them in the future.

[Ozyhibby]

That might be the case at Holyrood where the Tories (who have nevertheless allowed a free vote I think?) will be keen to upset the applecart, but I think it would be unfair to suggest that the majority of opposition to this legislation is anything but heartfelt. I remain baffled by Sturgeon's intransigence on an issue which will impact so significantly on women's rights, while any parent should be apprehensive about its potential impact on children as young as 16. Sturgeon's personal life is obviously hers alone but I do sometimes wonder if she might be a little less inflexible on this had she had children of her own.

No amount of suggested amendments will derail this bill because a majority of Labour MSPs will help it pass. However, I think the real battle lines will be drawn only after it passes into law. Now is the time for sensible compromise on a piece of legislation which in parts is simply wrong. The compromises suggested in the Observer editorial posted a couple of days ago are very much in line with what I feel is required.

Personally I think it will pass and then be forgotten about. There will be the odd story hear and there regarding some prisoner changing gender etc much the same as in Ireland but that will be it.
Unless you think Scottish people are significantly different from Irish then there is no reason to suspect there will be a different outcome from their experience. In 7 years it’s barely caused a ripple in Irish society. It will be the same here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hibrandenburg]

Unless you think Scottish people are significantly different from Irish then there is no reason to suspect there will be a different outcome from their experience. In 7 years it’s barely caused a ripple in Irish society. It will be the same here.

Scotsmen do tend to wear skirts more than their Irish counterparts, maybe that explains their concern. :dunno:

[Stairway 2 7]

Personally I think it will pass and then be forgotten about. There will be the odd story hear and there regarding some prisoner changing gender etc much the same as in Ireland but that will be it.
Unless you think Scottish people are significantly different from Irish then there is no reason to suspect there will be a different outcome from their experience. In 7 years it’s barely caused a ripple in Irish society. It will be the same here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But your definition of a problem is something quantifiable like rape. Imo opinion that's shocking. Females who don't want male bodied care won't be in any statistic, but don't matter to you. Women who don't want a ***** next to them when changing at the gym don't matter to you, also will be no statistics for this ect ect. Women's opinions and fears don't matter anymore

[Ozyhibby]

But your definition of a problem is something quantifiable like rape. Imo opinion that's shocking. Females who don't want male bodied care won't be in any statistic, but don't matter to you. Women who don't want a ***** next to them when changing at the gym don't matter to you, also will be no statistics for this ect ect. Women's opinions and fears don't matter anymore

Surely Irish women would be kicking up about this if it was happening? Is it happening in Ireland?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[McD]

Away from the actual issue and going off on a political tangent for a second, it seems the Tories are desperate to try and force the resignation (or not) of Kate Forbes.



Aiui, if it goes to January, she can't avoid the vote by being on maternity leave.


Of course that's one side of the coin, the other side is the SNP are railroading this through before Xmas to avoid having to sack Kate Forbes. But all about women's rights and not having to sack a front bench minister. Shocked.

Even a quick listen shows the legislation is flawed. Basic definitions are missing.


sorry if I’ve missed this, what’s the situation with Kate Forbes? Why would she be sacked/resign?

[Stairway 2 7]

Surely Irish women would be kicking up about this if it was happening? Is it happening in Ireland?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Who is going to run an unquantifiable article. What I do know is here in Scotland a woman with no feeling bellow her neck, says her life will be in terror knowing a biological male will now be able to touch her. You basically said her fears and opinions are null. Women's opinions are being quietened. Men who it won't affect telling them their opinions and fears don't matter is poor

[Stairway 2 7]

sorry if I’ve missed this, what’s the situation with Kate Forbes? Why would she be sacked/resign?

Snp are whipping it rather than giving mps a free vote

[marinello59]

sorry if I’ve missed this, what’s the situation with Kate Forbes? Why would she be sacked/resign?

