The Trans Rights Debate

[hibby rae]

Bad topic for the SNP to use to highlight an otherwise arguable point. These reforms were brought in despite a lack of general public support.

Two points I think are relevant looking at the polling, the recent polling appears to have been conducted on the behalf of right wing publications, Wings Over Scotland, or anti-GRA groups. However, back in February it would seem a majority approved of the legislation when the BBC was the source. It would be interesting to see who was involved as from what I can see in the media, online, and in my own experience, the two main groups opposed appear to be women, over a certain age, and men, again I think age will play a factor.

"Professor Sir John Curtice from Strathclyde University said: “If the views of the under 35s are indicative of the direction we are going, it may well be in ten or twenty years time what at the moment is the subject of intense debate perhaps will become less so.”"

Another point about public opinion and elected officials possibly being out of step is, they are voted in to act on the public's behalf, and generally remove consultation from decision making (The SNP had it in their manifesto, which provided the authority to act). This means they will be provided a great deal of independence in their actions, separate from possible public opinion, as we don't live in a country where referendums are commonplace on important issues.

A good example of that is the abolition of the death penalty, a majority of the public still supported it but lawmakers acted too remove it as they saw it as a wrong that needed to be righted.

[superfurryhibby]

No harm in posting it again, the more who get to read it the better! :agree::agree:

Hardly, it’s cliched pish.

[hibby rae]

Hardly, it’s cliched pish.

No coming back there from such a well-structured, reasoned argument :wink:

[Stairway 2 7]

Two points I think are relevant looking at the polling, the recent polling appears to have been conducted on the behalf of right wing publications, Wings Over Scotland, or anti-GRA groups. However, back in February it would seem a majority approved of the legislation when the BBC was the source. It would be interesting to see who was involved as from what I can see in the media, online, and in my own experience, the two main groups opposed appear to be women, over a certain age, and men, again I think age will play a factor.

"Professor Sir John Curtice from Strathclyde University said: “If the views of the under 35s are indicative of the direction we are going, it may well be in ten or twenty years time what at the moment is the subject of intense debate perhaps will become less so.”"

Another point about public opinion and elected officials possibly being out of step is, they are voted in to act on the public's behalf, and generally remove consultation from decision making (The SNP had it in their manifesto, which provided the authority to act). This means they will be provided a great deal of independence in their actions, separate from possible public opinion, as we don't live in a country where referendums are commonplace on important issues.

A good example of that is the abolition of the death penalty, a majority of the public still supported it but lawmakers acted too remove it as they saw it as a wrong that needed to be righted.

The BBC polling last year had every age group a majority saying, they didn't want trans men in changing rooms, female sports or under 18s changing.

I think almost everyone wants more rights for trans people bar a few caveats, like women's only rape support

[He's here!]

Bad topic for the SNP to use to highlight an otherwise arguable point. These reforms were brought in despite a lack of general public support.

Indeed.

[He's here!]

No coming back there from such a well-structured, reasoned argument :wink:

The likes of Jones inhabit the extremes of trans ideology where trans rights are placed above those of women and his comment piece is a lazy reflection of that, failing to acknowledge that those women opposing the bill at no time took an anti-trans stance - possibly because he never bothered to follow the debate and simply piggy-backed his own views on to the final outcome. Had he taken the time to weigh up both sides of the argument he might have understood that a piece of legislation which sees one group's rights supersede those of another by diminishing them can only be regarded as bad law.

[hibby rae]

The BBC polling last year had every age group a majority saying, they didn't want trans men in changing rooms, female sports or under 18s changing.

I think almost everyone wants more rights for trans people bar a few caveats, like women's only rape support

Well the polling this year had a majority supporting the legislation

[hibby rae]

The likes of Jones inhabit the extremes of trans ideology where trans rights are placed above those of women and his comment piece is a lazy reflection of that, failing to acknowledge that those women opposing the bill at no time took an anti-trans stance - possibly because he never bothered to follow the debate and simply piggy-backed his own views on to the final outcome. Had he taken the time to weigh up both sides of the argument he might have understood that a piece of legislation which sees one group's rights supersede those of another by diminishing them can only be regarded as bad law.

Except the 'at no point' bit isn't actually true. Seen it with my own eyes.

I don't agree with the argument women's rights are diminished, and tbh every woman I know bar a couple (who are over both over 70) don't either. I find it a lazy argument with no real evidence to back it

[heretoday]

Except the 'at no point' bit isn't actually true. Seen it with my own eyes.

I don't agree with the argument women's rights are diminished, and tbh every woman I know bar a couple (who are over both over 70) don't either. I find it a lazy argument with no real evidence to back it

I agree with that.

[superfurryhibby]

Except the 'at no point' bit isn't actually true. Seen it with my own eyes.

I don't agree with the argument women's rights are diminished, and tbh every woman I know bar a couple (who are over both over 70) don't either. I find it a lazy argument with no real evidence to back it

The irony of calling another point of view lazy with these kind of points :confused:

Post us a link to the anti trans stuff?

[Stairway 2 7]

Well the polling this year had a majority supporting the legislation

No polling has had a majority supporting the contentious points, like under 18s changing, or women only places being diminished.

The bit you say no real evidence apart from you asking your pals. What about the disabled woman in the pages before that says she deserves biologically female only care. Doesn't fit the narrative so not listened to or transphobic

[Stairway 2 7]

The irony of calling another point of view lazy with these kind of points :confused:

Post us a link to the anti trans stuff?

I've yet to see transphobic stuff, pure unicorn on here anyway

[Moulin Yarns]

I've not done the maths, but I have seen it estimated that there are around 220,000 transgender people in the whole of the UK. So if the total population is 67,000,000 then the probability of a transgender woman or man working in the care system is very small.

Anybody good at maths?

0.0000003% of the total population??

[McSwanky]

I've not done the maths, but I have seen it estimated that there are around 220,000 transgender people in the whole of the UK. So if the total population is 67,000,000 then the probability of a transgender woman or man working in the care system is very small.

Anybody good at maths?

0.0000003% of the total population??I think that works out at about 0.3% of the population?

[He's here!]

While this issue looks to be on hold until after the festive season, I imagine the battle lines will be redrawn as we enter the new year. It's interesting to note that in the interim a Labour MP is among those to have put her name to this letter. Starmer has painted himself into a corner here since he made such a hash of defining what a woman was last year and Labour have been running scared of this debate ever since (hence their supine performance at Holyrood last week).

Cross-party MPs warn women will be put in danger by Nicola Sturgeon’s trans law reforms
msn
Nicola Sturgeon’s transgender law reforms will put women and girls across the UK in danger and must be blocked, female MPs have warned.
Three cross-party MPs have written to Alister Jack, the Scotland Secretary, urging him to intervene after Scotland's gender recognition bill was passed at Holyrood last week to allow people as young as 16 (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/12/20/15-year-old-children-will-able-begin-process-changing-gender/) to change their legal gender simply by signing a declaration.
The legislation reduces the age at which people can apply for a birth certificate with their new sex by two years, and allows people to update their certificate without a gender dysphoria diagnosis.
While the legislation applies to Scots, MPs have warned in a letter to Mr Jack, seen by The Telegraph, that the bill will “threaten the legal basis on which women and girls are currently protected in the rest of the United Kingdom”, as well as posing “a real risk to the safety of women and girls in Scotland”.
Conservative MP Miriam Cates, Labour’s Rosie Duffield (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/09/28/labour-member-defended-rosie-duffield-transgender-views-booed/)and the DUP’s Carla Lockhart, said in the joint letter that there remains “extreme ambiguity” about whether the so-called Gender Recognition Certificates in Scotland have the same legal status (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/12/09/ministers-threaten-legal-action-fears-nicola-sturgeons-gender/) elsewhere in the UK.
The MPs argued that such a change in the law relating to how a biological male could gain access to a Gender Recognition Certificate, stating that he is legally a woman (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/12/21/woman-not-costume-feeling-nicola-sturgeon-warned/), “does not contain adequate safeguards and changes the law relating to the Equality Act”.
They also said that the legislation could put the UK Government in breach of its obligations (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/10/05/scottish-trans-people-may-not-legally-recognised-rest-uk/) under the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.
The letter will heap pressure on the Government to ban the Scottish legislation, in what would likely spark a bitter constitutional row between London and Edinburgh.
Mr Jack has warned that the Government is considering invoking Section 35 of the 1998 Scotland Act, which gives him the power to block a Scottish Parliament bill (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/12/23/tories-should-block-sturgeons-extreme-trans-law/) if he can show “reasonable grounds” to believe that it would obstruct the operation of a law reserved to the UK, or if it would be incompatible with any international obligations.
Rishi Sunak, the Prime Minister, said last week that it was “completely reasonable” for the UK Government to assess the bill. He said that “lots of people” were concerned about its potential impact on “women’s and children’s safety”.
Kemi Badenoch (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/07/23/somerset-house-gender-neutral-row-staff-say-womens-loos-have/), Women and Equalities Minister, has also expressed objections to the legislation, which passed despite opposition from sections of the SNP and some equalities groups. She has said that she shares their concerns, particularly on the bill’s “impact on the functioning of the Equality Act, which is designed to protect all UK citizens”.
A Scottish Government spokesman said:“The bill as passed is within legislative competence and simplifies the process (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/11/09/snp-denying-biology-insisting-people-can-legally-change-gender/) by which a trans person can obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate, which many find intrusive, medicalised and bureaucratic. Any attempt by the UK Government to undermine the democratic decision of the Scottish Parliament will be vigorously contested by the Scottish Government.”

[wookie70]

I think that works out at about 0.3% of the population?

I dare say that figure could also be halved too as usually the complaints are usually around biological men declaring as female. The examples given by those against the legislation are really pretty statistically marginal at best. I have struggled with this but the more I read the less I am concerned with the new legislation.

[Ozyhibby]

While this issue looks to be on hold until after the festive season, I imagine the battle lines will be redrawn as we enter the new year. It's interesting to note that in the interim a Labour MP is among those to have put her name to this letter. Starmer has painted himself into a corner here since he made such a hash of defining what a woman was last year and Labour have been running scared of this debate ever since (hence their supine performance at Holyrood last week).

Cross-party MPs warn women will be put in danger by Nicola Sturgeon’s trans law reforms
msn
Nicola Sturgeon’s transgender law reforms will put women and girls across the UK in danger and must be blocked, female MPs have warned.
Three cross-party MPs have written to Alister Jack, the Scotland Secretary, urging him to intervene after Scotland's gender recognition bill was passed at Holyrood last week to allow people as young as 16 (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/12/20/15-year-old-children-will-able-begin-process-changing-gender/) to change their legal gender simply by signing a declaration.
The legislation reduces the age at which people can apply for a birth certificate with their new sex by two years, and allows people to update their certificate without a gender dysphoria diagnosis.
While the legislation applies to Scots, MPs have warned in a letter to Mr Jack, seen by The Telegraph, that the bill will “threaten the legal basis on which women and girls are currently protected in the rest of the United Kingdom”, as well as posing “a real risk to the safety of women and girls in Scotland”.
Conservative MP Miriam Cates, Labour’s Rosie Duffield (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/09/28/labour-member-defended-rosie-duffield-transgender-views-booed/)and the DUP’s Carla Lockhart, said in the joint letter that there remains “extreme ambiguity” about whether the so-called Gender Recognition Certificates in Scotland have the same legal status (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/12/09/ministers-threaten-legal-action-fears-nicola-sturgeons-gender/) elsewhere in the UK.
The MPs argued that such a change in the law relating to how a biological male could gain access to a Gender Recognition Certificate, stating that he is legally a woman (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/12/21/woman-not-costume-feeling-nicola-sturgeon-warned/), “does not contain adequate safeguards and changes the law relating to the Equality Act”.
They also said that the legislation could put the UK Government in breach of its obligations (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/10/05/scottish-trans-people-may-not-legally-recognised-rest-uk/) under the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.
The letter will heap pressure on the Government to ban the Scottish legislation, in what would likely spark a bitter constitutional row between London and Edinburgh.
Mr Jack has warned that the Government is considering invoking Section 35 of the 1998 Scotland Act, which gives him the power to block a Scottish Parliament bill (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/12/23/tories-should-block-sturgeons-extreme-trans-law/) if he can show “reasonable grounds” to believe that it would obstruct the operation of a law reserved to the UK, or if it would be incompatible with any international obligations.
Rishi Sunak, the Prime Minister, said last week that it was “completely reasonable” for the UK Government to assess the bill. He said that “lots of people” were concerned about its potential impact on “women’s and children’s safety”.
Kemi Badenoch (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/07/23/somerset-house-gender-neutral-row-staff-say-womens-loos-have/), Women and Equalities Minister, has also expressed objections to the legislation, which passed despite opposition from sections of the SNP and some equalities groups. She has said that she shares their concerns, particularly on the bill’s “impact on the functioning of the Equality Act, which is designed to protect all UK citizens”.
A Scottish Government spokesman said:“The bill as passed is within legislative competence and simplifies the process (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/11/09/snp-denying-biology-insisting-people-can-legally-change-gender/) by which a trans person can obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate, which many find intrusive, medicalised and bureaucratic. Any attempt by the UK Government to undermine the democratic decision of the Scottish Parliament will be vigorously contested by the Scottish Government.”

Is it on hold or is it just a case that people don’t really care that much about it as an issue and now that it’s done people have lost what little interest they had in the first place?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[neil7908]

I dare say that figure could also be halved too as usually the complaints are usually around biological men declaring as female. The examples given by those against the legislation are really pretty statistically marginal at best. I have struggled with this but the more I read the less I am concerned with the new legislation.

I've struggled with this debate as a man but have spoken with my (female) partner and other female friends/family who I trust to be honest with me on delicate issues like this.

Not a single one suggested this was anywhere near the top of their list in terms of their safety. The overwhelming response was concern around rampant misogyny across society, rape culture and the shockingly low conviction rate for sexual assault.

Whilst its positive to see so many men on here expressing concerns around women's safety, I look around this site and see very few other threads on this topic. I hope all the energy from this discussion will continue and we'll see all those strongly opposed to the legislation continue to champion women's rights etc going forward.

[McSwanky]

I've struggled with this debate as a man but have spoken with my (female) partner and other female friends/family who I trust to be honest with me on delicate issues like this.

Not a single one suggested this was anywhere near the top of their list in terms of their safety. The overwhelming response was concern around rampant misogyny across society, rape culture and the shockingly low conviction rate for sexual assault.

Interestingly, that's my experience as well. Anecdotal I know, but I haven't found anyone in my circle who consider this bill to affect their personal safety.

[Hibrandenburg]

I've struggled with this debate as a man but have spoken with my (female) partner and other female friends/family who I trust to be honest with me on delicate issues like this.

Not a single one suggested this was anywhere near the top of their list in terms of their safety. The overwhelming response was concern around rampant misogyny across society, rape culture and the shockingly low conviction rate for sexual assault.

Whilst its positive to see so many men on here expressing concerns around women's safety, I look around this site and see very few other threads on this topic. I hope all the energy from this discussion will continue and we'll see all those strongly opposed to the legislation continue to champion women's rights etc going forward.

Good post and I've had a similar debate with female friends and family and none of them have men pretending to be woman very high on their concerns regarding male predators.

It's also interesting to see some of the champions of woman's rights on here who objected to a men's curfew on the thread with that title, one particular poster even suggesting that men who come out in support of woman's rights are even creepy. There's more going on here than meets the eye.

[Ozyhibby]

I've struggled with this debate as a man but have spoken with my (female) partner and other female friends/family who I trust to be honest with me on delicate issues like this.

Not a single one suggested this was anywhere near the top of their list in terms of their safety. The overwhelming response was concern around rampant misogyny across society, rape culture and the shockingly low conviction rate for sexual assault.

Whilst its positive to see so many men on here expressing concerns around women's safety, I look around this site and see very few other threads on this topic. I hope all the energy from this discussion will continue and we'll see all those strongly opposed to the legislation continue to champion women's rights etc going forward.

We all know the concern for women safety is fake. Ironically, a lot of its fuelled by hatred of one woman in particular.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

We all know the concern for women safety is fake. Ironically, a lot of its fuelled by hatred of one woman in particular.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you said that to Joanna Cherry would you feel utterly daft?

I'm personally not concerned about full rape. But I asked my "woke" daughter her opinion and she said for example she would stop going to the gym if there was someone with a ***** getting changed in the females.