Because if she votes on this according to her principles she will have to resign. Principles tend to get parked though when ministerial salaries are on the line. :greengrin

[Stairway 2 7]

Sex offenders rights looked after. Gallery has to be cleared as women shout shame on yous

Russell Findlays amendment to deny sex offenders a GRC is defeated 59 votes to 64

[He's here!]

Personally I think it will pass and then be forgotten about. There will be the odd story hear and there regarding some prisoner changing gender etc much the same as in Ireland but that will be it.
Unless you think Scottish people are significantly different from Irish then there is no reason to suspect there will be a different outcome from their experience. In 7 years it’s barely caused a ripple in Irish society. It will be the same here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not sure the Irish situation is directly comparable and it's certainly not true that the reforms there have caused barely a ripple. As Ash Regan pointed out last week the legislation there (and I think in Norway) was kind of piggy-backed through on the back of more popular measures (eg marriage law reform) with little in the way of public debate. She also alluded to recent polling in Ireland which shows less than 20% public support for the measures implemented. I note also that the Catholic Church have today opposed the Scottish government legislation, citing dissatisfaction with the impact it has had on women's rights in Ireland.

And this is most certainly about women's rights as much as women's safety. Even today I think it's true to say that women as a sex are discriminated against in society and this legislation will make 'women' into a kind of mixed-sex category - something that will put barriers in place when it comes to furthering the cause of women's rights. It will also make it harder for women to access female-only services and spaces, including hospital wards and intimate care as providers will be unable to grant such requests. That has got to be wrong surely - especially as trans people already have the right to access gender-neutral spaces and specialist services. It's removing women's rights to privacy and dignity - not to mention removal of safeguarding - and it can't surely have come as a surprise to Sturgeon to see that public opposition to such measures is over 60%. Shrugging this off by simply saying it seems to have been OK in Ireland doesn't really cut it when it comes to addressing such valid concerns for women (concerns that men don't have to deal with).

[Skol]

As a male this has no direct impact on me. However although I respect trans rights, I also respect woman’s rights and it strikes me that you cannot meet both without one or other being impacted.

I canvassed the opinion of my wife and daughter who had no reason to object which surprised me.

I do still feel the current approach is wrong and some of the areas of concern could be tightened up to try and strike a balance.

[He's here!]

Sex offenders rights looked after. Gallery has to be cleared as women shout shame on yous

Russell Findlays amendment to deny sex offenders a GRC is defeated 59 votes to 64

‘Shame on you’: Protesters rage as MSPs vote down gender reform amendment (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/shame-on-you-protesters-rage-as-msps-vote-down-gender-reform-amendment/ar-AA15v9YH?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=8042431b5e354cc1aa55ad4aa2f7dad7)

[neil7908]

I'm not sure the Irish situation is directly comparable and it's certainly not true that the reforms there have caused barely a ripple. As Ash Regan pointed out last week the legislation there (and I think in Norway) was kind of piggy-backed through on the back of more popular measures (eg marriage law reform) with little in the way of public debate. She also alluded to recent polling in Ireland which shows less than 20% public support for the measures implemented. I note also that the Catholic Church have today opposed the Scottish government legislation, citing dissatisfaction with the impact it has had on women's rights in Ireland.

And this is most certainly about women's rights as much as women's safety. Even today I think it's true to say that women as a sex are discriminated against in society and this legislation will make 'women' into a kind of mixed-sex category - something that will put barriers in place when it comes to furthering the cause of women's rights. It will also make it harder for women to access female-only services and spaces, including hospital wards and intimate care as providers will be unable to grant such requests. That has got to be wrong surely - especially as trans people already have the right to access gender-neutral spaces and specialist services. It's removing women's rights to privacy and dignity - not to mention removal of safeguarding - and it can't surely have come as a surprise to Sturgeon to see that public opposition to such measures is over 60%. Shrugging this off by simply saying it seems to have been OK in Ireland doesn't really cut it when it comes to addressing such valid concerns for women (concerns that men don't have to deal with).

The Catholic Church... women's rights... 😂😂😂

[JeMeSouviens]

sorry if I’ve missed this, what’s the situation with Kate Forbes? Why would she be sacked/resign?

She’s a minister in scotgov so would be expected to resign if she voted against a govt policy. She’s also a wee free.

[James310]

‘Shame on you’: Protesters rage as MSPs vote down gender reform amendment (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/shame-on-you-protesters-rage-as-msps-vote-down-gender-reform-amendment/ar-AA15v9YH?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=8042431b5e354cc1aa55ad4aa2f7dad7)

Women threatened with arrest if they don't leave the public gallery.

Although begs the question why would you allow convicted sex offenders the ability to change gender? Because they are genuinely nice people underneath it all and are just confused?

[Ozyhibby]

Women threatened with arrest if they don't leave the public gallery.

Although begs the question why would you allow convicted sex offenders the ability to change gender? Because they are genuinely nice people underneath it all and are just confused?

Yes, we should cut their bloody baws off……wait….hang on..
[emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[James310]

Yes, we should cut their bloody baws off……wait….hang on..
[emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You love an emoji when it's actually a serious matter.

No, but should we allow them to change gender so easily as filling in a form and self declaring they are now a woman? I assume you think yes, why?

[He's here!]

The Catholic Church... women's rights... 😂😂😂

A not insignificant body of opinion in Ireland, but irrespective of anyone's opinion of them that's not my point. It just underlines that the Irish example isn't really some glowing example of legislation warmly embraced. It's what folk actually think of what's being introduced that matters, not simply letting it roll over them because it has 'worked' elsewhere.

[Ozyhibby]

A not insignificant body of opinion in Ireland, but irrespective of anyone's opinion of them that's not my point. It just underlines that the Irish example isn't really some glowing example of legislation warmly embraced. It's what folk actually think of what's being introduced that matters, not simply letting it roll over them because it has 'worked' elsewhere.

I think they are pretty much ignored in Ireland these days as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

Yes, we should cut their bloody baws off……wait….hang on..
[emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So the Parliament has voted to protect the rights of sex offenders over women. Is that funny?

[Ozyhibby]

So the Parliament has voted to protect the rights of sex offenders over women. Is that funny?

Don’t think there are any votes until tomorrow?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hibrandenburg]

As a male this has no direct impact on me. However although I respect trans rights, I also respect woman’s rights and it strikes me that you cannot meet both without one or other being impacted.

I canvassed the opinion of my wife and daughter who had no reason to object which surprised me.

I do still feel the current approach is wrong and some of the areas of concern could be tightened up to try and strike a balance.

I'm similar. Living in a country where you regularly have mixed toilets, showers and saunas as well as Doctors and Nurses of both sex and probably all variants along the gender/sex spectrum, it's difficult for me to understand what all the fuss is about. I think the likelihood of some perve getting a sex change or identifying as a woman just to oggle at naked women is very unlikely and what's to stop them just doing it anyway?

It just all feels so Victorian.

[James310]

Don’t think there are any votes until tomorrow?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Eh? They are voting on amendments about every 10 minutes now.

I can ask again, why do you think the rights of sex offenders should be prioritised over the rights of women? Is it funny?

[archie]

Don’t think there are any votes until tomorrow?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The amendment to protect women was defeated.

[Ozyhibby]

The amendment to protect women was defeated.

Is that what it was called?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/conor_matchett/status/1605319995801714689?s=46&t=YFqz_Qa_8L1KctnVcE8kLg

Sounds like it’s had cross party support.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

https://twitter.com/conor_matchett/status/1605319995801714689?s=46&t=YFqz_Qa_8L1KctnVcE8kLg

Sounds like it’s had cross party support.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And?

[Ozyhibby]

And?

Just sharing info.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[He's here!]

Eh? They are voting on amendments about every 10 minutes now.