I've not asked any females about whether disabled women should have the choice to have biological female care, because who the f would disagree with that. Same goes with rape crisis actually, can't get my head round people being against female only situations

[James310]

We all know the concern for women safety is fake. Ironically, a lot of its fuelled by hatred of one woman in particular.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A wild sweeping arrogant statement. Is someone like Ash Regan SNP MSP not genuinely concerned about women's safety? She resigned her government post and very likely gave up her political career all because she hates Nicola Sturgeon? That makes no sense at all.

[He's here!]

Is it on hold or is it just a case that people don’t really care that much about it as an issue and now that it’s done people have lost what little interest they had in the first place?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's clearly your personal hope, bearing in mind how often you've tried to dismiss debate by claiming nobody's interested in this issue. Right from the start of the thread you've repeated this assertion, yet the fact that a bunch of (almost exclusively) blokes on a football forum have stacked up more than 1,500 posts on what might appear an unlikely topic of discussion for them indicates otherwise. More obviously, the fact it's an issue which has garnered months of national/global interest and media coverage also rather negates your claim.

I get that because this story has often painted Sturgeon in a negative light you'd prefer to see it shut down, but there's a bigger picture here. A piece of legislation which will, in Scotland, render human biology meaningless is more than worthy of ongoing debate.

[He's here!]

We all know the concern for women safety is fake. Ironically, a lot of its fuelled by hatred of one woman in particular.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's poor stuff - and wildly inaccurate. We've seen women lose their jobs and taken to court for daring to claim (correctly IMHO) that a person cannot change their biological sex. We've seen a Scottish government minister put her conscience first by resigning and a high profile SNP MP essentially disowned by her party for speaking her mind on women's rights. Would somebody like J K Rowling invite such a ****storm of abuse and fund a women-only rape crisis centre if she didn't passionately believe that women's (and, just as importantly, children's) rights have not been significantly diminished by this legislation? Sure, Sturgeon is in the line of fire here, but is it such a surprise that somebody who claims to be a 'feminist to her fingertips' has been portrayed as a 'destroyer of women's rights' when she's the one who has essentially driven this bill through?

[500miles]

We all know the concern for women safety is fake. Ironically, a lot of its fuelled by hatred of one woman in particular.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Pretty desperate attempt at " everyone who doesn't agree with me is a bigot".

[Ozyhibby]

Pretty desperate attempt at " everyone who doesn't agree with me is a bigot".

Not everyone. Read what I wrote.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[James310]

Not everyone. Read what I wrote.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You said "We all know the concern for women's safety is fake"

So you never meant that? What's your criteria for deciding if it's fake or genuine?

[Ozyhibby]

You said "We all know the concern for women's safety is fake"

So you never meant that? What's your criteria for deciding if it's fake or genuine?

Sorry, I’ll retract. A lot of the concern for woman’s rights is fake.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

Sorry, I’ll retract. A lot of the concern for woman’s rights is fake.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

On this thread, or in the wider population?

[Ozyhibby]

On this thread, or in the wider population?

I think both. That’s my opinion though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

I think both. That’s my opinion though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ta.

There's definitely a discussion to be had, on another thread, on the extent to which people's opinions on discrete issues are affected by their party allegiances.

[Mr Grieves]

I've struggled with this debate as a man but have spoken with my (female) partner and other female friends/family who I trust to be honest with me on delicate issues like this.

Not a single one suggested this was anywhere near the top of their list in terms of their safety. The overwhelming response was concern around rampant misogyny across society, rape culture and the shockingly low conviction rate for sexual assault.

Whilst its positive to see so many men on here expressing concerns around women's safety, I look around this site and see very few other threads on this topic. I hope all the energy from this discussion will continue and we'll see all those strongly opposed to the legislation continue to champion women's rights etc going forward.

:agree: good post

[He's here!]

I note Angus Robertson has made a rather inane comparison between the passing of last week's vote and the liberation of Nelson Mandela.

Rather undermines Sturgeon's continued insistence that the legislation will be 'merely administrative' in terms of its impact.

[CropleyWasGod]

I note Angus Robertson has made a rather inane comparison between the passing of last week's vote and the liberation of Nelson Mandela.

Rather undermines Sturgeon's continued insistence that the legislation will be 'merely administrative' in terms of its impact.

Here's the actual piece. There is nothing in there about Mandela's liberation.

https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/scotlands-gender-recognition-reform-bill-will-advance-rights-in-keeping-with-nelson-mandelas-wise-words-angus-robertson-3965083

[He's here!]

Here's the actual piece. There is nothing in there about Mandela's liberation.

https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/scotlands-gender-recognition-reform-bill-will-advance-rights-in-keeping-with-nelson-mandelas-wise-words-angus-robertson-3965083

Uh huh.

Liberation, apartheid fight...call it what you will but there's no doubt what he's trying to do by invoking Mandela's name in such an inappropriate context. As Johann Lamont puts it, the pomposity is risible:

https://mobile.twitter.com/JohannLamont

[CropleyWasGod]

Uh huh.

Liberation, apartheid fight...call it what you will but there's no doubt what he's trying to do by invoking Mandela's name in such an inappropriate context. As Johann Lamont puts it, the pomposity is risible:

https://mobile.twitter.com/JohannLamont

He didn't mention his liberation, which is what you claimed, or even apartheid.

[He's here!]

He didn't mention his liberation, which is what you claimed.

He didn't have to. The link he's trying to make is obvious.

Mind you, it probably doesn't quite trump Megan Markle's fatuous claim that a South African perfomer in the Lion King told her that his country celebrated her wedding in the way they did Mandela's release.

[Glory Lurker]

HH, in the space of a few hours you've said the bill was driven through by Nicola Sturgeon (yet had wide cross-party backing) and referenced Johann Lamont. You're having a nightmare, chief!

P.S. other than that I still don't have a view on the actual issue.

[James310]

He didn't mention his liberation, which is what you claimed, or even apartheid.

He is obviously linking the GRA vote to Nelson Mandela. He was roundly laughed at and ridiculed for doing so, so really just made himself look like a fool.

[J-C]

My wife works as a bra fitter at M&S Kinnaird, if any trans gender come in they cannot refuse them the right to use the changing rooms. She's helped trans men with bra fitting and gets compliments on her compassion while doing her job.

[JeMeSouviens]

Ta.

There's definitely a discussion to be had, on another thread, on the extent to which people's opinions on discrete issues are affected by their party allegiances.

I think there are around 4 groups involved in this:

1. Those who believe trans-men/women are men/women and therefore should logically have all the same rights as that-sex-at-birth men/women.

2. Those who don't really believe (1) but would like to live and let live to a varying degree.

3. Those who don't believe (1), think it's all nonsense and any and all trans rights should be resisted.

4. Those who don't actually gaf either way but are delighted it's caused a fracture in the Scottish Yes movement and progressive parties in other places and will do or say anything to stoke that division.


To roughly put them into political parties: Lib Dems and Greens are mostly 1, SNP and Lab are a mix of 1 and 2, Alba are 3 and Tories are mostly a mix of 3 and 4.

[Ozyhibby]

I think there are around 4 groups involved in this:

1. Those who believe trans-men/women are men/women and therefore should logically have all the same rights as that-sex-at-birth men/women.

2. Those who don't really believe (1) but would like to live and let live to a varying degree.

3. Those who don't believe (1), think it's all nonsense and any and all trans rights should be resisted.

4. Those who don't actually gaf either way but are delighted it's caused a fracture in the Scottish Yes movement and progressive parties in other places and will do or say anything to stoke that division.


To roughly put them into political parties: Lib Dems and Greens are mostly 1, SNP and Lab are a mix of 1 and 2, Alba are 3 and Tories are mostly a mix of 3 and 4.

I’d say I’m between 1 and 2 but closer to 2.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bristolhibby]

I've struggled with this debate as a man but have spoken with my (female) partner and other female friends/family who I trust to be honest with me on delicate issues like this.

Not a single one suggested this was anywhere near the top of their list in terms of their safety. The overwhelming response was concern around rampant misogyny across society, rape culture and the shockingly low conviction rate for sexual assault.

Whilst its positive to see so many men on here expressing concerns around women's safety, I look around this site and see very few other threads on this topic. I hope all the energy from this discussion will continue and we'll see all those strongly opposed to the legislation continue to champion women's rights etc going forward.

I was chatting to my wife about this the other day. I even painted the very unlikely picture of her in a swimming pool changing room and a trans woman there with her with her wang out.

She wasn’t phased. Said it would be no different to any woman or girl in her changing room.

She is a teacher and has seen first hand the struggle trans kids go through. Kids who have and do not have their parents support.

Kids whose parents are onside and those who will not let the school call a girl by her new female name and insist teachers dead name her.

I think seeing trans people first hand certainly gives empathy and support to their cause, without diminishing one iota woman’s rights.

J

[neil7908]

I’d say I’m between 1 and 2 but closer to 2.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ditto.

[He's here!]

HH, in the space of a few hours you've said the bill was driven through by Nicola Sturgeon (yet had wide cross-party backing) and referenced Johann Lamont. You're having a nightmare, chief!

P.S. other than that I still don't have a view on the actual issue.

I don't get your point.

Sturgeon has most certainly been a relentless driving force for this legislation, turning a deaf ear to even the most reasoned concerns around its impact on women's and children's rights. Lamont is no longer an MSP and hence had no direct input to the vote. She is, however, a high-profile feminist and one of the bill's fiercest critics. Where's the problem in me referencing both?

[Glory Lurker]

I don't get your point.

Sturgeon has most certainly been a relentless driving force for this legislation, turning a deaf ear to even the most reasoned concerns around its impact on women's and children's rights. Lamont is no longer an MSP and hence had no direct input to the vote. She is, however, a high-profile feminist and one of the bill's fiercest critics. Where's the problem in me referencing both?

I shouldn't have, but I weakly couldn't resist pointing out that factually it wasn't driven through by NS, plus you referenced Lamont - if she said Sauzee was great, I'd worry I didn't know anything about football.

Sorry! All in all though it was meant tongue in cheek. I shouldn't have waded in when I've not got a view.

[500miles]

I think there are around 4 groups involved in this:

1. Those who believe trans-men/women are men/women and therefore should logically have all the same rights as that-sex-at-birth men/women.

2. Those who don't really believe (1) but would like to live and let live to a varying degree.

3. Those who don't believe (1), think it's all nonsense and any and all trans rights should be resisted.

4. Those who don't actually gaf either way but are delighted it's caused a fracture in the Scottish Yes movement and progressive parties in other places and will do or say anything to stoke that division.


To roughly put them into political parties: Lib Dems and Greens are mostly 1, SNP and Lab are a mix of 1 and 2, Alba are 3 and Tories are mostly a mix of 3 and 4.

I'm a hard 2. The problem is there is a lot of room for disagreement here. "Live and let live" doesn't really cover giving life changing medication to kids because they believe something demonstrably untrue about thier bodies. But then again, we let kids go without blood transfusions because of religious nonsense, so I'm generally uncomfortable at the point where the rubber meets the road between belief and medical reality.

[He's here!]

I think there are around 4 groups involved in this:

1. Those who believe trans-men/women are men/women and therefore should logically have all the same rights as that-sex-at-birth men/women.

2. Those who don't really believe (1) but would like to live and let live to a varying degree.

3. Those who don't believe (1), think it's all nonsense and any and all trans rights should be resisted.

4. Those who don't actually gaf either way but are delighted it's caused a fracture in the Scottish Yes movement and progressive parties in other places and will do or say anything to stoke that division.


To roughly put them into political parties: Lib Dems and Greens are mostly 1, SNP and Lab are a mix of 1 and 2, Alba are 3 and Tories are mostly a mix of 3 and 4.

Are you basing that categorisation on how the parties voted last week? If so it would have been interesting to have seen how a free vote for SNP and Labour MPs impacted on that.

[LewysGot2]

I was chatting to my wife about this the other day. I even painted the very unlikely picture of her in a swimming pool changing room and a trans woman there with her with her wang out.

She wasn’t phased. Said it would be no different to any woman or girl in her changing room.

She is a teacher and has seen first hand the struggle trans kids go through. Kids who have and do not have their parents support.

Kids whose parents are onside and those who will not let the school call a girl by her new female name and insist teachers dead name her.

I think seeing trans people first hand certainly gives empathy and support to their cause, without diminishing one iota woman’s rights.

J

Now I may have misunderstood but the issue around safe guarding seems to be how can any female bodied person challenge any male bodied person in a single sex space if the line is blurred - and what impact might that have on women who, for different but valid reason in equality law - might have their need for truly single sex spaces to change in or exercise in taken away? Like women of particular faith groups.

Sure there was quite a stooshie in London over trans women using a single sex pool for much these reasons. There's definitely intersects where rights seem to clash.

[He's here!]

Now I may have misunderstood but the issue around safe guarding seems to be how can any female bodied person challenge any male bodied person in a single sex space if the line is blurred - and what impact might that have on women who, for different but valid reason in equality law - might have their need for truly single sex spaces to change in or exercise in taken away? Like women of particular faith groups.

Sure there was quite a stooshie in London over trans women using a single sex pool for much these reasons. There's definitely intersects where rights seem to clash.

In Scotland there will be no such thing as 'single sex'. In relation to the concerns you mention, the biological concept of womanhood has been done away with and any man who says they are a woman for the purposes of acquiring a GRC will literally become one. We're living in the land of make believe.

[147lothian]

The World Boxing Council, have said they will never allow a transgender born male fight a woman born female. A common sense approach to keep woman safe and encourage more females to take up the sport. There are areas in sport like boxing where trans rights are in direct conflict with the reality of biological sex. If a man can become a woman just by stating he's a woman, the transwomen are women mantra, then woman's sport is finished as a fair competition. It also seems to be the reason why a lot of misogynist men have jumped on the trans rights bandwagon.

[He's here!]

The World Boxing Council, have said they will never allow a transgender born male fight a woman born female. A common sense approach to keep woman safe and encourage more females to take up the sport. There are areas in sport like boxing where trans rights are in direct conflict with the reality of biological sex. If a man can become a woman just by stating he's a woman, the transwomen are women mantra, then woman's sport is finished as a fair competition. It also seems to be the reason why a lot of misogynist men have jumped on the trans rights bandwagon.

Sport thankfully seems to be one area where a semblance of common sense prevails because as you say women's sport is otherwise finished. The worry in Scotland must be that the Court of Session ruling that a GRC changes not only your legal gender but your sex opens up women's sport here to anyone.

[Ozyhibby]

Sport thankfully seems to be one area where a semblance of common sense prevails because as you say women's sport is otherwise finished. The worry in Scotland must be that the Court of Session ruling that a GRC changes not only your legal gender but your sex opens up women's sport here to anyone.

GRA specifically excludes sport. It’s a matter for governing bodies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[He's here!]

GRA specifically excludes sport. It’s a matter for governing bodies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, but in light of the bewildering Court of Session ruling I'm not sure how robust that clause would prove in the event of a legal challenge. If a GRC is now deemed to have changed your biological sex as well as your gender then there's no dividing line. Underlines the absurdity of this legalisation.

[Ozyhibby]

Yes, but in light of the bewildering Court of Session ruling I'm not sure how robust that clause would prove in the event of a legal challenge. If a GRC is now deemed to have changed your biological sex as well as your gender then there's no dividing line. Underlines the absurdity of this legalisation.

If it becomes a problem we can change the law. Right now it specifically excludes sport.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[147lothian]

GRA specifically excludes sport. It’s a matter for governing bodies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The governing bodies allowed Lia Thomas who was ranked 462 in the male category to compete against woman and become number 1 female swimmer after identifying as a woman for only one year. This could be the end of female sport.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9SSh4D-nkQ

[CropleyWasGod]

The governing bodies allowed Lia Thomas who was ranked 462 in the male category to compete against woman and become number 1 female swimmer after identifying as a woman for only one year. This could be the end of female sport.



Hyperbolise much? :greengrin

https://www.foxsports.com.au/boxing/boxing-2022-transgender-category-reaction-how-will-it-work-world-boxing-council-transgender-fighters/news-story/5ee118767a247c17643e375d43e95e85

[James310]

Yes I am posting a link from Wings and will take the flak for that, but ignore for a minute who it's from and read what's coming next in the SNP/Greens Trans crusade.

https://wingsoverscotland.com/raise-all-of-the-flags/

The SNP-Greens seem to have been infiltrated by extremists and seem to be doing all they can to accommodate them. Illegal to speak to your own child now! Let's hope common sense prevails before this comes law.

If you refuse to read Wings then read this.

https://www.scottishlegal.com/articles/kc-finds-scottish-governments-conversion-therapy-proposals-draconian

[speedy_gonzales]

Yes I am posting a link from Wings and will take the flak for that, but ignore for a minute who it's from and read what's coming next in the SNP/Greens Trans crusade.

https://wingsoverscotland.com/raise-all-of-the-flags/

The SNP-Greens seem to have been infiltrated by extremists and seem to be doing all they can to accommodate them. Illegal to speak to your own child now! Let's hope common sense prevails before this comes law.

If you refuse to read Wings then read this.

https://www.scottishlegal.com/articles/kc-finds-scottish-governments-conversion-therapy-proposals-draconian

Genuinely tried to read that article but the bit in bold is hyperbole, a couple of paragraphs from that page;

Gender expression, of course, is simply how a person presents themselves in terms of dress and general appearance. So under this law, if your 13-year-old son is meeting some friends for a movie and comes down the stairs wearing only a nappy, a ball gag and an adult bib with “CUM SLUT” printed on it, and you say “You’re not bloody going out dressed like that!”, you’ll be committing a crime for which he can have you arrested as long as he claims it’s part of his gender expression.

and

If your teenage daughter is uncomfortable with her developing body – as almost all teenage girls are – and even once suggests that she might prefer to be a boy, you will be committing a punishable criminal act under the law of Scotland if you so much as ask her why she feels that way.

Just my personal opinion, but one of the main reasons this whole issue has blown up is because of sensationalist writings like these!

[James310]

Genuinely tried to read that article but the bit in bold is hyperbole, a couple of paragraphs from that page;

Gender expression, of course, is simply how a person presents themselves in terms of dress and general appearance. So under this law, if your 13-year-old son is meeting some friends for a movie and comes down the stairs wearing only a nappy, a ball gag and an adult bib with “CUM SLUT” printed on it, and you say “You’re not bloody going out dressed like that!”, you’ll be committing a crime for which he can have you arrested as long as he claims it’s part of his gender expression.

and

If your teenage daughter is uncomfortable with her developing body – as almost all teenage girls are – and even once suggests that she might prefer to be a boy, you will be committing a punishable criminal act under the law of Scotland if you so much as ask her why she feels that way.

Just my personal opinion, but one of the main reasons this whole issue has blown up is because of sensationalist writings like these!

That's why I posted the other link from the Scottish Legal News site, ignore the Wings article.

“Church workers, feminist activists, mums and dads – all sorts of innocent people could find themselves on the wrong end of a prosecution if this becomes law. And I think Scottish taxpayers will eventually find themselves picking up the legal bill for another court defeat."

Also I see it's yet another piece of legislation outside the competency of the Parliament.

[Ozyhibby]

The governing bodies allowed Lia Thomas who was ranked 462 in the male category to compete against woman and become number 1 female swimmer after identifying as a woman for only one year. This could be the end of female sport.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9SSh4D-nkQ

Zero to do with the GRA though.

Swimming has got this wrong though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

That's why I posted the other link from the Scottish Legal News site, ignore the Wings article.

“Church workers, feminist activists, mums and dads – all sorts of innocent people could find themselves on the wrong end of a prosecution if this becomes law. And I think Scottish taxpayers will eventually find themselves picking up the legal bill for another court defeat."

Also I see it's yet another piece of legislation outside the competency of the Parliament.

Anything at all from the SG on this? Anything at all? Or are you just running around shouting the sky is falling down?

Also the last sentence, ‘yet another’ suggest there is a long list of such legislation? Do you have a list?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[James310]

Anything at all from the SG on this? Anything at all? Or are you just running around shouting the sky is falling down?

Also the last sentence, ‘yet another’ suggest there is a long list of such legislation? Do you have a list?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You never read any article did you? If you did you would know it's based on a report from the Scottish Government. You can read it here.

https://www.gov.scot/groups/ending-conversion-practices-expert-advisory-group/

As for other examples you had the Named Person Act, a waste of time and money as it was outside the competency of the Parliament and ultimately illegal and cost taxpayers a small fortune for nothing. You have the current GRA that potentially changes UK law so again outside the competency of the Parliament and there is now this that seems clearly outside the competency of the Parliament in terms of the changes to the law it is suggesting. Oh and there was a small matter of the Referendum Bill, also outside the competency of the Parliament. Is that enough?

[Ozyhibby]

You never read any article did you? If you did you would know it's based on a report from the Scottish Government. You can read it here.

https://www.gov.scot/groups/ending-conversion-practices-expert-advisory-group/


As for other examples you had the Named Person Act, a waste of time and money as it was outside the competency of the Parliament and ultimately illegal and cost taxpayers a small fortune for nothing. You have the current GRA that potentially changes UK law so again outside the competency of the Parliament and there is now this that seems clearly outside the competency of the Parliament in terms of the changes to the law it is suggesting. Oh and there was a small matter of the Referendum Bill, also outside the competency of the Parliament. Is that enough?

A few ‘seems’ and ‘potentially’s’ in there.
And no, I don’t read anything from wings. I read the other article and it points to some things that the expert committee have pointed out. Nothing from the SG yet on this though? Are they taking the proposals forward entirely as recommended?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[James310]

A few ‘seems’ and ‘potentially’s’ in there.
And no, I don’t read anything from wings. I read the other article and it points to some things that the expert committee have pointed out. Nothing from the SG yet on this though? Are they taking the proposals forward entirely as recommended?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Group is chaired by Nick Bland, Deputy Director of the Equality and Inclusion Division at the Scottish Government. Secretariat is provided by the Equality and Inclusion Division, Scottish Government.

So you said nothing from the SG yet it's Chaired by them and is being managed by them and you can find lots of information online, on the Scottish Government website.

Normally the SG don't ignore the findings of the "Expert Advisory Group" so I would imagine most of this will come to pass.

I know you are desperate for it to go away, but it's not.

[Ozyhibby]

The Group is chaired by Nick Bland, Deputy Director of the Equality and Inclusion Division at the Scottish Government. Secretariat is provided by the Equality and Inclusion Division, Scottish Government.

So you said nothing from the SG yet it's Chaired by them and is being managed by them and you can find lots of information online, on the Scottish Government website.

Normally the SG don't ignore the findings of the "Expert Advisory Group" so I would imagine most of this will come to pass.

I know you are desperate for it to go away, but it's not.

Your right, it’s all anyone can talk about, everywhere I go.[emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

Hyperbolise much? :greengrin

https://www.foxsports.com.au/boxing/boxing-2022-transgender-category-reaction-how-will-it-work-world-boxing-council-transgender-fighters/news-story/5ee118767a247c17643e375d43e95e85

Not the end but dozens of female records have dropped in lots of sports. Plus full professional places and scholarships reserved for women in sports. A huge list of some of them. In most cases a poor male athlete becomes a champion female, how can they get satisfaction from beating these women

https://mobile.twitter.com/ripx4nutmeg/status/1400344909182345216

[Ozyhibby]

Not the end but dozens of female records have dropped in lots of sports. Plus full professional places and scholarships reserved for women in sports. A huge list of some of them. In most cases a poor male athlete becomes a champion female, how can they get satisfaction from beating these women

https://mobile.twitter.com/ripx4nutmeg/status/1400344909182345216

It’s wrong and expect that none of these records will stand long term. The sports bodies will deal with that though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

It’s wrong and expect that none of these records will stand long term. The sports bodies will deal with that though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Some would say that's a transphobic view, trans women are literally women. Obviously I disagree. But how do sports bodies find out if an athlete doesn't disclose and birth certificates have been changed.

[Ozyhibby]

Some would say that's a transphobic view, trans women are literally women. Obviously I disagree. But how do sports bodies find out if an athlete doesn't disclose and birth certificates have been changed.

Some might say that but they would be wrong in my opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pretty Boy]

Not the end but dozens of female records have dropped in lots of sports. Plus full professional places and scholarships reserved for women in sports. A huge list of some of them. In most cases a poor male athlete becomes a champion female, how can they get satisfaction from beating these women

https://mobile.twitter.com/ripx4nutmeg/status/1400344909182345216

When it comes to sport people need to face up to biological reality, because biology is a huge part of being a woman regardless of how much people want to reduce it to a feeling or a mode.

The facts are there. In the US the records in various running events are consistent between males and females at 10,11 and even 12 years old. By 13 the differences grow massively and are consistent with the gaps between adults. It's not difficult to understand, at that age boys start to have elevated levels of testosterone and other androgens, women have a different development. There's also a huge drop out rate among girls between 12 and 16. Breast development and the related start of the menstrual cycle play a huge part in that.

I read a book recently by Lauren Fleshman called Not Bad For A Girl. She was a top NCAA runner and held all kinds of collegiate records and won countless championships. She went on to have a decent pro career but nothing like what people thought she would. She also has a degree in human biology from Stanford. She explores the inbuilt bias against woman and particularly teenage girls in athletics development and explores the physical issues that she felt hampered her own pro career (whilst not shirking personal responsibility). One of the key things she talks about is the taboo subject of periods, ultimately for 5-7 days of any given month it will be physically difficult for a woman to perform to their highest performance level. Eilish McColgan is brilliantly open about this on Twitter, she tweeted a couple of years ago about a poor performance and basically said 'I was crap today because my period started, I was bloated, in pain and just wanted to eat cake but instead I had to run against 18 other elite athletes'. She was met with comments largely saying 'too much information' predominantly from men. Personally I think that kind of brutal honesty is great and is preferable to euphemisms like 'womans issues' or 'a virus'.

It's not an easy subject (and has nothing to do with the GRA) but you can't escape the reality. Women and men are biologically different and that applies to someone who went through puberty as a teenage boy and is now transitioned or transitioning to a woman. A trans woman isn't going to have the risk of under performance because of a period, they aren't going to suffer from something like endometriosis and there is a lingering aadvantage from male puberty. I don't see how you can accomodate trans woman in women's sport though without disadvantaging those born biologically female.

[Ozyhibby]

When it comes to sport people need to face up to biological reality, because biology is a huge part of being a woman regardless of how much people want to reduce it to a feeling or a mode.

The facts are there. In the US the records in various running events are consistent between males and females at 10,11 and even 12 years old. By 13 the differences grow massively and are consistent with the gaps between adults. It's not difficult to understand, at that age boys start to have elevated levels of testosterone and other androgens, women have a different development. There's also a huge drop out rate among girls between 12 and 16. Breast development and the related start of the menstrual cycle play a huge part in that.

I read a book recently by Lauren Fleshman called Not Bad For A Girl. She was a top NCAA runner and held all kinds of collegiate records and won countless championships. She went on to have a decent pro career but nothing like what people thought she would. She also has a degree in human biology from Stanford. She explores the inbuilt bias against woman and particularly teenage girls in athletics development and explores the physical issues that she felt hampered her own pro career (whilst not shirking personal responsibility). One of the key things she talks about is the taboo subject of periods, ultimately for 5-7% of any given month it will be physically difficult for a woman to perform to their highest performance level. Eilish McColgan is brilliantly open about this on Twitter, she tweeted a couple of years ago about a poor performance and basically said 'I was crap today because my period started, I was bloated, in pain and just wanted to eat cake but instead I had to run against 18 other elite athletes'. She was met with comments largely saying 'too much information' predominantly from men. Personally I think that kind of brutal honesty is great and is preferable to euphemisms like 'womans issues' or 'a virus'.

It's not an easy subject (and has nothing to do with the GRA) but you can't escape the reality. Women and men are biologically different and that applies to someone who went through puberty as a teenage boy and is now transitioned or transitioning to a woman. A trans woman isn't going to have the risk of under performance because of a period, they aren't going to suffer from something like endometriosis and there is a lingering aadvantage from male puberty. I don't see how you can accomodate trans woman in women's sport though without disadvantaging those born biologically female.

I think it’s clear that trans women can not be accommodated in women sport. They will have to have their own categories in future.
That should not be a problem as sport has always had categories based on all sorts of physical differences such as gender, age, weight, disabilities etc etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[McD]

When it comes to sport people need to face up to biological reality, because biology is a huge part of being a woman regardless of how much people want to reduce it to a feeling or a mode.

The facts are there. In the US the records in various running events are consistent between males and females at 10,11 and even 12 years old. By 13 the differences grow massively and are consistent with the gaps between adults. It's not difficult to understand, at that age boys start to have elevated levels of testosterone and other androgens, women have a different development. There's also a huge drop out rate among girls between 12 and 16. Breast development and the related start of the menstrual cycle play a huge part in that.

I read a book recently by Lauren Fleshman called Not Bad For A Girl. She was a top NCAA runner and held all kinds of collegiate records and won countless championships. She went on to have a decent pro career but nothing like what people thought she would. She also has a degree in human biology from Stanford. She explores the inbuilt bias against woman and particularly teenage girls in athletics development and explores the physical issues that she felt hampered her own pro career (whilst not shirking personal responsibility). One of the key things she talks about is the taboo subject of periods, ultimately for 5-7 days of any given month it will be physically difficult for a woman to perform to their highest performance level. Eilish McColgan is brilliantly open about this on Twitter, she tweeted a couple of years ago about a poor performance and basically said 'I was crap today because my period started, I was bloated, in pain and just wanted to eat cake but instead I had to run against 18 other elite athletes'. She was met with comments largely saying 'too much information' predominantly from men. Personally I think that kind of brutal honesty is great and is preferable to euphemisms like 'womans issues' or 'a virus'.

It's not an easy subject (and has nothing to do with the GRA) but you can't escape the reality. Women and men are biologically different and that applies to someone who went through puberty as a teenage boy and is now transitioned or transitioning to a woman. A trans woman isn't going to have the risk of under performance because of a period, they aren't going to suffer from something like endometriosis and there is a lingering aadvantage from male puberty. I don't see how you can accomodate trans woman in women's sport though without disadvantaging those born biologically female.

great post, send completely agree about Eilish McColgan, before you’d mentioned her she was exactly the person going through my mind as someone who’s a strong vocal advocate for more openness and awareness of womens periods and the affects on sports

[danhibees1875]

I won't quote it because it's so long, but a good post PB. :agree:

An alternative category makes sense, but practically feels like there would be limited competitors?...

What's stopping a trans-woman competing with men, based on their original biological sex? Is that purely down to how they want to be seen as a woman now, and so don't wish to be competing in the men's section? A legitimate argument from them if so, but just curious if there's something more that I've missed.

[147lothian]

Good post PB, the reality of biological sex has to be acknowledged for woman's sport to be a safe and fair sport, this is what happens when sport is based on how someone identifies rather than the reality of biological sex


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URz-RYEOaig

[He's here!]

When it comes to sport people need to face up to biological reality, because biology is a huge part of being a woman regardless of how much people want to reduce it to a feeling or a mode.

The facts are there. In the US the records in various running events are consistent between males and females at 10,11 and even 12 years old. By 13 the differences grow massively and are consistent with the gaps between adults. It's not difficult to understand, at that age boys start to have elevated levels of testosterone and other androgens, women have a different development. There's also a huge drop out rate among girls between 12 and 16. Breast development and the related start of the menstrual cycle play a huge part in that.

I read a book recently by Lauren Fleshman called Not Bad For A Girl. She was a top NCAA runner and held all kinds of collegiate records and won countless championships. She went on to have a decent pro career but nothing like what people thought she would. She also has a degree in human biology from Stanford. She explores the inbuilt bias against woman and particularly teenage girls in athletics development and explores the physical issues that she felt hampered her own pro career (whilst not shirking personal responsibility). One of the key things she talks about is the taboo subject of periods, ultimately for 5-7 days of any given month it will be physically difficult for a woman to perform to their highest performance level. Eilish McColgan is brilliantly open about this on Twitter, she tweeted a couple of years ago about a poor performance and basically said 'I was crap today because my period started, I was bloated, in pain and just wanted to eat cake but instead I had to run against 18 other elite athletes'. She was met with comments largely saying 'too much information' predominantly from men. Personally I think that kind of brutal honesty is great and is preferable to euphemisms like 'womans issues' or 'a virus'.