I can ask again, why do you think the rights of sex offenders should be prioritised over the rights of women? Is it funny?

Very tight on some of the main proposals. Tighter than I expected and it would have been interesting to see how many more SNP MSPs went against the party had they not been whipped. Poor not to have allowed a free vote on an issue like this which transcends party politics.

That's poor to see the amendment re sex offenders narrowly voted down. Unclear what the Lib Dems feel they have to gain by aligning with the government on that one.

[He's here!]

I think they are pretty much ignored in Ireland these days as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Again, missing the point.

[Hibrandenburg]

Very tight on some of the main proposals. Tighter than I expected and it would have been interesting to see how many more SNP MSPs went against the party had they not been whipped. Poor not to have allowed a free vote on an issue like this which transcends party politics.

That's poor to see the amendment re sex offenders narrowly voted down. Unclear what the Lib Dems feel they have to gain by aligning with the government on that one.

Maybe they just think it's right :dunno:

[Stairway 2 7]

I'm similar. Living in a country where you regularly have mixed toilets, showers and saunas as well as Doctors and Nurses of both sex and probably all variants along the gender/sex spectrum, it's difficult for me to understand what all the fuss is about. I think the likelihood of some perve getting a sex change or identifying as a woman just to oggle at naked women is very unlikely and what's to stop them just doing it anyway?

It just all feels so Victorian.

Disabled woman choosing not to have intimate care by biological males, rape victims having support of only biological females, domestic or sexual abuse victims having biological female only shelters. These aren't Victorian or frivolous. Just because they don't affect you or many men saying what should happen, doesn't make it less serious.

[James310]

BBC saying the debate could go on until 0230, anyone still think it's not being rushed through Parliament....even at the height of Covid which was the biggest crisis in our lifetime Parliament never sat like this.

It reminds me of Named Person legislation, eventually found to be illegal and scrapped at a cost of millions.

[Hibrandenburg]

Disabled woman choosing not to have intimate care by biological males, rape victims having support of only biological females, domestic or sexual abuse victims having biological female only shelters. These aren't Victorian or frivolous. Just because they don't affect you or many men saying what should happen, doesn't make it less serious.

Didn't we have people with similar concerns regarding black people 40-50 years ago? If someone is qualified to do a job then racial, sexual or religious prejudice shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against them.

Like I said, I'm still on the fence with this one but as always education will be the key.

[archie]

Didn't we have people with similar concerns regarding black people 40-50 years ago? If someone is qualified to do a job then racial, sexual or religious prejudice shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against them.

Like I said, I'm still on the fence with this one but as always education will be the key.

No we really didn't. Education is the key? Education for whom?

[He's here!]

Didn't we have people with similar concerns regarding black people 40-50 years ago? If someone is qualified to do a job then racial, sexual or religious prejudice shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against them.

Like I said, I'm still on the fence with this one but as always education will be the key.

For a woman to request (for example) that they have a cervical smear test carried out by a female doctor bears no relation to discriminating against a doctor on racial or religious grounds. For any woman that's a wholly reasonable request. For a woman who has suffered abuse at the hands of a man it's unthinkable that they should have to submit to such an intimate examination by a biological male. That's just one example of the fundamental changes women will have to accept once this significantly flawed legislation is passed.

Judging by some of the indifferent responses on here (not specifically yours I should add), I increasingly think the UN rapporteur who last night told Holyrood that policymakers with no direct experience of male on female violence cannot grasp the fear some women feel simply sharing a room with men was right.

[Hibrandenburg]

No we really didn't. Education is the key? Education for whom?

Education that not all trans people are sex monsters just like not all black people are criminals or all gay people are child abusers. We've been here before but thankfully education has helped to eradicate unjustified fears.

[James310]

Didn't we have people with similar concerns regarding black people 40-50 years ago? If someone is qualified to do a job then racial, sexual or religious prejudice shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against them.

Like I said, I'm still on the fence with this one but as always education will be the key.