It's not an easy subject (and has nothing to do with the GRA) but you can't escape the reality. Women and men are biologically different and that applies to someone who went through puberty as a teenage boy and is now transitioned or transitioning to a woman. A trans woman isn't going to have the risk of under performance because of a period, they aren't going to suffer from something like endometriosis and there is a lingering aadvantage from male puberty. I don't see how you can accomodate trans woman in women's sport though without disadvantaging those born biologically female.

Good post, although I can't agree it has nothing to do with the GRA which will mean anyone who now says they are a woman literally is one. Can't see the sports authorities being able to stand up to a legal challenge based on the new act, should such a situation arise. It's nuts.

[Ozyhibby]

Good post, although I can't agree it has nothing to do with the GRA which will mean anyone who now says they are a woman literally is one. Can't see the sports authorities being able to stand up to a legal challenge based on the new act, should such a situation arise. It's nuts.

So if I rock up to play u12’s tomorrow I can just do so? Or maybe I can enter the blind ice hockey? Or do you think that maybe sports authorities will ask for my birth certificate and be able to discriminate accordingly? The GRA specifically exempts sports authorities. If it gets challenged in court then the law will be changed again to tighten it up.
You could always go test your theory and ask to play for Hibs ladies?

[JeMeSouviens]

Good post, although I can't agree it has nothing to do with the GRA which will mean anyone who now says they are a woman literally is one. Can't see the sports authorities being able to stand up to a legal challenge based on the new act, should such a situation arise. It's nuts.

The new act only changes how you get a GRC. They have been in existence since 2004.

[He's here!]

The Group is chaired by Nick Bland, Deputy Director of the Equality and Inclusion Division at the Scottish Government. Secretariat is provided by the Equality and Inclusion Division, Scottish Government.

So you said nothing from the SG yet it's Chaired by them and is being managed by them and you can find lots of information online, on the Scottish Government website.

Normally the SG don't ignore the findings of the "Expert Advisory Group" so I would imagine most of this will come to pass.

I know you are desperate for it to go away, but it's not.

Nicola Sturgeon's proposed ban on conversion therapy 'would be unlawful' (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainment/music/nicola-sturgeons-proposed-ban-on-conversion-therapy-would-be-unlawful/ar-AA1610DR)

[He's here!]

The new act only changes how you get a GRC. They have been in existence since 2004.

That's a big 'only'. With December's Court of Session ruling doing away with the concept of biological women, the ramifications upon the legislation are clear.

[xyz23jc]

The Group is chaired by Nick Bland, Deputy Director of the Equality and Inclusion Division at the Scottish Government. Secretariat is provided by the Equality and Inclusion Division, Scottish Government.

So you said nothing from the SG yet it's Chaired by them and is being managed by them and you can find lots of information online, on the Scottish Government website.

Normally the SG don't ignore the findings of the "Expert Advisory Group" so I would imagine most of this will come to pass.

I know you are desperate for it to go away, but it's not.


Mibbe should just toss a coin like they seem to do down South! :wink::greengrin

[Jamesie]

Anything at all from the SG on this? Anything at all? Or are you just running around shouting the sky is falling down?

Also the last sentence, ‘yet another’ suggest there is a long list of such legislation? Do you have a list?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child Bill
European Charter of Local Self-Government (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill

There may be others that aren’t springing to mind right now

[He's here!]

So if I rock up to play u12’s tomorrow I can just do so? Or maybe I can enter the blind ice hockey? Or do you think that maybe sports authorities will ask for my birth certificate and be able to discriminate accordingly? The GRA specifically exempts sports authorities. If it gets challenged in court then the law will be changed again to tighten it up.
You could always go test your theory and ask to play for Hibs ladies?

Not sure how U12s or blind sport comes into it but yes, were I remotely good enough (or young enough) to do so I reckon I'd have a case for a trial with Hibs ladies if I self-declared as a woman. If we're now supposed to accept that the 'transwomen are women' mantra is true in every sense of the word I can't see how Scottish sport could legally prevent it.

I think the most obvious incentive would be financial or if there are world records to be broken so therefore unlikely to be a significant issue in Scotland in the short-term, but the legislation raises significant concerns.

[danhibees1875]

Good post, although I can't agree it has nothing to do with the GRA which will mean anyone who now says they are a woman literally is one. Can't see the sports authorities being able to stand up to a legal challenge based on the new act, should such a situation arise. It's nuts.

The GRA isn't as straightforward as that though is my understanding. You need to have lived as that gender for months, and swear an oath - breaking which is a criminal offence - that you're going to be that gender, followed by months at the other end as a cooling off period.

You don't just dust off your footy boots, say "right, I'm a woman today", and rock up for a game with the ladies team.

I think that's conflating 2 issues. The idea that someone would deliberate go through a transition process simply for a sporting advantage (is there any evidence of that happening?) which does relate to the GRA, and the issue of where transitioned/transitioning women sit within the sporting framework - what is being discussed, and what isn't related to the GRA.

Or thats my take on it anyway... :dunno:

[James310]

The GRA isn't as straightforward as that though is my understanding. You need to have lived as that gender for months, and swear an oath - breaking which is a criminal offence - that you're going to be that gender, followed by months at the other end as a cooling off period.

You don't just dust off your footy boots, say "right, I'm a woman today", and rock up for a game with the ladies team.

I think that's conflating 2 issues. The idea that someone would deliberate go through a transition process simply for a sporting advantage (is there any evidence of that happening?) which does relate to the GRA, and the issue of where transitioned/transitioning women sit within the sporting framework - what is being discussed, and what isn't related to the GRA.

Or thats my take on it anyway... :dunno:

You don't have to go through any transition process, literally anyone can now say they are a woman after 3 months of living in their acquired gender, whatever that actually means as there is no criteria or definition. It could mean sitting at home and doing nothing for 3 months, as you self ID nobody checks.

I think everyone wants to make the process for trans people easier, but by doing so it makes the process for literally anyone to become a woman/man easier. The fear is "bad faith actors" will take advantage of this and exploit it.

[JeMeSouviens]

That's a big 'only'. With December's Court of Session ruling doing away with the concept of biological women, the ramifications upon the legislation are clear.

But those ramifications would be there with or without the GRA. It changed the process, it didn't change the outcome. Trans-women athletes can and do already have GRCs (since 2004) and the new legislation hasn't taken effect.

[Ozyhibby]

But those ramifications would be there with or without the GRA. It changed the process, it didn't change the outcome. Trans-women athletes can and do already have GRCs (since 2004) and the new legislation hasn't taken effect.

I know but if you want to blame the SNP for an American college swimmer then you have to ignore all that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JeMeSouviens]

I won't quote it because it's so long, but a good post PB. :agree:

An alternative category makes sense, but practically feels like there would be limited competitors?...

What's stopping a trans-woman competing with men, based on their original biological sex? Is that purely down to how they want to be seen as a woman now, and so don't wish to be competing in the men's section? A legitimate argument from them if so, but just curious if there's something more that I've missed.

Yes, I think that's right and you're not missing anything.

I think it's unfortunate for trans-women athletes but since the whole concept of segregating men's and women's sport is for no other purpose than nullifying the in-built advantages of a male-born body, I don't think there's any way round the fact that allowing trans-women to compete alongside female-born women is unfair.

[danhibees1875]

You don't have to go through any transition process, literally anyone can now say they are a woman after 3 months of living in their acquired gender, whatever that actually means as there is no criteria or definition. It could mean sitting at home and doing nothing for 3 months, as you self ID nobody checks.

I think everyone wants to make the process for trans people easier, but by doing so it makes the process for literally anyone to become a woman/man easier. The fear is "bad faith actors" will take advantage of this and exploit it.

My naivety here - not sure where "living in their acquired gender" ends and "transitioning" starts. Presumably the later is around drugs/operations and a bit more "permanent" - I had used the terms synonymously in my post, perhaps in error, and meaning the former at each point.

I maintain that it's not easy though. Okay, there's no definition around what they have to do but it's a legally binding oath/agreement they're entering into. I find it hard to believe it would be done frivolously. I think the fear in this instance isn't one that aligns with the reality of the situation.

Regardless, there's still a disconnect between the GRA reforms and any rules/opinions on how trans people engage with sports.

[James310]

My naivety here - not sure where "living in their acquired gender" ends and "transitioning" starts. Presumably the later is around drugs/operations and a bit more "permanent" - I had used the terms synonymously in my post, perhaps in error, and meaning the former at each point.

I maintain that it's not easy though. Okay, there's no definition around what they have to do but it's a legally binding oath/agreement they're entering into. I find it hard to believe it would be done frivolously. I think the fear in this instance isn't one that aligns with the reality of the situation.

Regardless, there's still a disconnect between the GRA reforms and any rules/opinions on how trans people engage with sports.

One of the problems with the legislation is how can it be a criminal offence to do it in bad faith when there is no definition of what living in your acquired gender actually means. It's like saying if you break the speed limit you are committing a criminal offence but nobody can tell you what the speed limit is.

There is no requirement to transition, some may decide not to and some may decide they do want to.

You would hope the vast majority use the new rules as they are meant to be used, but history tells us predatory men will use whatever means they can to fulfil their needs.

[danhibees1875]

One of the problems with the legislation is how can it be a criminal offence to do it in bad faith when there is no definition of what living in your acquired gender actually means. It's like saying if you break the speed limit you are committing a criminal offence but nobody can tell you what the speed limit is.

There is no requirement to transition, some may decide not to and some may decide they do want to.

You would hope the vast majority use the new rules as they are meant to be used, but history tells us predatory men will use whatever means they can to fulfil their needs.

A speed limit is a binary thing. You're either over it or under it (even if you're not told what it is). I guess it comes back to the complexity of the issue that living as a man/woman will mean different things to different people. I think the policy has been written in good faith so as to make it available to anyone as they see it applying to them. Something which I think is the right thing to do, despite myself finding things to be generally better when rules are black and white it's an acknowledgement of the grey we do all live in.

Again though, that's the GRA itself and not the implications on sport.

I think your final paragraph isn't about the implications on sports either but presumably around implications of requiring the use of communal spaces as a trans person, and is a separate topic which needs viewed through a whole other lens from the sports one IMO. An even more complicated topic at that.

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/06/england-and-wales-census-counts-trans-and-non-binary-people-for-first-time?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=twt_gu&utm_medium&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1673003221

It appears trans people account for 0.5% of the population.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

A speed limit is a binary thing. You're either over it or under it (even if you're not told what it is). I guess it comes back to the complexity of the issue that living as a man/woman will mean different things to different people. I think the policy has been written in good faith so as to make it available to anyone as they see it applying to them. Something which I think is the right thing to do, despite myself finding things to be generally better when rules are black and white it's an acknowledgement of the grey we do all live in.

Again though, that's the GRA itself and not the implications on sport.

I think your final paragraph isn't about the implications on sports either but presumably around implications of requiring the use of communal spaces as a trans person, and is a separate topic which needs viewed through a whole other lens from the sports one IMO. An even more complicated topic at that.

Some would argue sex is too!

[danhibees1875]

Some would argue sex is too!

Presumably why it's about gender rather than sex. :dunno:

[archie]

Presumably why it's about gender rather than sex. :dunno:
And that's where we get into the mess. What is gender?

[danhibees1875]

And that's where we get into the mess. What is gender?

Apparently it's:

"the male sex or the female sex, especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones, or one of a range of other identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female."

[He's here!]

Presumably why it's about gender rather than sex. :dunno:

They're one and the same in Scotland now.

[He's here!]

My naivety here - not sure where "living in their acquired gender" ends and "transitioning" starts. Presumably the later is around drugs/operations and a bit more "permanent" - I had used the terms synonymously in my post, perhaps in error, and meaning the former at each point.

I maintain that it's not easy though. Okay, there's no definition around what they have to do but it's a legally binding oath/agreement they're entering into. I find it hard to believe it would be done frivolously. I think the fear in this instance isn't one that aligns with the reality of the situation.

Regardless, there's still a disconnect between the GRA reforms and any rules/opinions on how trans people engage with sports.

One of the most glaring absurdities of the legislation. As others have pointed out there are no checks whatsoever, medical or otherwise. Once this legislation is enacted you can claim you've lived in your acquired gender for a couple of months and the GRC is yours.

[Moulin Yarns]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/06/england-and-wales-census-counts-trans-and-non-binary-people-for-first-time?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=twt_gu&utm_medium&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1673003221

It appears trans people account for 0.5% of the population.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think I said that about a week ago. 😉

[Moulin Yarns]

And that's where we get into the mess. What is gender?

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/articles/whatisthedifferencebetweensexandgender/2019-02-21

[archie]

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/articles/whatisthedifferencebetweensexandgender/2019-02-21 Thanks for taking the time to post this. The issue is that the concepts have become really blurred. And the interaction between the GRA and the Haldane judgement reinforces that. So far from being separate they have become conflated. I guess most people don't have problem if a man chooses to live as a woman. But it where he says he is a woman that all of the issues arise.

[147lothian]

You don't have to go through any transition process, literally anyone can now say they are a woman after 3 months of living in their acquired gender, whatever that actually means as there is no criteria or definition. It could mean sitting at home and doing nothing for 3 months, as you self ID nobody checks.

I think everyone wants to make the process for trans people easier, but by doing so it makes the process for literally anyone to become a woman/man easier. The fear is "bad faith actors" will take advantage of this and exploit it.

Bad faith actors like Katie Dolatowski would certainly see a Gender Recognition Certificate as a loop in the law that can be exploited to gain access to woman only spaces. This is the male pedophile who identifies as a woman who was convicted of filming a 12 year old girl with the mobile phone over the partition wall in the female toilet cubicle of a Halbeath Asda Store. Same person also grabbed a 10 year old girl by the face in a Morrisons in Kircaldy forced her into the female toilet cubicle and sexually assaulted her. This person had stayed at a domestic violence refuge for mothers and children in Leeds for 71 days and also a woman only hostel in Fife.

Katie Dolatowski was jailed at Polmot young offenders institute for male offenders, but after assaulting a fellow inmate has since been transferred to the woman only Cornton Vale Prison.

https://news.stv.tv/west-central/scottish-prison-service-criticised

[Ozyhibby]

Bad faith actors like Katie Dolatowski would certainly see a Gender Recognition Certificate as a loop in the law that can be exploited to gain access to woman only spaces. This is the male pedophile who identifies as a woman who was convicted of filming a 12 year old girl with the mobile phone over the partition wall in the female toilet cubicle of a Halbeath Asda Store. Same person also grabbed a 10 year old girl by the face in a Morrisons in Kircaldy forced her into the female toilet cubicle and sexually assaulted her. This person had stayed at a domestic violence refuge for mothers and children in Leeds for 71 days and also a woman only hostel in Fife.

Katie Dolatowski was jailed at Polmot young offenders institute for male offenders, but after assaulting a fellow inmate has since been transferred to the woman only Cornton Vale Prison.

https://news.stv.tv/west-central/scottish-prison-service-criticised

Nothing really to do with the GRA though is it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

Nothing really to do with the GRA though is it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Only that it a) makes the process much shorter and easier and b) introduces criminal penalties for revealing that someone has a GRA.

[He's here!]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/06/england-and-wales-census-counts-trans-and-non-binary-people-for-first-time?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=twt_gu&utm_medium&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1673003221

It appears trans people account for 0.5% of the population.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And yet organisations like Stonewall insist the numbers are far larger and growing so rapidly that ever increasing resources need to be devoted to their needs. If the numbers reported in that Guardian piece are accurate (we don't of course yet know Scotland's numbers due to the SG's screw-up over the census) then the trans population is so tiny as to be almost invisible. Just underlines the absurdity of a very small number of people wielding such influence over the SG that they've used a sledgehammer to crack a nut approach over legislation which has served only to create more problems than it solves.

[147lothian]

Nothing really to do with the GRA though is it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The GRA has a lot to do with male sex offenders being transferred to woman's prisons because if being a woman is an identity category rather than the reality of biological sex then inevitably some male prisoners will self-ID.

As is said here before the GRA was introduced in Ireland in 2015 there was no one in the women only prison for a sex crime and now there are three and they are all men who identify as women.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmFr71msWYI

[James310]

Lengthy discussion on Politics Live this afternoon on the GRA in Scotland. Bit of debate around if the UK Government will for the first time use a S35 order to stop the Bill getting Royal Assent. I think they have about 1 week left to do it if that's what they plan to do.

[He's here!]

Lengthy discussion on Politics Live this afternoon on the GRA in Scotland. Bit of debate around if the UK Government will for the first time use a S35 order to stop the Bill getting Royal Assent. I think they have about 1 week left to do it if that's what they plan to do.

Scots gender certificate ‘invalid’ south of border | Scotland | The Times (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/8972826e-8f9e-11ed-beb4-99fcdfa7645c?shareToken=ded023e3cdcde254c2bf8e4dd2 b46751)

[Moulin Yarns]

Scots gender certificate ‘invalid’ south of border | Scotland | The Times (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/8972826e-8f9e-11ed-beb4-99fcdfa7645c?shareToken=ded023e3cdcde254c2bf8e4dd2 b46751)

https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/10/tories-review-lgbtq-gender-recognition-certificate-deal?amp_gsa=1&amp_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw%3D%3D#amp_tf=From%20%2 51%24s&aoh=16733876979513&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fworld %2F2023%2Fjan%2F10%2Ftories-review-lgbtq-gender-recognition-certificate-deal

Trans people from countries like Canada, Australia and New Zealand have had their gender recognition certificates respected by the UK for years. Seeking to end this system is an extraordinary move, not based on evidence or experience, that will effectively serve as a ‘trans travel ban’.”

[James310]

Here is a clip from Politics Live.

https://twitter.com/soniasodha/status/1612854234105647105?t=-cy-Nr-3ncA8hEnDqNQgqA&s=19

[He's here!]

https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/10/tories-review-lgbtq-gender-recognition-certificate-deal?amp_gsa=1&amp_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw%3D%3D#amp_tf=From%20%2 51%24s&aoh=16733876979513&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fworld %2F2023%2Fjan%2F10%2Ftories-review-lgbtq-gender-recognition-certificate-deal

Trans people from countries like Canada, Australia and New Zealand have had their gender recognition certificates respected by the UK for years. Seeking to end this system is an extraordinary move, not based on evidence or experience, that will effectively serve as a ‘trans travel ban’.”

Unlike those countries, the Scottish reforms remove all checks and balances from the process of acquiring a GRC.

I suspect a refusal outwith Scotland to recognise certificates issued here won't work. Debbie Hayton, who has a far deeper understanding of what's at stake than me, explains here why the UK government is likely to have to challenge the bill itself (and interestingly points out that a Westminster v Holyrood battle over this issue may not actually suit Sturgeon, bearing in mind how unpopular the bill is among the Scottish electorate at large):

The UK can’t ignore Scotland’s gender recognition Bill (spectator.co.uk) (https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-uk-cant-ignore-scotlands-gender-recognition-bil/)

[He's here!]

Here is a clip from Politics Live.

https://twitter.com/soniasodha/status/1612854234105647105?t=-cy-Nr-3ncA8hEnDqNQgqA&s=19

Sonia Sodha has been consistently spot-on when it comes to the dangers inherent in this legislation.

[James310]

Unlike those countries, the Scottish reforms remove all checks and balances from the process of acquiring a GRC.

I suspect a refusal outwith Scotland to recognise certificates issued here won't work. Debbie Hayton, who has a far deeper understanding of what's at stake than me, explains here why the UK government is likely to have to challenge the bill itself (and interestingly points out that a Westminster v Holyrood battle over this issue may not actually suit Sturgeon, bearing in mind how unpopular the bill is among the Scottish electorate at large):

The UK can’t ignore Scotland’s gender recognition Bill (spectator.co.uk) (https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-uk-cant-ignore-scotlands-gender-recognition-bil/)

"Yes there will be howls of outrage from the SNP, and no doubt Sturgeon would drag the matter through the courts. But what really matters is the court of public opinion, especially in Scotland. The SNP has been spoiling for a fight over sovereignty. Where better for the UK government to challenge them than over an issue that is unpopular among the people of Scotland? Polling suggests that two thirds of Scots oppose self-ID"

I really hope Nicola Sturgeon isn't using Trans people as pawns in her constitutional battles. I keep hearing this was years in the making and not rushed, if that's the case why wasn't something as simple as checking it against UK law done in a more detailed way.

[danhibees1875]

A complex issue which is rather nuanced, but the way I read the poll being quoted (unless there's another one) is that the two thirds who oppose were asked specifically about whether they agreed with reducing the age from 18 to 16.

Obviously, if that's a part of the legislation then they effectively oppose the legislation in its entirety but it feels a bit disingenuous to use that figure against the whole concept. :dunno:

EDIT: I assume this is out of date now, but BBC seemed to have data which covered the broad topic and specifics. It had a similar result (53% opposition to 16-year olds v 31% support) but also showed that a majority did favour the overall right to self-ID (40% v 38%).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-60214574

[Moulin Yarns]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-64228256

Looks like it's England that is out of step with the rest of the UK.

[Kato]

"Yes there will be howls of outrage from the SNP, and no doubt Sturgeon would drag the matter through the courts. But what really matters is the court of public opinion, especially in Scotland. The SNP has been spoiling for a fight over sovereignty. Where better for the UK government to challenge them than over an issue that is unpopular among the people of Scotland? Polling suggests that two thirds of Scots oppose self-ID"

I really hope Nicola Sturgeon isn't using Trans people as pawns in her constitutional battles. I keep hearing this was years in the making and not rushed, if that's the case why wasn't something as simple as checking it against UK law done in a more detailed way.That would terrible, taking a side in these matters due to a dislike of one of the protagonists.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

"Yes there will be howls of outrage from the SNP, and no doubt Sturgeon would drag the matter through the courts. But what really matters is the court of public opinion, especially in Scotland. The SNP has been spoiling for a fight over sovereignty. Where better for the UK government to challenge them than over an issue that is unpopular among the people of Scotland? Polling suggests that two thirds of Scots oppose self-ID"

I really hope Nicola Sturgeon isn't using Trans people as pawns in her constitutional battles. I keep hearing this was years in the making and not rushed, if that's the case why wasn't something as simple as checking it against UK law done in a more detailed way.

You certainly seem to consider this a constitutional issue. Sad.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[James310]

You certainly seem to consider this a constitutional issue. Sad.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am not the one in Government making laws that are poorly designed and researched. As pointed out previously this isn't the first time. Where are the check and balances?

Remember the UN Children's Rights Bill, the SNP were advised it was outwith the competency of the Parliament but went ahead anyway and then made a big thing about how the evil UK Government was blocking the rights of children etc, yet a few small amendments would make the Bill perfectly fine. Have the SNP made those changes and brought it back to Parliament seeing as it was so important? No, of course they haven't.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/snp-accused-turning-childrens-rights-28830728

"SNP accused of turning children's rights bill into 'constitutional bunfight'

Scotland's Children's Commissioner warned "Government inaction speaks louder than words" after the legislation was blocked by the Supreme Court"

So they have form for doing this.

[Hibrandenburg]

You certainly seem to consider this a constitutional issue. Sad.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yet it's the SNP who are obsessed with that isn't it?

[147lothian]

Zero to do with the GRA though.

Swimming has got this wrong though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lia Thomas removed the person who was 17th from being in the semi final, the person who was 9th from being in the final, removed the person who was 4th from being on the medal podium, removed the person who was 2nd who was the first biological woman from being the actual champion, so that is five woman in one event alone that lost out when Lia Thomas transitioned (no pun intended) from ranked 462 in the male category to number 1 in the female category.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sgjc29QCGo

[Berwickhibby]

Regardless which party submitted this Act and I accept it received cross party support. But it’s poor legislation due to the lack of checks and balances…. I honestly believe legislation this will be used by predators or voyeurs. Having dealt with more sexually assaulted or rape victims than I care to remember. I fully agree with the spirit of the Act however the execution leaves a lot to be desired.

[He's here!]

Regardless which party submitted this Act and I accept it received cross party support. But it’s poor legislation due to the lack of checks and balances…. I honestly believe legislation this will be used by predators or voyeurs. Having dealt with more sexually assaulted or rape victims than I care to remember. I fully agree with the spirit of the Act however the execution leaves a lot to be desired.

A piece of legislation focused on widening the rights of one group which diminishes the hard-won rights of another cannot be good law.

[Moulin Yarns]

Lia Thomas removed the person who was 17th from being in the semi final, the person who was 9th from being in the final, removed the person who was 4th from being on the medal podium, removed the person who was 2nd who was the first biological woman from being the actual champion, so that is five woman in one event alone that lost out when Lia Thomas transitioned (no pun intended) from ranked 462 in the male category to number 1 in the female category.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sgjc29QCGo

https://www-independent-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/lia-thomas-trans-swimmer-ron-desantis-b2091218.html?amp=&amp_gsa=1&amp_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw%3D%3D#amp_tf=From%20%2 51%24s&aoh=16734736265342&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.co.uk%2Fnew s%2Fworld%2Famericas%2Flia-thomas-trans-swimmer-ron-desantis-b2091218.html
Ms Thomas skipped the 2020-21 swimming season, and so she has now been on HRT for nearly three years. According to Sports Illustrated, she lost strength and an inch of her height on HRT, making it impossible for her to match her performance.

So how does she perform as a swimmer today?

Let's look first at Ms Thomas's record in the NCAA. While some of her fastest times have been in other competitions, these are the easiest results to access and compare across multiple years and athletes.



Ms Thomas won the women's 500 yard freestyle race in 4m 33.24s. She came fifth in the 200 yard race, with 1m 43.40s, and eighth in the 100 yard race with 48.40s.
These were impressive results, but they weren't record-breaking. Though the overall competition saw 27 all-time NCAA records broken, Ms Thomas's times weren't among them.

A whopping 18 of those were broken by Kate Douglass of the University of Virginia (UVA), who now has the fastest times in US college history in the 50 yard freestyle, the 100 yard butterfly stroke, and the 200 yard breaststroke.

"It is easy to see how dominant Kate is.

[Stairway 2 7]

https://www-independent-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/lia-thomas-trans-swimmer-ron-desantis-b2091218.html?amp=&amp_gsa=1&amp_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw%3D%3D#amp_tf=From%20%2 51%24s&aoh=16734736265342&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.co.uk%2Fnew s%2Fworld%2Famericas%2Flia-thomas-trans-swimmer-ron-desantis-b2091218.html
Ms Thomas skipped the 2020-21 swimming season, and so she has now been on HRT for nearly three years. According to Sports Illustrated, she lost strength and an inch of her height on HRT, making it impossible for her to match her performance.

So how does she perform as a swimmer today?

Let's look first at Ms Thomas's record in the NCAA. While some of her fastest times have been in other competitions, these are the easiest results to access and compare across multiple years and athletes.



Ms Thomas won the women's 500 yard freestyle race in 4m 33.24s. She came fifth in the 200 yard race, with 1m 43.40s, and eighth in the 100 yard race with 48.40s.
These were impressive results, but they weren't record-breaking. Though the overall competition saw 27 all-time NCAA records broken, Ms Thomas's times weren't among them.

A whopping 18 of those were broken by Kate Douglass of the University of Virginia (UVA), who now has the fastest times in US college history in the 50 yard freestyle, the 100 yard butterfly stroke, and the 200 yard breaststroke.

"It is easy to see how dominant Kate is.

She went from a crap male swimmer to one of the best female swimmers. That's thanks to puberty as a male. In March she won the ncaa championship beating the Olympic silver medalist by 2 seconds. The winner of the female race had a *****.

She was going to take part in the trials for the Paris Olympics but thankfully the isf have just said, anyone that has puberty as a male will not be able to compete in female international competition.

[Moulin Yarns]

She went from a crap male swimmer to one of the best female swimmers. That's thanks to puberty as a male. In March she won the ncaa championship beating the Olympic silver medalist by 2 seconds. The winner of the female race had a *****.

She was going to take part in the trials for the Paris Olympics but thankfully the isf have just said, anyone that has puberty as a male will not be able to compete in female international competition.

Are you saying that the independent didn't get the facts right in the article?

[Ozyhibby]

She went from a crap male swimmer to one of the best female swimmers. That's thanks to puberty as a male. In March she won the ncaa championship beating the Olympic silver medalist by 2 seconds. The winner of the female race had a *****.

She was going to take part in the trials for the Paris Olympics but thankfully the isf have just said, anyone that has puberty as a male will not be able to compete in female international competition.

Sounds like problem solved by the sports authorities. The way it should be.[emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

Are you saying that the independent didn't get the facts right in the article?

Eh. I'm just saying facts. She was around the 600 best male 200m male swimmer at Penn state. She transitioned and was picked in the top 5 squad of females.

The fact as so obvious, that if you go through male puberty you will have an advantage compared to if you didn't.

As oz says common sense has prevaled in the world stage but not US. Thomas winning the title last summer means a female lost out, that could cost sponsorship and a career. Place's in swim teams can mean scholarships, so biological females can lose out on getting a degree.

[Moulin Yarns]

Eh. I'm just saying facts. She was around the 600 best male 200m male swimmer at Penn state. She transitioned and was picked in the top 5 squad of females.

The fact as so obvious, that if you go through male puberty you will have an advantage compared to if you didn't.

As oz says common sense has prevaled in the world stage but not US. Thomas winning the title last summer means a female lost out, that could cost sponsorship and a career. Place's in swim teams can mean scholarships, so biological females can lose out on getting a degree.

Yet she was 5th and 8th in the shorter races at the NCCA event? She obviously isn't using her male muscles very well.

[Stairway 2 7]

Yet she was 5th and 8th in the shorter races at the NCCA event? She obviously isn't using her male muscles very well.

Because she is a poor swimmer. 584th best in the males 200m at her university, who knew that many males swam at penn state.

If I transition into a female tomorrow I'm not going to win any female Olympic medals, as they have spent their lives on it, are extremely talented and I'm hopeless. I will get a massive advantage that I shouldn't though.

I was Edinburgh schools level at football. If I played the female game I maybe would have got in a Scotland youth squad. I'd have taken the place of a more talented female just because of my physical attributes.

[Ozyhibby]

Because she is a poor swimmer. 584th best in the males 200m at her university, who knew that many males swam at penn state.

If I transition into a female tomorrow I'm not going to win any female Olympic medals, as they have spent their lives on it, are extremely talented and I'm hopeless. I will get a massive advantage that I shouldn't though.

I was Edinburgh schools level at football. If I played the female game I maybe would have got in a Scotland youth squad. I'd have taken the place of a more talented female just because of my physical attributes.

You would have got in the full Scotland squad.
I coach an u17 boys team and I’m confident we would beat any team in the SWPL. That’s not a criticism of the women’s game. The have some amazing players. It’s just that the boys are now a lot faster and stronger.
Last season Spartans ladies played against the boys u14’s and only won 3-2 with a couple of late goals as the boys ran out of steam. That same team this year would beat them.
Male and female sport can’t and shouldn’t be compared. They are both great to play and watch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[He's here!]

The-Scottish-Gender-Recognition-Reform-Bill.pdf (policyexchange.org.uk) (https://policyexchange.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/The-Scottish-Gender-Recognition-Reform-Bill.pdf)

Think tank paper concludes the bill meets the requirements for a Section 35 order. Needless to say folk will dismiss it as a right-leaning publication but having had a read of it I'd say the case it makes is hard to argue with.

[Ozyhibby]

The-Scottish-Gender-Recognition-Reform-Bill.pdf (policyexchange.org.uk) (https://policyexchange.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/The-Scottish-Gender-Recognition-Reform-Bill.pdf)

Think tank paper concludes the bill meets the requirements for a Section 35 order. Needless to say folk will dismiss it as a right-leaning publication but having had a read of it I'd say the case it makes is hard to argue with.

I’m sure we’ll find out soon enough.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[James310]

The Brit Awards got rid of gender based awards and now all 5 nominations for Artist of the Year are male. Apparently they got rid of male and female categories as non binary Sam Smith couldn't be nominated in male or female seeing as he doesn't identify as either.

If I was a woman artist I would be pretty annoyed at this.

[Stairway 2 7]

The Brit Awards got rid of gender based awards and now all 5 nominations for Artist of the Year are male. Apparently they got rid of male and female categories as non binary Sam Smith couldn't be nominated in male or female seeing as he doesn't identify as either.

If I was a woman artist I would be pretty annoyed at this.