Educate women who have concerns they shouldn't have concerns?

[Hibrandenburg]

For a woman to request (for example) that they have a cervical smear test carried out by a female doctor bears no relation to discriminating against a doctor on racial or religious grounds. For any woman that's a wholly reasonable request. For a woman who has suffered abuse at the hands of a man it's unthinkable that they should have to submit to such an intimate examination by a biological male. That's just one example of the fundamental changes women will have to accept once this significantly flawed legislation is passed.

Judging by some of the indifferent responses on here (not specifically yours I should add), I increasingly think the UN rapporteur who last night told Holyrood that policymakers with no direct experience of male on female violence cannot grasp the fear some women feel simply sharing a room with men was right.

We've been through this with Irish, gays, blacks and any number of minorities. Why do you think prejudice against trans people is different and acceptable?

[James310]

Education that not all trans people are sex monsters just like not all black people are criminals or all gay people are child abusers. We've been here before but thankfully education has helped to eradicate unjustified fears.

How is a disabled lady who wants a female to give her intimate care accusing a trans person of being a sex monster?

[archie]

Education that not all trans people are sex monsters just like not all black people are criminals or all gay people are child abusers. We've been here before but thankfully education has helped to eradicate unjustified fears.

OK but why would you not support an amendment that specifically excluded sex offenders from the terms of the legislation?

[Hibrandenburg]

How is a disabled lady who wants a female to give her intimate care accusing a trans person of being a sex monster?

What does a disabled lady have to fear from a trans person?

[James310]

What does a disabled lady have to fear from a trans person?

You don't think she has a right to have a biological female to give her intimate care, especially if she has been abused by a man in the past? Or should she just get on with it?

[Hibrandenburg]

OK but why would you not support an amendment that specifically excluded sex offenders from the terms of the legislation?

Would a trans person on the sex offenders list be allowed to do a job that involves intimate contact with patients or vulnerable people?

[Hibrandenburg]

You don't think she has a right to have a biological female to give her intimate care, especially if she has been abused by a man in the past? Or should she just get on with it?

Should someone who was robbed by a black person be allowed to discriminate against all black people.

Like I say, I'm split between both sides of the debate, but that's because there's strong arguments on both sides.

[archie]

What does a disabled lady have to fear from a trans person?

Ask this disabled woman https://twitter.com/hen10freeman/status/1603022204467351556

[James310]

Ask this disabled woman https://twitter.com/hen10freeman/status/1603022204467351556

Powerful stuff, how anyone could read that and still think there isn't a problem is beyond me.

[archie]

Should someone who was robbed by a black person be allowed to discriminate against all black people.

Like I say, I'm split between both sides of the debate, but that's because there's strong arguments on both sides.
No. But nor should I as a white person be allowed to say I'm black just because I feel that I am.

[Hibrandenburg]

Ask this disabled woman https://twitter.com/hen10freeman/status/1603022204467351556

What about patients not wanting black people touch them, is that a valid concern? Should all gynecologists be female, should all urologists be male or should people be given a choice rather than simply allowing prejudice to win the day. I'm sure the lady in your example wouldn't have a trans person forced upon her, medical professionals are sensible enough to take individuals circumstances into account when providing treatment.

[Ozyhibby]

No. But nor should I as a white person be allowed to say I'm black just because I feel that I am.

Ah, so your against the whole idea? That doesn’t really change with the legislation?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hibrandenburg]

No. But nor should I as a white person be allowed to say I'm black just because I feel that I am.

That makes no sense, the gender spectrum is not just black and white, there's lots in-between. A better example would be can a person born to different coloured parents decide if they're black, white or something in-between.