Well I hope he's happy not picking a gender. 5 female artists that would have got a sales bump that comes with a nomination now lose out. Think there needs to be a new suffragette movement as women's rights and achievements are being chipped away all over the world.

[Ozyhibby]

The Brit Awards got rid of gender based awards and now all 5 nominations for Artist of the Year are male. Apparently they got rid of male and female categories as non binary Sam Smith couldn't be nominated in male or female seeing as he doesn't identify as either.

If I was a woman artist I would be pretty annoyed at this.

And if they are all female next year, will you be annoyed at that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

The Brit Awards got rid of gender based awards and now all 5 nominations for Artist of the Year are male. Apparently they got rid of male and female categories as non binary Sam Smith couldn't be nominated in male or female seeing as he doesn't identify as either.

If I was a woman artist I would be pretty annoyed at this.

In last year's event, which was gender-neutral, 10 out of 15 categories were won by women or female-fronted acts. This year, no-one has more nominations than Wet Leg.

[James310]

And if they are all female next year, will you be annoyed at that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am not annoyed as I am not being considered for a Brit Award. I don't see a problem however keeping male and female categories.

[CapitalGreen]

The Brit Awards got rid of gender based awards and now all 5 nominations for Artist of the Year are male. Apparently they got rid of male and female categories as non binary Sam Smith couldn't be nominated in male or female seeing as he doesn't identify as either.

If I was a woman artist I would be pretty annoyed at this.

Aren’t women lucky to have a man like you to tell them how they should feel about this.

I think it says a lot about your opinion of female artists that you believe they need gender protected awards in order to win. The Mercury Music prize is often seen as the highest accolade in British popular music making and is non-gender specific, 3 of the last 5 winners have been women. You might disagree but women are just as good at making music as men.

[James310]

Aren’t women lucky to have a man like you to tell them how they should feel about this.

I think it says a lot about your opinion of female artists that you believe they need gender protected awards in order to win. The Mercury Music prize is often seen as the highest accolade in British popular music making and is non-gender specific, 3 of the last 5 winners have been women. You might disagree but women are just as good at making music as men.

Here is a woman that disagrees with you.

https://inews.co.uk/culture/music/brit-awards-2023-gender-neutral-nominations-affront-women-music-2080582

"2023’s gender-neutral Brits nominations are an affront to women in music

Despite efforts to be more inclusive, this year’s nominations reflect an industry living in the past"

You don't see the irony of what you posted as you as a man are saying she is wrong and telling her how to feel.

I am guessing you would support getting rid of best male/female Oscars etc. Where does it end?

[CropleyWasGod]

Here is a woman that disagrees with you.

https://inews.co.uk/culture/music/brit-awards-2023-gender-neutral-nominations-affront-women-music-2080582

"2023’s gender-neutral Brits nominations are an affront to women in music

Despite efforts to be more inclusive, this year’s nominations reflect an industry living in the past"

You don't see the irony of what you posted as you as a man are saying she is wrong and telling her how to feel.

I am guessing you would support getting rid of best male/female Oscars etc. Where does it end?

For the most part, Art is art. Why would there be a need to differentiate between genders to decide who is "the best"? ( the last bit is in itself problematic IMO, but that's for another debate)

We've had the likes of the Turner and the Booker for years. I don't recall there being much of an issue about their being gender-neutral.

[ronaldo7]

Here is a woman that disagrees with you.

https://inews.co.uk/culture/music/brit-awards-2023-gender-neutral-nominations-affront-women-music-2080582

"2023’s gender-neutral Brits nominations are an affront to women in music

Despite efforts to be more inclusive, this year’s nominations reflect an industry living in the past"

You don't see the irony of what you posted as you as a man are saying she is wrong and telling her how to feel.

I am guessing you would support getting rid of best male/female Oscars etc. Where does it end?

I'm not sure, Adele will be happy hearing the culture writer, Emily bootle, class her clean sweep of awards last year as a fluke.

[Hibrandenburg]

I am not annoyed as I am not being considered for a Brit Award. I don't see a problem however keeping male and female categories.

When physical advantage doesn't play a role in competition, isn't separating the sexes a step backwards in equality and doesn't it devalue any awards?

[CapitalGreen]

Here is a woman that disagrees with you.

https://inews.co.uk/culture/music/brit-awards-2023-gender-neutral-nominations-affront-women-music-2080582

"2023’s gender-neutral Brits nominations are an affront to women in music

Despite efforts to be more inclusive, this year’s nominations reflect an industry living in the past"

You don't see the irony of what you posted as you as a man are saying she is wrong and telling her how to feel.

I am guessing you would support getting rid of best male/female Oscars etc. Where does it end?

I hadn’t read her opinion so how could I say her opinion is wrong? I also didn’t tell anyone how to feel, I told you what I felt about your opinion.

As for the Oscar’s, until there is an end to the male domination of leading roles in the Hollywood film industry, I see a strong argument for gender specific awards for acting being protected. For example, the top 10 highest grossing films of 2022 all had male lead actors. I no longer see the same gender imbalance existing in UK popular music. The current top 5 singles and 4 of the top 10 albums in the UK last year are female artists or musical acts with female leads.

[archie]

https://archive.ph/2023.01.12-170350/https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/gender-neutral-brit-awards-nominate-all-men-for-2023s-best-artist-8sf7g9mhr

[danhibees1875]

When physical advantage doesn't play a role in competition, isn't separating the sexes a step backwards in equality and doesn't it devalue any awards?

I think that's a fair, and interesting, question. :agree:

Is there a history of institutional bias towards men that doing so would help to address?

Perhaps there was a time where it was needed but is no longer required?

A recent YouGov poll showed public opinion sits with only sporting awards should be separated by sex; most would rather see combined awards for acting, music, literary, scientific, and humanitarian awards.

However, the consensus is also that there's a higher likelihood of this leading to more male winners across all those categories than more female winners (that's a tad misleading, as there's large "stay the same" results in each too (not sports)).

[147lothian]

Are you saying that the independent didn't get the facts right in the article?

If you look at the independent web site for Lia Thomas you get the same old narrative, transwoman are women, Lia is a woman, Lia deserves to be in woman's sport. In other words the independent has skin in the game, it thinks it will be seen as modern thinking and progressive to be a trans ally, so it pursues the the war on reality that is trans ideology. I would trust an independent journalist to report on a woman's sports event that involved a transwoman about as much as I would trust a mouse to guard the cheese.

The independent even go as far as to say that Lia Thomas never had an unfair advantage, even though Lia Thomas went from ranked 462 in the male category to winning gold in the woman's 500 yard free style. This is completely unheard of in elite sport and demonstrates clearly that transwomen are not women. The only way that woman's sport can be a fair sport is if it a protected category for biological woman only.

[neil7908]

When physical advantage doesn't play a role in competition, isn't separating the sexes a step backwards in equality and doesn't it devalue any awards?

Exactly. Taking this to its logical conclusion, should we have separate categories for race as well?

[Pretty Boy]

Exactly. Taking this to its logical conclusion, should we have separate categories for race as well?

The issue is that when awards are non gender specific then they are invariably male dominated.

The Turner and Booker Prizes were both mentioned above, both winners lists dominated by men. The TCAs made a range of awards non gender specific, dominated by men. (70% male winners) The Edinburgh Comedy Award (only 5 female winners in it's history), Nobel Prizes (898 men to 61 women) and the BAFTA rising star award (9 v 3 in favour of men) follow the same pattern. 67 SPOTY awards given, 13 female winners (one as a joint winner with a male partner). MTVs best comedic award performance has had more male winners (21 from 97 nominees) than female nominees (20). You get the picture.

That's not to say there shouldn't be a move towards inclusivity but there also has to be recognition that winning prestigious awards brings career and subsequently financial advancement and as it stands in non gender defined awards women are often at a disadvantage. Without evidence that greater parity is likely then that disadvantage remains.

I'm also unsure why a female winning a female only award would devalue it. Are female awards only of value if they have been won competing against men? Does the same apply the other way around?

[neil7908]

The issue is that when awards are non gender specific then they are invariably male dominated.

The Turner and Booker Prizes were both mentioned above, both winners lists dominated by men. The TCAs made a range of awards non gender specific, dominated by men. (70% male winners) The Edinburgh Comedy Award (only 5 female winners in it's history), Nobel Prizes (898 men to 61 women) and the BAFTA rising star award (9 v 3 in favour of men) follow the same pattern. 67 SPOTY awards given, 13 female winners (one as a joint winner with a male partner). MTVs best comedic award performance has had more male winners (21 from 97 nominees) than female nominees (20). You get the picture.

That's not to say there shouldn't be a move towards inclusivity but there also has to be recognition that winning prestigious awards brings career and subsequently financial advancement and as it stands in non gender defined awards women are often at a disadvantage. Without evidence that greater parity is likely then that disadvantage remains.

I'm also unsure why a female winning a female only award would devalue it. Are female awards only of value if they have been won competing against men? Does the same apply the other way around?

I take your point but the same issue applies to ethnic minorities. Is there therefore a compelling reason we would separate awards by gender but not race?

I think the Oscars is a great example of the way forward. There was an outcry (#OscarsSoWhite) and a recognition that awards need to consider how they decide a winner, and who is involved in the process.

I personally think that is a much better approach. Scrutinise and evaluate the process to ensure its much fairer for not just women, but also other commonly poorly presented communities.

[Stairway 2 7]

I take your point but the same issue applies to ethnic minorities. Is there therefore a compelling reason we would separate awards by gender but not race?

I think the Oscars is a great example of the way forward. There was an outcry (#OscarsSoWhite) and a recognition that awards need to consider how they decide a winner, and who is involved in the process.

I personally think that is a much better way forward. Scrutinise and evaluate the process to ensure its much fairer for not just women, but also other commonly poorly presented communities.

The mobos are a thing because underepresentation of black and minority artists. It would be sad if they had to create a female music and film awards due to underepresentation. Its ludicrous to say there would ever be separation in an awards show because of race its completely different and absurd

[Pretty Boy]

I take your point but the same issue applies to ethnic minorities. Is there therefore a compelling reason we would separate awards by gender but not race?

I think the Oscars is a great example of the way forward. There was an outcry (#OscarsSoWhite) and a recognition that awards need to consider how they decide a winner, and who is involved in the process.

I personally think that is a much better approach. Scrutinise and evaluate the process to ensure its much fairer for not just women, but also other commonly poorly presented communities.

I think in some spheres there is still an element of racial segregation. The MOBO Awards would be an obvious example. Obviously not exclusively for people of colour but set up in response to the under representation of black culture in mainstream awards. Indirectly linked to my line of work there is the BIH Awards for black and Asian people working in the food and drink sector (largely because there was an under representation in the major awards in the sector). There are also things like the American Black Film Awards or the NACCP Theatre Awards.

I agree with your overall point though that greater inclusivity across the board is the most desirable outcome. Both in terms of those winning the awards and those with a say in who does so. Even with public votes I think there is still an inherent bias against women in a sphere like sport though because male sporting achievement is given so much more gravitas. Had England men won the Euros in 2021 and Kane got SPOTY no one would have batted an eyelid. The women won their tournament and Beth Mead got the award and many claimed it was 'a joke' and an example of 'woke culture'. That's the mentality you have to try and change.

I do think we are moving slowly in the right direction with such things and the greater promotion given to womens sport and the like will go some way to resolving these issues for future generations.

[Ozyhibby]

Exactly. Taking this to its logical conclusion, should we have separate categories for race as well?

We have separate categories for nationalities. For type of school you go to. For type of disability you might have. There are all sorts of categories.
I doubt there is any demand for one for race though. Not in pro sport.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[neil7908]

The mobos are a thing because underepresentation of black and minority artists. It would be sad if they had to create a female music and film awards due to underepresentation. Its ludicrous to say there would ever be separation in an awards show because of race its completely different and absurd

Why is it completely different and absurd? There is a clear biological reason to separate men and women in sport. Is there a similar biological reason why women are at a disadvantage in acting or music?

The answer is no of course - we've separated categories due to a sexist selection and decision making process.

Therefore why keep the stasis quo when what needs fixing is how decisions are made?

I of course am not advocating separate awards for race. I agree its absurd. But if you follow my above logic, why is it any more absurd then separating based on gender?

[neil7908]

I think in some spheres there is still an element of racial segregation. The MOBO Awards would be an obvious example. Obviously not exclusively for people of colour but set up in response to the under representation of black culture in mainstream awards. Indirectly linked to my line of work there is the BIH Awards for black and Asian people working in the food and drink sector (largely because there was an under representation in the major awards in the sector). There are also things like the American Black Film Awards or the NACCP Theatre Awards.

I agree with your overall point though that greater inclusivity across the board is the most desirable outcome. Both in terms of those winning the awards and those with a say in who does so. Even with public votes I think there is still an inherent bias against women in a sphere like sport though because male sporting achievement is given so much more gravitas. Had England men won the Euros in 2021 and Kane got SPOTY no one would have batted an eyelid. The women won their tournament and Beth Mead got the award and many claimed it was 'a joke' and an example of 'woke culture'. That's the mentality you have to try and change.

I do think we are moving slowly in the right direction with such things and the greater promotion given to womens sport and the like will go some way to resolving these issues for future generations.

Thanks for your response and actually engaging with my point. Agree we still have a long way to go but in a world where gender is fast becoming a grey area rather than black and white, I just can't understand the need to stick with old binary categories.

There is definitely an issue here, but one way to approach it feels quite old fashioned imo and does nothing to actually challenge the problem (women have their own awards so what's the issue). It just kicks the can down the road.

Better to deal with the inherent bias that leads to a lack of representation.

[neil7908]

We have separate categories for nationalities. For type of school you go to. For type of disability you might have. There are all sorts of categories.
I doubt there is any demand for one for race though. Not in pro sport.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

RE your last line, I don't think you've picked up the discussion correctly. This was about awards and having separate categories, not sport.

[Stairway 2 7]

Why is it completely different and absurd? There is a clear biological reason to separate men and women in sport. Is there a similar biological reason why women are at a disadvantage in acting or music?

The answer is no of course - we've separated categories due to a sexist selection and decision making process.

Therefore why keep the stasis quo when what needs fixing is how decisions are made?

I of course am not advocating separate awards for race. I agree its absurd. But if you follow my above logic, why is it any more absurd then separating based on gender?

You seriously don't see a ******g ridiculously large difference between an organisation choosing to separate an award based by gender, compared to if they did by race..

[neil7908]

You seriously don't see a ******g ridiculously large difference between an organisation choosing to separate an award based by gender, compared to if they did by race..

It depends. An award for acting or music, where there is no biological reason why women are at disadvantage? Then yes the comparison is with race is fair.

Sport where women are at a biological disadvantage to men? Yes of course equating race and gender is ridiculous.

A question for you since you seem to be misunderstanding my point. Do you think women have any natural, genetic or inbuilt reason why they can't be as good at acting or music as men?

Presuming your answer is no, the question will be why they win less awards. And the answer will be inherent bias. So we can keep having a separate category and ignore the issue, or we can tackle it and build a fair system which prevents systemic discrimination against women, minorities etc. Not easy but doable.

Also, when we are moving towards gender fluidity and non-binary, why keep an archaic, binary model? Where does a non-binary actor like Emma D'Arcy fit into a male / female award category?

[Stairway 2 7]

It depends. An award for acting or music, where there is no biological reason why women are at disadvantage? Then yes the comparison is with race is fair.

Sport where women are at a biological disadvantage to men? Yes of course equating race and gender is ridiculous.

A question for you since you seem to be misunderstanding my point. Do you think women have any natural, genetic or inbuilt reason why they can't be as good at acting or music as men?

Presuming your answer is no, the question will be why they win less awards. And the answer will be inherent bias. So we can keep having a separate category and ignore the issue, or we can tackle it and build a fair system which prevents systemic discrimination against women, minorities etc. Not easy but doable.

Also, when we are moving towards gender fluidity and non-binary, why keep an archaic, binary model?

Because its beyond nieve to think gender neutral categories won't be dominated by men. If in 5 years there is equal men and women nominees at the brits I'll come back and say fair enough.

In the meantime this thread is going off into a tangent

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/conor_matchett/status/1614049815448412160?s=46&t=6YdTYgUvb_6OlY5srpf1jw

Rishi going for it?[emoji102]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[James310]

https://twitter.com/conor_matchett/status/1614049815448412160?s=46&t=6YdTYgUvb_6OlY5srpf1jw

Rishi going for it?[emoji102]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If the legal advice he is getting says it impacts UK Equality Legislation what else is he supposed to do? Ignore the legal advice and just do nothing?