[archie]

What about patients not wanting black people touch them, is that a valid concern? Should all gynecologists be female, should all urologists be male or should people be given a choice rather than simply allowing prejudice to win the day. I'm sure the lady in your example wouldn't have a trans person forced upon her, medical professionals are sensible enough to take individuals circumstances into account when providing treatment.
Don't be so sure. We already have guidance that if a woman objects to a trans identifying male is in a female ward the line is there are no men in the ward. In addition, it will be a criminal offence to reveal if someone has a GRC. So there can be no discretion in the manner you suggest.

[archie]

That makes no sense, the gender spectrum is not just black and white, there's lots in-between. A better example would be can a person born to different coloured parents decide if they're black, white or something in-between.

Why does it make no sense? f I can identify as anywhere on the 'gender spectrum' then why can't I identify on a racial spectrum?

[Hibrandenburg]

Why does it make no sense? f I can identify as anywhere on the 'gender spectrum' then why can't I identify on a racial spectrum?

As far as I'm concerned you can identify as what you feel you need to. Crack on.

[archie]

As far as I'm concerned you can identify as what you feel you need to. Crack on.

Fine, but it's not all about individual feelings It would undermine anti-racism approaches and work to improve outcomes for racially disadvantaged groups. The issue of confusion with the gender definition is that it confused and vague. And gender isn't sex. Unless you are suggesting that people can change sex?

[He's here!]

We've been through this with Irish, gays, blacks and any number of minorities. Why do you think prejudice against trans people is different and acceptable?

A woman requesting female assistance in the example I gave does not make her prejudiced against trans people.

[He's here!]

Bemused by Shona Robison's justification for allowing 16 year olds to change their legal gender. Yes you can vote, leave home or get married at that age but you change your vote, leave a marriage or go back home. If you change your gender you are legally bound to live in it for life.

[Ozyhibby]

Bemused by Shona Robison's justification for allowing 16 year olds to change their legal gender. Yes you can vote, leave home or get married at that age but you change your vote, leave a marriage or go back home. If you change your gender you are legally bound to live in it for life.

You can literally change your gender. That’s what this is all about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[He's here!]

Fine, but it's not all about individual feelings It would undermine anti-racism approaches and work to improve outcomes for racially disadvantaged groups. The issue of confusion with the gender definition is that it confused and vague. And gender isn't sex. Unless you are suggesting that people can change sex?

According to the recent Court of Session ruling a GRC changes your sex for the purposes of the Equality Act.

We're entering the land of make believe.

[He's here!]

You can literally change your gender. That’s what this is all about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's not the point I'm making.

[Ozyhibby]

That's not the point I'm making.

I’m not sure what point you were making then?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

The comparison to racism is abhorrent misogynistic nonsense. Telling a female that has been raped and doesn't want a biological male counselling her, that she is bigoted is brutal.

Men constantly saying, why don't women just get on with it.

[Crunchie]

According to the recent Court of Session ruling a GRC changes your sex for the purposes of the Equality Act.

We're entering the land of make believe.

We entered that land a long time ago. These clowns in the SG and Sturgeon in particular are leaving one sorry mess for our offspring.

[He's here!]

BBC saying the debate could go on until 0230, anyone still think it's not being rushed through Parliament....even at the height of Covid which was the biggest crisis in our lifetime Parliament never sat like this.

It reminds me of Named Person legislation, eventually found to be illegal and scrapped at a cost of millions.

I see the debate had to be brought to an end early due to the Holyrood lighting system being on a timer and leaving the chamber in darkness at midnight. Less than half the 150 amendments had been debated.

[Stairway 2 7]

A male rapist could change to female after being charged. It will then go as a female on female crime and he would be sent to a female prison if convicted.

LucyHunterB
Tied vote on Michelle Thomson's amendment pausing GRC applications by anyone charged with a sexual offence is a tied vote 61/61. Deputy Presiding Officer (in charge) uses casting vote to defeat citing long-standing convention

[He's here!]

The amendment to protect women was defeated.

In addition to that it's particularly disappointing to read that Michelle Thomson's proposed amendment suggesting a pause to the GRC applications of known sex offenders was defeated by the presiding officer's casting vote after being tied 61-61. Bemused as to how anyone could object to that.