[Ozyhibby]

If the legal advice he is getting says it impacts UK Equality Legislation what else is he supposed to do? Ignore the legal advice and just do nothing?

It’s a political decision. Strange thing to go on though. It will be law in England within the next 5 years anyway because it is supported by Starmer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[James310]

It’s a political decision. Strange thing to go on though. It will be law in England within the next 5 years anyway because it is supported by Starmer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oh, so you believe Starmer now? So House of Lords gone in 5 years will it?

[He's here!]

Reseller removes J.K. Rowling's name from Harry Potter books (nypost.com) (https://nypost.com/2023/01/13/reseller-removes-j-k-rowlings-name-from-harry-potter-books/)

Charging $170 to put a new cover on Harry Potter books without J K Rowling's name on them...quite a money-maker if enough suckers buy into this.

Be surprised if there's not some sort of copyright infringement here, but maybe not if folk have already bought the original books.

[Ozyhibby]

Reseller removes J.K. Rowling's name from Harry Potter books (nypost.com) (https://nypost.com/2023/01/13/reseller-removes-j-k-rowlings-name-from-harry-potter-books/)

Charging $170 to put a new cover on Harry Potter books without J K Rowling's name on them...quite a money-maker if enough suckers buy into this.

Be surprised if there's not some sort of copyright infringement here, but maybe not if folk have already bought the original books.

You’d need to be a very special individual to buy anything like that.[emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[He's here!]

It’s a political decision. Strange thing to go on though. It will be law in England within the next 5 years anyway because it is supported by Starmer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't think Starmer knows what he believes. He was one of those caught floundering last year when asking political types to define a woman was de rigueur. Fearful of giving the correct answer (adult human female) he blathered a bit about gender recognition and equal rights, which has left Labour with a woolly stance on the issue (witness their supine performance at Holyrood last month when they passed up the chance to help kick this bill into touch by simply tinkering ineffectually around the edges). As ever, he'll see which way the wind's blowing before forming a clear opinion on this but he's got a few years before he has to commit to anything significant. Sunak as PM on the other hand, is faced having to make a call on a bill which will without doubt impact on UK equality laws and as far as I can see has no option but to put this legislation on hold.

[CropleyWasGod]

You’d need to be a very special individual to buy anything like that.[emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Or perhaps one who believes the theory that she used the name Robert Galbraith as an homage to the pioneer of conversion therapy :)

[He's here!]

Oh, so you believe Starmer now? So House of Lords gone in 5 years will it?

He was his usual non-committal self about this during his Kuenssberg interview earlier, although he did at least concede concerns about the new age of transition in Scotland (something which has often been overshadowed by the furore over the erosion of women's rights):

Starmer concerned about age of gender transition in Scotland
Kuenssberg pushes Starmer and asks again, if Labour were in power, would he look to introduce a system of gender self-identification as Scotland has done?
Starmer says he wants to modernise the system and is looking at all options to "take out the indignities".
He says he has concerns that the age of transition is 16 in Scotland and the significance of the Equality Act.
He says there is a small number of people born with a gender they don't identify with and they need to be respected.
Asked if he would block the Scottish legislation, Starmer says he will wait and see what the UK government will do.

[Ozyhibby]

He was his usual non-committal self about this during his Kuenssberg interview earlier, although he did at least concede concerns about the new age of transition in Scotland (something which has often been overshadowed by the furore over the erosion of women's rights):

Starmer concerned about age of gender transition in Scotland
Kuenssberg pushes Starmer and asks again, if Labour were in power, would he look to introduce a system of gender self-identification as Scotland has done?
Starmer says he wants to modernise the system and is looking at all options to "take out the indignities".
He says he has concerns that the age of transition is 16 in Scotland and the significance of the Equality Act.
He says there is a small number of people born with a gender they don't identify with and they need to be respected.
Asked if he would block the Scottish legislation, Starmer says he will wait and see what the UK government will do.



Not like Starmer to say ‘wait and see’. [emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[He's here!]

Not like Starmer to say ‘wait and see’. [emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bit more meat on the bones here from various sources:

Starmer: '16 is too young to change legal gender' - BBC News (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-64281548)

Hard to see this not ending up in court.

[Glory Lurker]

Bit more meat on the bones here from various sources:

Starmer: '16 is too young to change legal gender' - BBC News (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-64281548)

Hard to see this not ending up in court.

Just to focus in on the headline, Starmer obviously doesn't know (or care, maybe?) that 16 is the age of majority in Scotland. Added to his claim to have been head of prosecution for the whole UK it does seem he doesn't really understand the country he wants to run.

[Ozyhibby]

Just to focus in on the headline, Starmer obviously doesn't know (or care, maybe?) that 16 is the age of majority in Scotland. Added to his claim to have been head of prosecution for the whole UK it does seem he doesn't really understand the country he wants to run.

He’s no more interested in Scotland than the average Tory. When Tony Blair became Labour leader he was regularly in Scotland. Starmer visits about as often as Johnson did.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[James310]

Bit more meat on the bones here from various sources:

Starmer: '16 is too young to change legal gender' - BBC News (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-64281548)

Hard to see this not ending up in court.

That BBC report quotes Maggie Chapman who I saw on video from the Scottish Greens saying 6 and 7 year olds need more support as they often recognise they are trans at that age. I can see the Greens pushing for this but I think most SNP MSPs will reject this.

[He's here!]

Just to focus in on the headline, Starmer obviously doesn't know (or care, maybe?) that 16 is the age of majority in Scotland. Added to his claim to have been head of prosecution for the whole UK it does seem he doesn't really understand the country he wants to run.

At least he's finally come out with something concrete on this issue. I fail to understand why, if he feels this way, he didn't make that clear to Sarwar so that Scottish Labour actually knew where they stood. Had he done so there's a chance this ill thought through legislation could have been voted down and spared us the ongoing fallout.

[He's here!]

That BBC report quotes Maggie Chapman who I saw on video from the Scottish Greens saying 6 and 7 year olds need more support as they often recognise they are trans at that age. I can see the Greens pushing for this but I think most SNP MSPs will reject this.

She's cut from the same bampot cloth as Harvie and Slater.

[Glory Lurker]

At least he's finally come out with something concrete on this issue. I fail to understand why, if he feels this way, he didn't make that clear to Sarwar so that Scottish Labour actually knew where they stood. Had he done so there's a chance this ill thought through legislation could have been voted down and spared us the ongoing fallout.

Surely he respects devolution enough to allow his members up here autonomy on devolved matters? Add to that that his concrete input is to disrespect the Scottish legal system and it really does look like Starmer is a UK centralist.

[Ozyhibby]

At least he's finally come out with something concrete on this issue. I fail to understand why, if he feels this way, he didn't make that clear to Sarwar so that Scottish Labour actually knew where they stood. Had he done so there's a chance this ill thought through legislation could have been voted down and spared us the ongoing fallout.

Why do Scottish Labour need to know where they stand from London? Can they not think for themselves?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

I thought I had misheard Starmer this morning when he seemed to claim that a Labour amendment to the GRRA in respect of its relationship to the EA had been voted down.

It turns out that I heard it correctly. This from within his own party.

https://twitter.com/LGBTLabScot/status/1614594707606077441?t=QQcONYSod_UBXym8oR-3FA&s=19

So has he been badly advised, has he not read it properly, or is he lying?

[He's here!]

Why do Scottish Labour need to know where they stand from London? Can they not think for themselves?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It may have been a Scottish Parliamentary Bill but it was clear it would have nationwide repercussions. I know Ian Murray was heavily involved behind the scenes in helping to co-ordinate Scottish Labour's strategy (such as it was) on this issue.

[He's here!]

I thought I had misheard Starmer this morning when he seemed to claim that a Labour amendment to the GRRA in respect of its relationship to the EA had been voted down.

It turns out that I heard it correctly. This from within his own party.

https://twitter.com/LGBTLabScot/status/1614594707606077441?t=QQcONYSod_UBXym8oR-3FA&s=19

So has he been badly advised, has he not read it properly, or is he lying?

As I posted earlier in the thread I don't think he's been clued up enough from the start on this and has ended up creating all sorts of confusion today re his party's stance.

[Glory Lurker]

It may have been a Scottish Parliamentary Bill but it was clear it would have nationwide repercussions. I know Ian Murray was heavily involved behind the scenes in helping to co-ordinate Scottish Labour's strategy (such as it was) on this issue.

It might well have repercussions beyond our border, but isn't that the case with every devolved issue? Sounds like the old anti-devo Labour is getting the band back together.

[CropleyWasGod]

As I posted earlier in the thread I don't think he's been clued up enough from the start on this and has ended up creating all sorts of confusion today re his party's stance.

This could be said about so much of his attitude to Scotland.

I presume he'll be slapping down Mark Drakeford, given his support for similar reforms in Wales.

[He's here!]

It might well have repercussions beyond our border, but isn't that the case with every devolved issue? Sounds like the old anti-devo Labour is getting the band back together.

Aren't the consequences of most devolved decisions (eg in education or healthcare) Scotland's alone to own? Rare, I think, for law passed by a devolved legislature to impact on UK-wide law (in this case the Equality Act).

[James310]

It might well have repercussions beyond our border, but isn't that the case with every devolved issue? Sounds like the old anti-devo Labour is getting the band back together.

I would say no, the Scottish Parliament cannot pass legislation that impacts UK wide legislation. We saw that with the UN Children's Rights Bill and of course the Referendum Bill. The Scottish Parliament is free to make law that impacts Scotland but not UK legislation. If that was the case the Scottish Parliament could do whatever it wanted and make whatever laws it wanted without due regard to the UK, which would make no sense.

Smoking ban, smacking ban, baby box, new benefits etc are all for Scotland only.

I don't think it's unreasonable for the UK Government based on legal advice to say make some amendments to the Bill to make it work for Scotland and the UK.

[Ozyhibby]

[QUOTE=James310;7233680]I would say no, the Scottish Parliament cannot pass legislation that impacts UK wide legislation. We saw that with the UN Children's Rights Bill and of course the Referendum Bill. The Scottish Parliament is free to make law that impacts Scotland but not UK legislation. If that was the case the Scottish Parliament could do whatever it wanted and make whatever laws it wanted without due regard to the UK, which would make no sense.

Smoking ban, smacking ban, baby box, new benefits etc are all for Scotland only.

I don't think it's unreasonable for the UK Government based on legal advice to say make some amendments to the Bill to make it work for Scotland and


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[James310]

Why is Ireland allowed to then?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Does Ireland issue British Passports and documents like that?

[Ozyhibby]

Does Ireland issue British Passports and documents like that?

Happy to take that burden away from them if they like.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[James310]

Happy to take that burden away from them if they like.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ireland is not on the list anyway.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/gender-recognition-certificate-list-of-approved-countries-and-territories/gender-recognition-certificate-list-of-approved-countries-and-territories

[Hibrandenburg]

Why do Scottish Labour need to know where they stand from London? Can they not think for themselves?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They're not genetically programmed to do things like that.

[ronaldo7]

[QUOTE=James310;7233680]I would say no, the Scottish Parliament cannot pass legislation that impacts UK wide legislation. We saw that with the UN Children's Rights Bill and of course the Referendum Bill. The Scottish Parliament is free to make law that impacts Scotland but not UK legislation. If that was the case the Scottish Parliament could do whatever it wanted and make whatever laws it wanted without due regard to the UK, which would make no sense.

Smoking ban, smacking ban, baby box, new benefits etc are all for Scotland only.

I don't think it's unreasonable for the UK Government based on legal advice to say make some amendments to the Bill to make it work for Scotland and


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The UK Gov accepted the drink drive limits in Scotland which are lower than England, Wales and NI.

This whole UK thing is a ruse.

Cross the border at your peril.

[James310]

[QUOTE=Ozyhibby;7233691]

The UK Gov accepted the drink drive limits in Scotland which are lower than England, Wales and NI.

This whole UK thing is a ruse.

Cross the border at your peril.

So when Scotland changed the law on the limit did it also impact the existing UK laws? No, it never. It only impacts people in Scotland who are driving in Scotland.

It's not just about accepting a GRC it's about the impact on Equality Legislation.

[ronaldo7]

[QUOTE=ronaldo7;7233856]

So when Scotland changed the law on the limit did it also impact the existing UK laws? No, it never. It only impacts people in Scotland who are driving in Scotland.

It's not just about accepting a GRC it's about the impact on Equality Legislation.

It's about accepting the law of the country you are in and who's presenting to you.

Some don't want to of course, but I suppose we'll have to see what they come up with in the equality legislation to make their case.

Any idea why Idaho, and Texas are not on the same UK list as California?

I've got a UK driving licence, not a Scottish one.

[danhibees1875]

Maybe a daft question, what's the impact on the other UK nations?

Is it that someone recognised as having changed gender (using the new Scottish criteria) then has to be recognised as that gender when it comes to reserved areas (passport issue for instance)?

[James310]

[QUOTE=James310;7233860]

It's about accepting the law of the country you are in and who's presenting to you.

Some don't want to of course, but I suppose we'll have to see what they come up with in the equality legislation to make their case.

Any idea why Idaho, and Texas are not on the same UK list as California?

Exactly, so you accept the UK law when you are erm part of the UK. This is strongly opposed by the public in Scotland, it's not unreasonable for the UK Government to ask to open dialogue with the Scottish Government on the back of legal advice.

Normally if the UK Government ignored legal advice you and fellow Yes voters would be outraged, imagine if the Supreme Court has said a referendum had be held legally in Scotland and the UK Government just ignored that legal advice and did nothing.

No idea on your last point.

[ronaldo7]

[QUOTE=ronaldo7;7233867]

Exactly, so you accept the UK law when you are erm part of the UK. This is strongly opposed by the public in Scotland, it's not unreasonable for the UK Government to ask to open dialogue with the Scottish Government on the back of legal advice. If they ignored that legal advice yoo would be having a go, but now you want them to ignore this legal advice.

Normally if the UK Government ignored legal advice you and fellow Yes voters would be outraged, imagine if the Supreme Court has said a referendum had be held legally in Scotland and the UK Government just ignored that legal advice and did nothing.

No idea on your last point.

Edited my last post.

I've got a UK driving licence but have different laws within the UK on how I can drink and drive.

[James310]

[QUOTE=James310;7233875]

Edited my last post.

I've got a UK driving licence but have different laws within the UK on how I can drink and drive.

Who issued your Driving license? What equality laws are related to you driving?

[ronaldo7]

[QUOTE=ronaldo7;7233883]

Who issued your Driving license? What equality laws are related to you driving?

Why should someone in England be allowed to drink more before driving. It's not equal is it.

Surely the UK Gov should have intervened when the Scottish Parliament changed the rights of UK citizens from 80 to 50, or maybe they just know that people presenting with a GRC should be accepted

[James310]

[QUOTE=James310;7233890]

Why should someone in England be allowed to drink more before driving. It's not equal is it.

Surely the UK Gov should have intervened when the Scottish Parliament changed the rights of UK citizens from 80 to 50, or maybe they just know that people having a GRC should be accepted

As I said the drink driving limit was changed in Scotland to impact only people driving in Scotland and I don't think it's comparable to compare it to something as fundamental as the GRA. Some things are devolved and some things aren't, Equality Legislation isn't.

As I say you would be outraged if the UK Gov ignored legal advice on lots of other matters but you are actively encouraging them to ignore this legal advice. It's not a very consistent position.

[CropleyWasGod]

Maybe a daft question, what's the impact on the other UK nations?

Is it that someone recognised as having changed gender (using the new Scottish criteria) then has to be recognised as that gender when it comes to reserved areas (passport issue for instance)?

It's not about the other nations as such.

It's about the alleged clash between the GRRA and the UK EA, which might have implications for those living in Scotland.

I say "alleged", because I have yet to see, in layman's terms, any actual explanation of what that clash might be, particularly in light of the clause in the GRRA which gives the EA primacy.

[ronaldo7]

[QUOTE=ronaldo7;7233904]

As I said the drink driving limit was changed in Scotland to impact only people driving in Scotland and I don't think it's comparable to compare it to something as fundamental as the GRA. Some things are devolved and some things aren't, Equality Legislation isn't.