[Pretty Boy]

The comparison to racism is abhorrent misogynistic nonsense. Telling a female that has been raped and doesn't want a biological male counselling her, that she is bigoted is brutal.

Men constantly saying, why don't women just get on with it.

Yep I'm stunned by that.

A victim of sexual assault or rape not wanting to be touched by someone with some or all male sexual organs is comparable to a racist not wanting to be touched by a black doctor.

I read Eddie Izzard the other day saying she can flip between 'boy mode' and 'girl mode' simply by changing shoes. Maybe someone should have told Emily Davidson that, would have let her live a long and happy life. They can tell rape victims that as well; 'well the doctor actually has ladies shoes on so just get on with it you filthy bigot'.

[Hibrandenburg]

The comparison to racism is abhorrent misogynistic nonsense. Telling a female that has been raped and doesn't want a biological male counselling her, that she is bigoted is brutal.

Men constantly saying, why don't women just get on with it.

Oh get off your high horse, comparisons are perfectly legitimate when trying to understand a situation, it's how people build opinions.. It doesn't mean I'm equating one to the other. I've worked with trans people and some of the treatment they receive is akin to racism and due to lack of education they all get stamped as being sexual perverts in much the same way gay people were labelled not so long ago. Nobody is accusing rape victims of being bigots here, that's just you being hyperbolic as usual.

I'm trying to get my head around arguments on both sides and to do that I need to make comparisons and try and see things from both sides of the story, maybe you should try that rather than go at anyone not 100% aligned with your opinion like an attack dog.

[Ozyhibby]

A male rapist could change to female after being charged. It will then go as a female on female crime and he would be sent to a female prison if convicted.

LucyHunterB
Tied vote on Michelle Thomson's amendment pausing GRC applications by anyone charged with a sexual offence is a tied vote 61/61. Deputy Presiding Officer (in charge) uses casting vote to defeat citing long-standing convention

Does the GRA change that? I thought that could happen already?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

Does the GRA change that? I thought that could happen already?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There will literally be no way of determination now. Its great there is more trans rights. I think everyone on here would be happy for trans people to have every freedom we could offer bar a few minor caveats. The problem is some trans groups don't agree with this, this say trans women are literally women and people who disagree are bigoted

[Stairway 2 7]

Oh get off your high horse, comparisons are perfectly legitimate when trying to understand a situation, it's how people build opinions.. It doesn't mean I'm equating one to the other. I've worked with trans people and some of the treatment they receive is akin to racism and due to lack of education they all get stamped as being sexual perverts in much the same way gay people were labelled not so long ago. Nobody is accusing rape victims of being bigots here, that's just you being hyperbolic as usual.

I'm trying to get my head around arguments on both sides and to do that I need to make comparisons and try and see things from both sides of the story, maybe you should try that rather than go at anyone not 100% aligned with your opinion like an attack dog.
That's a get out of jail. You compared women not wanting genetically male people in female only situations to racism multiple times.

[He's here!]

I’m not sure what point you were making then?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm pointing out that Robison equated changing your legal gender at 16 to getting married, leaving home or voting. You can vote for anyone you like or not vote at all. You can end a marriage and, for most, you can go back home. A GRC is for life and an attempt to abandon your acquired gender could, under the terms of the legislation, make you liable to prosecution. IMHO (and clearly many others) that is a too hefty a responsibility for a 16-year-old, particularly as it has been confirmed you can begin the process of living in your acquired gender at 15. Sure, there will be some for whom such a move will be entirely manageable but who among us didn't see their views, life experience and biology develop between 15 and 18? Is embarking on a change that could potentially lead to irreversible medical intervention really advisable at 15?

[Hibrandenburg]

That's a get out of jail. You compared women not wanting genetically male people in female only situations to racism multiple times.

I most certainly did not. I won't hold my breath waiting on an apology though.