As I say you would be outraged if the UK Gov ignored legal advice on lots of other matters but you are actively encouraging them to ignore this legal advice. It's not a very consistent position.

Last para.

You're doing it again. Thinking you know what my position is on a subject. That crystal ball of yours is wonky again.

Gonnae no dae that.

[Ozyhibby]

[QUOTE=ronaldo7;7233867]

Exactly, so you accept the UK law when you are erm part of the UK. This is strongly opposed by the public in Scotland, it's not unreasonable for the UK Government to ask to open dialogue with the Scottish Government on the back of legal advice.

Normally if the UK Government ignored legal advice you and fellow Yes voters would be outraged, imagine if the Supreme Court has said a referendum had be held legally in Scotland and the UK Government just ignored that legal advice and did nothing.

No idea on your last point.

Strongly opposed in Scotland? Pretty sure I heard John Curtice on the radio last week saying the issue has had no cut through at all with the wider public? In fact he went as far as to say that it was a big political gamble for the unionist to use a s35 order for an issue that doesn’t move many votes either way.
So I would tend to agree with him that there is neither strong opposition or support.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[weecounty hibby]

[QUOTE=ronaldo7;7233867]

Exactly, so you accept the UK law when you are erm part of the UK. This is strongly opposed by the public in Scotland, it's not unreasonable for the UK Government to ask to open dialogue with the Scottish Government on the back of legal advice.

Normally if the UK Government ignored legal advice you and fellow Yes voters would be outraged, imagine if the Supreme Court has said a referendum had be held legally in Scotland and the UK Government just ignored that legal advice and did nothing.

No idea on your last point.

I think you are overplaying the "strongly opposed by the public in Scotland". I genuinely have had one conversation about this with one other person while this has been going on. It was actually a really good discussion about it and we both agreed that we dont know enough about the subject and we could see pros and cons on both sides of the debate. It's just not an issue that is discussed day to day by folk in my experience

[danhibees1875]

It's not about the other nations as such.

It's about the alleged clash between the GRRA and the UK EA, which might have implications for those living in Scotland.

I say "alleged", because I have yet to see, in layman's terms, any actual explanation of what that clash might be, particularly in light of the clause in the GRRA which gives the EA primacy.

Thanks CWG. :aok:

[archie]

[QUOTE=James310;7233890]

Why should someone in England be allowed to drink more before driving. It's not equal is it.

Surely the UK Gov should have intervened when the Scottish Parliament changed the rights of UK citizens from 80 to 50, or maybe they just know that people presenting with a GRC should be accepted

The issue would be if the Scottish Government tried to change the drink driving limit in England and Wales.

[James310]

[QUOTE=ronaldo7;7233904]

The issue would be if the Scottish Government tried to change the drink driving limit in England and Wales.

Yes, which they never they only changed it in Scotland. It's not comparable to GRA.

I see quoting has gone all wonky again!

[Moulin Yarns]

Yes, which they never they only changed it in Scotland. It's not comparable to GRA.

I see quoting has gone all wonky again!

The Scottish Government has only introduced the GRC change in Scotland, it doesn't affect the other nations of the UK. The Westminster government are once again trying to interfere in matters affecting Scotland.

[James310]

The Scottish Government has only introduced the GRC change in Scotland, it doesn't affect the other nations of the UK. The Westminster government are once again trying to interfere in matters affecting Scotland.

So you are a lawyer now and know for a fact it doesn't impact UK Equality Legislation? How did you come to this conclusion?

[JeMeSouviens]

The issue would be if the Scottish Government tried to change the drink driving limit in England and Wales.

If you want to use a car analogy, a better one would be the Scottish govt changed the mot test but the result had to be accepted in E&W.

[Moulin Yarns]

So you are a lawyer now and know for a fact it doesn't impact UK Equality Legislation? How did you come to this conclusion?

I love the indignation about equality whilst denying equality for a very small minority of the population.


Let's have equality, but only one kind of equality!!

[James310]

I love the indignation about equality whilst denying equality for a very small minority of the population.


Let's have equality, but only one kind of equality!!

Not sure you answered that question, so what made you come to the conclusion it doesn't impact UK law?

[Moulin Yarns]

Not sure you answered that question, so what made you come to the conclusion it doesn't impact UK law?

Try explaining why it does!

[archie]

If you want to use a car analogy, a better one would be the Scottish govt changed the mot test but the result had to be accepted in E&W.

Yup, makes the point.

[James310]

Try explaining why it does!


You said "it doesn't effect the other nations of the UK" how did you come to that conclusion?

You don't know do you?

[Ozyhibby]

Forgetting the act itself for a minute, what’s the process for a s35 order? I take it it will go to court but who is it that will have to bring the case?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

You said "it doesn't effect the other nations of the UK" how did you come to that conclusion?

You don't know do you?

It doesn't affect the rights of transgender people in England, Wales or anywhere else. All that the legislation will change is make it less traumatic and difficult for transgender people to be recognised for who they are.

Mark Drakeford has said that Scotland has made the right decision and I suppose Wales will look to introducing similar legislation meaning that Westminster is out of step with the rest of the UK.

[James310]

It doesn't affect the rights of transgender people in England, Wales or anywhere else. All that the legislation will change is make it less traumatic and difficult for transgender people to be recognised for who they are.

Mark Drakeford has said that Scotland has made the right decision and I suppose Wales will look to introducing similar legislation meaning that Westminster is out of step with the rest of the UK.

But I am asking how you know that for a fact? So the UK Lawyers are wrong, why are they wrong?

[Moulin Yarns]

But I am asking how you know that for a fact? So the UK Lawyers are wrong, why are they wrong?

And I've asked for your proof of what effect it has on transgender people in England? But I'm not expecting any because you don't know either.

[James310]

And I've asked for your proof of what effect it has on transgender people in England? But I'm not expecting any because you don't know either.

The difference is I never claimed it did, I would wait until the actual lawyers make their review clear.

You seemed certain it has no effect on UK legislation so I asked how you knew that, so it turns out you don't know at all and you are basically guessing.

[JeMeSouviens]

Forgetting the act itself for a minute, what’s the process for a s35 order? I take it it will go to court but who is it that will have to bring the case?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think Alister Jack can jet in from his grouse moor and do it himself without needing a court.

[CropleyWasGod]

But I am asking how you know that for a fact? So the UK Lawyers are wrong, why are they wrong?

I think the issue is that there has been a lot of talk about a clash in the laws. But no-one has said "HOW" that alleged clash plays out in terms of how it affects people in Scotland, in language that we can all understand.

If we had that, perhaps the debate could be had on a decent basis.

[James310]

I think the issue is that there has been a lot of talk about a clash in the laws. But no-one has said "HOW" that alleged clash plays out in terms of how it affects people in Scotland.

If we had that, perhaps the debate could be had on a decent basis.

That's why I challenge people who make statements as fact, how can they know? Turns out they don't.

If you are going to say it doesn't impact UK laws I wanted to know how that conclusion was made.

[CropleyWasGod]

That's why I challenge people who make statements as fact, how can they know? Turns out they don't.

If you are going to say it doesn't impact UK laws I wanted to know how that conclusion was made.

On the flip side, if people are going to say (or assume) that there is an impact, we need to know their basis for doing so.

[James310]

On the flip side, if people are going to say (or assume) that there is an impact, we need to know their basis for doing so.

And what's what we are waiting to find out. If no impact we move on and the Bill gets Royal Assent. The reports seems to suggest it won't be as simple as that.

[danhibees1875]

If I decide to recognise as a woman using the new rules in Scotland do I use woman's changing facilities when in Newcastle even though English law wouldn't have allowed me to recognise as a woman?

Is that the/a problem?

[CropleyWasGod]

If I decide to recognise as a woman using the new rules in Scotland do I use woman's changing facilities when in Newcastle even though English law wouldn't have allowed me to recognise as a woman?

Is that the/a problem?

AIUI, you can do that anyway, under current GRA (English and Scottish) and EA legislation. Equally, under the EA, the other users of that space can ask for you to be excluded.

The new GRRA doesn't change that for the Newcastle situation. It's the intention of the GRRA that it won't change in Scotland either.

[danhibees1875]

AIUI, you can do that anyway, under current GRA (English and Scottish) and EA legislation. Equally, under the EA, the other users of that space can ask for you to be excluded.

The new GRRA doesn't change that for the Newcastle situation. It's the intention of the GRRA that it won't change in Scotland either.

Hmm, thanks- but i think it's beyond me now. :aok:

[He's here!]

[QUOTE=James310;7233875]

I think you are overplaying the "strongly opposed by the public in Scotland". I genuinely have had one conversation about this with one other person while this has been going on. It was actually a really good discussion about it and we both agreed that we dont know enough about the subject and we could see pros and cons on both sides of the debate. It's just not an issue that is discussed day to day by folk in my experience

Would you say one conversation with one other person is a good barometer of public opinion?

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64288757?at_bbc_team=editorial&at_medium=social&at_format=link&at_campaign_type=owned&at_ptr_name=twitter&at_link_type=web_link&at_link_id=9812BA7E-95C4-11ED-81A3-578196E8478F&at_link_origin=BBCBreaking&at_campaign=Social_Flow

The end of devolution.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ronaldo7]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64288757?at_bbc_team=editorial&at_medium=social&at_format=link&at_campaign_type=owned&at_ptr_name=twitter&at_link_type=web_link&at_link_id=9812BA7E-95C4-11ED-81A3-578196E8478F&at_link_origin=BBCBreaking&at_campaign=Social_Flow

The end of devolution.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Let's see which MSPs have a backbone.

[He's here!]

Try explaining why it does!

The GRR, which removes any sort of checks and balances when it comes to applying for a GRC, will (if it receives royal assent) apply only in Scotland. However, it's the SG's contention that GRCs issued under the new law should be accepted anywhere in the rest of the UK, where regulation around GRCs is stricter. On that basis any institution outwith Scotland refusing to recognise these GRCs would potentially be in breach of the Equality Act. An example would be a male prisoner from Scotland in an English/Welsh/NI prison receiving a Scottish GRC and requesting a move to a women's prison. Essentially, the SG are trying to amend UK equality law.

Personally I remain unclear why, if equality matters are reserved, why this bill ever saw the light of day at Holyrood.

I suspect Sunak was hoping one of the feminist groups which campaigned so hard against the legislation would get him off the hook here and initiate legal proceedings, but I gather funding for such a challenge is short following their previous legal battles with the SG.

What should certainly not happen is for bad law (which this bill is) to pass unchallenged simply because Westminster are worried that might be a bad look. They should draw confidence from polling which shows majority public opposition to hhe bill and give Sturgeon the fight she's so clearly spoiling for. She may not end up looking too clever.

Edit: I see they have now done just that.

[WeeRussell]

[QUOTE=James310;7233875]

I think you are overplaying the "strongly opposed by the public in Scotland". I genuinely have had one conversation about this with one other person while this has been going on. It was actually a really good discussion about it and we both agreed that we dont know enough about the subject and we could see pros and cons on both sides of the debate. It's just not an issue that is discussed day to day by folk in my experience

Very good point this. It’s why I’ve pretty much stayed out of this thread too.

As someone who usually has no problem forming a strong opinion and arguing stubbornly about it (even with limited knowledge) 😁, I find this topic really difficult.

As always, there will be some loud people on both sides, and some with genuine reasoning. But for me it’s about the toughest political debate I can remember in terms of having a strong view on one side or the other.

And no doubt some of those loudest voices will have their strong opinion based on “sturgeon” seeing as being on the opposite side.

[Ozyhibby]

Now that we can’t pass legislation that the Tories in England don’t like, I’m wondering what the point of the parliament is?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[He's here!]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64288757?at_bbc_team=editorial&at_medium=social&at_format=link&at_campaign_type=owned&at_ptr_name=twitter&at_link_type=web_link&at_link_id=9812BA7E-95C4-11ED-81A3-578196E8478F&at_link_origin=BBCBreaking&at_campaign=Social_Flow

The end of devolution.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hardly. Sturgeon looks to have over-reached when it comes to Holyrood's devolved powers here and the UK government's move is perfectly within the provisions of the Scotland Act.

[Ozyhibby]

Hardly. Sturgeon looks to have over-reached when it comes to Holyrood's devolved powers here and the UK government's move is perfectly within the provisions of the Scotland Act.

Who has over reached has still to be determined.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[James310]

Hardly. Sturgeon looks to have over-reached when it comes to Holyrood's devolved powers here and the UK government's move is perfectly within the provisions of the Scotland Act.

6 years in the making, most consulted Bill in the Scottish Parliament and they can't even check if the legislation is compatible with UK law. What were they doing for 6 years?

[Ozyhibby]

6 years in the making, most consulted Bill in the Scottish Parliament and they can't even check if the legislation is compatible with UK law. What were they doing for 6 years?

It is compatible with UK law. They went to court over exactly that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[James310]

It is compatible with UK law. They went to court over exactly that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Who did?

[CropleyWasGod]

A s35 Order requires that its precise legal basis be explained. That explanation will (or should) be published when Jack lays the order before Parliament.

Once that has been established, IMO the likelihood is that the next move will be in the Court of Session.

[LunasBoots]

Slowly Scotlands rights will be no more, the democratic Scottish Parliamentoveruled because Westminster dont like it, welcome to Brexit Britain.

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.stonewall.org.uk/about-us/news/statement-uk-government’s-decision-block-scotland’s-gender-recognition-reform-bill

No real point posting this stuff I suppose. It’s now a constitutional issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hibby Bairn]

Now that we can’t pass legislation that the Tories in England don’t like, I’m wondering what the point of the parliament is?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No point really. Waste of money. No talent in there anymore. Get rid asap.

[Moulin Yarns]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64288757?at_bbc_team=editorial&at_medium=social&at_format=link&at_campaign_type=owned&at_ptr_name=twitter&at_link_type=web_link&at_link_id=9812BA7E-95C4-11ED-81A3-578196E8478F&at_link_origin=BBCBreaking&at_campaign=Social_Flow

The end of devolution.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Must have been leaked to the BBC! Chris Mason outside holyrood at 6pm news!

[He's here!]

Slowly Scotlands rights will be no more, the democratic Scottish Parliamentoveruled because Westminster dont like it, welcome to Brexit Britain.

This is the first time an s35 has been used in the lifetime of the Scottish Parliament. Hardly indicative of regular, overbearing Westminster meddling. In this instance though I can't see that the UK government had any choice but to call out flawed legislation.

[Ozyhibby]

No point really. Waste of money. No talent in there anymore. Get rid asap.

Seems to be the plan.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[James310]

https://www.stonewall.org.uk/about-us/news/statement-uk-government’s-decision-block-scotland’s-gender-recognition-reform-bill

No real point posting this stuff I suppose. It’s now a constitutional issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's not, it's a legal and competency issue. Make some amendments and it's all good.

I fully expect it to be framed as you have done a lot over the next few days and no doubt it's yet another reason for Independence, but I suspect like every other issue that has come before this one it also won't make any difference to Independence.

[He's here!]

https://www.stonewall.org.uk/about-us/news/statement-uk-government’s-decision-block-scotland’s-gender-recognition-reform-bill

No real point posting this stuff I suppose. It’s now a constitutional issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Predictably swift (and wholly wrong) move to label this move as anti-trans - something Sturgeon will doubtless to frame her 'outrage' around.

[Ozyhibby]

Predictably swift (and wholly wrong) move to label this move as anti-trans - something Sturgeon will doubtless to frame her 'outrage' around.

Personally I don’t think there is any care about trans people. This is about attacking the parliament. The UK govt wants to strip its powers. The poor trans people are just collateral damage.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/labourrichard/status/1615042632501043200?s=46&t=No9N3mcB2ckL0F60SnLGrA

First comment from Labour I’ve seen?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

Trans issue will be hijacked for the next few months to boost independence. If its legal the courts will decide and it will correctly stand, if not it will correctly get binned.

Win for the lawyers and politicians. Most public probably don't care

[Ozyhibby]

Trans issue will be hijacked for the next few months to boost independence. If its legal the courts will decide and it will correctly stand, if not it will correctly get binned.

Win for the lawyers and politicians. Most public probably don't care

I think it was hijacked in the service of the union today. I don’t believe for a minute Jack give a hoot about any of the issues involved.
I agree the public don’t care much about the issue though. They do care about the parliament though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk