The Trans Rights Debate

[Stairway 2 7]

Support often involves some form of re-education. When somebody has been though such a high level of trauma, it's not uncommon for them to lose control over multiple aspects of their life as a result. Addressing the emotional impact is only one aspect of the support that is often required.

Jeez. Your equating trauma support to being re-educated that your wish to have biological female support is wrong. This is highly offensive

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/gender-recognition-reform-bill-block-a-dark-day-for-trans-people-says-robison_uk_63c70351e4b0d6f0ba08497c?d_id=5385804&ncid_tag=tweetlnkukhpmg00000008&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=uk_politics


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[147lothian]

This all happened before the GRB was passed.

No impact. Like I said, rapists are going to rape.

J

The GRB sees being a woman as an identity category rather than the reality of biological sex. This is why the GRB is a threat to woman only spaces. All a male at 16 would need to do is fill in the self-ID form and wait in their bedroom for 3 months as there is no need for applicants to have a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria, the said male can then legally enter the ladies shower room at Meadowbank for example this could be done for voyeurism or more sadistic motives, either way it wouldn't make women feel more safe this is for sure.

[grunt]

You seem to have a real problem with criticism of anything that's remotely related to the Scottish Government or SNP.No, I have a problem with what I perceive to be ignorant posts.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Jeez. Your equating trauma support to being re-educated that your wish to have biological female support is wrong. This is highly offensive

Wishing to have biological female support isn't wrong. Automatically assuming that a transgender female would be incapable of carrying out the same job or that they would pose a danger to the victim is wrong, not to mention highly offensive.

[archie]

Wishing to have biological female support isn't wrong. Automatically assuming that a transgender female would be incapable of carrying out the same job or that they would pose a danger to the victim is wrong, not to mention highly offensive.
It doesn't have to be danger though. Why can't a person have same sex care?

[Stairway 2 7]

Wishing to have biological female support isn't wrong. Automatically assuming that a transgender female would be incapable of carrying out the same job or that they would pose a danger to the victim is wrong, not to mention highly offensive.

Your first sentence would have the person classed as transphobic and needing re-educated by some. The second as far I see no one has said?

[TrumpIsAPeado]

The GRB sees being a woman as an identity category rather than the reality of biological sex. This is why the GRB is a threat to woman only spaces. All a male at 16 would need to do is fill in the self-ID form and wait in their bedroom for 3 months as there is no need for applicants to have a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria, the said male can then legally enter the ladies shower room at Meadowbank for example this could be done for voyeurism or more sadistic motives, either way it wouldn't make women feel more safe this is for sure.

Ok, I'm going to ask this again for the umpteenth time on this thread and for the last time as going around in circles and getting no answer is becoming tiresome.

Why on earth would a sexual predator wait 3 whole months in order to gain legal access to women only spaces, only to then do something illegal, when they can just enter illegally anyway?

Sexual predators do not require a GRB to enter female spaces. They just go ahead and do it anyway.

[Berwickhibby]

Wishing to have biological female support isn't wrong. Automatically assuming that a transgender female would be incapable of carrying out the same job or that they would pose a danger to the victim is wrong, not to mention highly offensive.

Every victim is different and their wishes and wants have to be paramount in their recovery

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Your first sentence would have the person classed as transphobic and needing re-educated by some. The second as far I see no one has said?

The word "re-educated" wasn't even used. They used the term "re-frame", which is a very common practice in trauma therapy to help victims move on from their ordeal.

[Stairway 2 7]

The word "re-educated" wasn't even used. They used the term "re-frame", which is a very common practice in trauma therapy to help victims move on from their ordeal.

Once again clutching at straws. The reframing she was talking about was changing a rape victims opinion on wanting female only rape care, not dealing with their trauma. Vile and pretty repugnant that you are defending it.

Why the f would you spend time changing someone's opinions on trans issues just after they have been raped. Absolutely weirdo of a person she is

[Berwickhibby]

Ok, I'm going to ask this again for the umpteenth time on this thread and for the last time as going around in circles and getting no answer is becoming tiresome.

Why on earth would a sexual predator wait 3 whole months in order to gain legal access to women only spaces, only to then do something illegal, when they can just enter illegally anyway?

Sexual predators do not require a GRB to enter female spaces. They just go ahead and do it anyway.

Sexual predators are devious and cunning, from my experience they can be organised and patient. There are many refuges that are female only with lots of vulnerable women. What a great opportunity to gain access.

[archie]

The word "re-educated" wasn't even used. They used the term "re-frame", which is a very common practice in trauma therapy to help victims move on from their ordeal.

The context was that if rape victims wanted women only spaces and wouldn't accept a biological male was a woman then they were bigoted and would be 'challenged on their predudices'. Is there nothing about that concerns you?

[Stairway 2 7]

Every victim is different and their wishes and wants have to be paramount in their recovery

Not according to Edinburgh rape crisis Scotland

[Ozyhibby]

You are all arguing points that have been debated and voted on already in the Scottish Parliament. That won’t be changed now.
All that matters now is if Alistair Jack has put forward a legal case that holds. Has he?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

You are all arguing points that have been debated and voted on already in the Scottish Parliament. That won’t be changed now.
All that matters now is if Alistair Jack has put forward a legal case that holds. Has he?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The courts will decide. The test is just noise.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Once again clutching at straws. The reframing she was talking about was changing a rape victims opinion on wanting female only rape care, not dealing with their trauma. Vile and pretty repugnant that you are defending it.

Why the f would you spend time changing someone's opinions on trans issues just after they have been raped. Absolutely weirdo of a person she is

Wadhwa also told The Guilty Feminist podcast that rape survivors could “reframe” their trauma and have “a more positive relationship with it”.

She was referring to their trauma, not their negative assumptions about transgender people. You've taken her comments out of context in order to manufacture a grievance.

Which is ironic, because it very much falls into the category of negative assumptions that people make about transgender people.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Sexual predators are devious and cunning, from my experience they can be organised and patient. There are many refuges that are female only with lots of vulnerable women. What a great opportunity to gain access.

This doesn't make any sense. It's not as if Scotland is a place where we have security guards standing outside women's toilets and changing rooms to assess who can enter and who can't. There's literally nothing to stop a man from walking directly into such a place and committing a sexual assault. This was the case before the GRA and will still be the case after it. Male sexual predators don't gain some additional advantage by waiting 3 months to have a gender recognition change. It doesn't allow them to do anything that they can't do already.

[archie]

Wadhwa also told The Guilty Feminist podcast that rape survivors could “reframe” their trauma and have “a more positive relationship with it”.

She was referring to their trauma, not their negative assumptions about transgender people. You've take her comments out of context in order to manufacture a grievance.

Which is ironic, because it very much falls into the category of negative assumptions that people make about transgender people.

Are you ok with the stated view that people who are raped and want single sex spaces and care are bigoted?

[James310]

This doesn't make any sense. It's not as if Scotland is a place where we have security guards standing outside women's toilets and changing rooms to assess who can enter and who can't. There's literally nothing to stop a man from walking directly into such a place and committing a sexual assault. This was the case before the GRA and will still be the case after it. Male sexual predators don't gain some additional advantage by waiting 3 months to have a gender recognition change. It doesn't allow them to do anything that they can't do already.

A GRC obtained by self ID doesn't exist in Scotland today so you can't say it doesn't allow them to do anything they can't do already when the thing you are talking about doesn't even exist today. How do you know what a man in possession of a self ID GRC will or will not do? You can't as nobody has one today.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Are you ok with the stated view that people who are raped and want single sex spaces and care are bigoted?

No i'm not. But then again, that's not the view that was stated. It was simply pointed out that even victims of sexual assault can harbour bigoted views. She didn't say that vulnerable women who wish to have a biological female support worker were bigots. Nowhere in her comments was such a connection made.

[Berwickhibby]

This doesn't make any sense. It's not as if Scotland is a place where we have security guards standing outside women's toilets and changing rooms to assess who can enter and who can't. There's literally nothing to stop a man from walking directly into such a place and committing a sexual assault. This was the case before the GRA and will still be the case after it. Male sexual predators don't gain some additional advantage by waiting 3 months to have a gender recognition change. It doesn't allow them to do anything that they can't do already.

Visited many women’s refuges? I know of some that even a male Dr cannot enter, however a man with a certificate can be granted access. As I mentioned earlier, it is not genuine transgender people that concern me, it’s deviants who could use this legislation to their advantage

[007]

Ok, I'm going to ask this again for the umpteenth time on this thread and for the last time as going around in circles and getting no answer is becoming tiresome.

Why on earth would a sexual predator wait 3 whole months in order to gain legal access to women only spaces, only to then do something illegal, when they can just enter illegally anyway?

Sexual predators do not require a GRB to enter female spaces. They just go ahead and do it anyway.

Maybe so they can see if there's an opportunity to do something illegal. They're not going to do something illegal if there are several women around so might just come back the next day and hope there's a single women. Is that not how predators operate? They wait for the right moment to strike.

[archie]

No i'm not. But then again, that's not the view that was stated. It was simply pointed out that even victims of sexual assault can harbour bigoted views. She didn't say that vulnerable women who wish to have a biological female support worker were bigots. Nowhere in her comments was such a connection made. So what bigoted views do you think were being referred to?

[TrumpIsAPeado]

A GRC obtained by self ID doesn't exist in Scotland today so you can't say it doesn't allow them to do anything they can't do already when the thing you are talking about doesn't even exist today. How do you know what a man in possession of a self ID GRC will or will not do? You can't as nobody has one today.

You're right, it doesn't exist yet. But do you know what does exist? Men entering women only spaces and committing sexual crimes. No GRC required.

The idea that a sexual predator would wait 3 months for a GRC in order to do something that they can just go ahead and do regardless is beyond nonsensical.

[007]

You're right, it doesn't exist yet. But do you know what does exist? Men entering women only spaces and committing sexual crimes. No GRC required.

The idea that a sexual predator would wait 3 months for a GRC in order to do something that they can just go ahead and do regardless is beyond nonsensical.

All the more reason it shouldn't be made easier for them to enter women only spaces looking for opportunities and when there isn't one just moving onto to the next place.

[James310]

You're right, it doesn't exist yet. But do you know what does exist? Men entering women only spaces and committing sexual crimes. No GRC required.

The idea that a sexual predator would wait 3 months for a GRC in order to do something that they can just go ahead and do regardless is beyond nonsensical.

I think you underestimate the lengths some predators would go to. Some men groom victims for years, a 3 month process that nobody checks anything on isn't going to bother them.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Visited many women’s refuges? I know of some that even a male Dr cannot enter, however a man with a certificate can be granted access. As I mentioned earlier, it is not genuine transgender people that concern me, it’s deviants who could use this legislation to their advantage

Why would a sexual deviant want to specifically target women's refuges when they have a multitude of options open to them anyway? Considering the small percentage of actual sexual abusers over society as a whole, what do you honestly think the likelihood is of a sexual abuser with no previous criminal convictions, waiting 3 months so they can pretend to be a woman, just so they can specifically target a women's refuge? I would say not very likely at all. It's not exactly a place where they'd be less likely to be caught, considering these are vulnerable women who have a close watch over them at all times to ensure their own safety.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

All the more reason it shouldn't be made easier for them to enter women only spaces looking for opportunities and when there isn't one just moving onto to the next place.

It literally couldn't be any easier for them. There's nothing to prevent a man from simply walking into a female changing room and committing a sexual assault. A GRC doesn't offer them some special advantage.


I think you underestimate the lengths some predators would go to. Some men groom victims for years, a 3 month process that nobody checks anything on isn't going to bother them.

What length is that? A GRC doesn't allow them to do anything that they're already capable of doing without one. Some predators wait for the "right opportunity", but a GRC doesn't add anything to that opportunity.

[James310]

It literally couldn't be any easier for them. There's nothing to prevent a man from simply walking into a female changing room and committing a sexual assault. A GRC doesn't offer them some special advantage.



What length is that? A GRC doesn't allow them to do anything that they're already capable of doing without one. Some predators wait for the "right opportunity", but a GRC doesn't add anything to that opportunity.

We will just need to agree to disagree, you can't know that for certain as the self ID GRC doesn't exist today so you can't predict with confidence how men will use it for their advantage. It will give men more confidence to perhaps enter spaces they would not normally be confident entering if they have a GRC in their back pocket.

[007]

It literally couldn't be any easier for them. There's nothing to prevent a man from simply walking into a female changing room and committing a sexual assault. A GRC doesn't offer them some special advantage.opportunity.

So it isn't going to make it any easier for them to commit an offence?

[greenlex]

[QUOTE=HarpOnHibee;7236530]It literally couldn't be any easier for them. There's nothing to prevent a man from simply walking into a female changing room and committing a sexual assault. A GRC doesn't offer them some special advantage.

So it isn't going to make it any easier for them to commit an offence?

No

[Berwickhibby]

Why would a sexual deviant want to specifically target women's refuges when they have a multitude of options open to them anyway? Considering the small percentage of actual sexual abusers over society as a whole, what do you honestly think the likelihood is of a sexual abuser with no previous criminal convictions, waiting 3 months so they can pretend to be a woman, just so they can specifically target a women's refuge? I would say not very likely at all. It's not exactly a place where they'd be less likely to be caught, considering these are vulnerable women who have a close watch over them at all times to ensure their own safety.

If you honestly believe that there is only a small percentage of sexual abusers in society then you are deluded, A lot of what you say about stranger attacks could be true about just doing what they feel like. However most predators gain their victims trust, groom them. My objection to this legislation was there was no checks or balances or someone obtaining this certificate and abusing it. The saddest part is those who wish to transition genuinely are the ones who will likely the one who come under the most scrutiny

[007]

[QUOTE=007;7236544]

No

And you and HarpOnHibee can 100% guarantee that?

[TrumpIsAPeado]

We will just need to agree to disagree, you can't know that for certain as the self ID GRC doesn't exist today so you can't predict with confidence how men will use it for their advantage. It will give men more confidence to perhaps enter spaces they would not normally be confident entering if they have a GRC in their back pocket.

More confidence to carry out a sexual assault? More confidence to get their name on the sex offenders register? More confidence to go to jail?

Because of a piece of paper in their back pocket?

[TrumpIsAPeado]

So it isn't going to make it any easier for them to commit an offence?

Why would it?

[007]

Why would it?

For the reasons I posted in reply to you earlier.

Can you 100% guarantee it won't?

[TrumpIsAPeado]

For the reasons I posted in reply to you earlier.

Can you 100% guarantee it won't?

You didn't give reasons. You said something about a predator going away then returning the next day in the hope of there being only a single women present because they wouldn't do something illegal if there were several women around.

I don't see what that has to do with whether they have a Gender Recognition Certificate or not.

[007]

You didn't give reasons. You said something about a predator going away then returning the next day in the hope of there being only a single women present because they wouldn't do something illegal if there were several women around.

I don't see what that has to do with whether they have a Gender Recognition Certificate or not.

And you didn't give a 100% guarantee it wouldn't make it any easier for them to commit an offence. You're happy to suggest it wouldn't but cannot 100% guarantee it.

[WeeRussell]

All the more reason it shouldn't be made easier for them to enter women only spaces looking for opportunities and when there isn't one just moving onto to the next place.

Wouldn’t it be quicker and easier for them just to put a wig and dress on if this is really how sexual deviants are going to operate?

I’ve never seen anyone ID’d to enter a toilet.

[Ozyhibby]

Wouldn’t it be quicker and easier for them just to put a wig and dress on if this is really how sexual deviants are going to operate?

I’ve never seen anyone ID’d to enter a toilet.

Notorious sticklers for paperwork though, are sexual predators.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[007]

Wouldn’t it be quicker and easier for them just to put a wig and dress on if this is really how sexual deviants are going to operate?

I’ve never seen anyone ID’d to enter a toilet.

Okay, you're suggesting there's a quicker and easier way for predators to operate so can you 100% guarantee they won't try and abuse the new law?

[007]

Notorious sticklers for paperwork though, are sexual predators.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ah, presumably you can give me a 100% guarantee they won't try and abuse the new law?

[WeeRussell]

Okay, you're suggesting there's a quicker and easier way for predators to operate so can you 100% guarantee they won't try and abuse the new law?

In the same way I can’t 100% guarantee that the person opposite me at work hasn’t got themselves a job there to perv on people that pass our office window, no I can’t.

It seems like an unlikely scenario though. And I don’t see how this ‘new law’ enhances the potential efficiency of sexual predators.

On a more general point, and not in any way aimed at you to be clear: I wasn’t very sure where I stood on the whole debate, and wasn’t aware of much of the detail. Things do become a little clearer the more the usual suspects who want to find fault in anything connected to “Sturgeon” are putting forward their obsessive, and at times bizarre, arguments with no substance.

A sterling job as always.

[greenlex]

[QUOTE=greenlex;7236547]

And you and HarpOnHibee can 100% guarantee that?

In the same way you could guarantee it would?
Predators are predators and has been pointed out they don’t need the piece of paper to be just that.

Police, Doctors and Social workers and the like. Should we make it more difficult or indeed bar trans people from being appointed into these types of professions just in case the odd predator slips through? They do play the long game Ive heard.

[007]

In the same way I can’t 100% guarantee that the person opposite me at work hasn’t got themselves a job there to perv on people that pass our office window, no I can’t.

It seems like an unlikely scenario though. And I don’t see how this ‘new law’ enhances the potential efficiency of sexual predators.

On a more general point, and not in any way aimed at you to be clear: I wasn’t very sure where I stood on the whole debate, and wasn’t aware of much of the detail. Things do become a little clearer the more the usual suspects who want to find fault in anything connected to “Sturgeon” are putting forward their obsessive, and at times bizarre, arguments with no substance.

A sterling job as always.

Thank you for your reply.

I am not concerned about the person opposite you at work but I am concerned you are not 100% confident no predators would try to take advantage of the changes yet you still seem to support them.

[007]

In the same way you could guarantee it would?
Predators are predators and has been pointed out they don’t need the piece of paper to be just that.

I can guarantee it won't make it more difficult for them.

You said it won't make it easier for them but you can't guarantee that can you?

[greenlex]

I can guarantee it won't make it more difficult for them.

You said it won't make it easier for them but you can't guarantee that can you?
I’ve edited my reply but in the same vein should we make it more difficult for trans people from entering professions dealing with vulnerable people just in case? Perhaps even prohibiting it?

[Stairway 2 7]

Wadhwa also told The Guilty Feminist podcast that rape survivors could “reframe” their trauma and have “a more positive relationship with it”.

She was referring to their trauma, not their negative assumptions about transgender people. You've taken her comments out of context in order to manufacture a grievance.

Which is ironic, because it very much falls into the category of negative assumptions that people make about transgender people.

Selective quoting. Your obviously new to the incident and don't remember it yourself. The question was should women be allowed to not have a trans councillor. Some of her colleagues defender her, some said people can hold whatever view they want on transgender people

She said therapy is political and people's prejudices will be challenged after seeking help after being raped. Just admit your wrong on this as what she says is shocking

https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/19509343.outcry-plan-educate-bigoted-rape-survivors-trans-rights/

Mridul Wadhwa, a transgender woman, said people would not truly recover unless they addressed their “unacceptable beliefs” because “therapy is political”.

“We will work with you... but please expect to be challenged on your prejudices."


"Sexual violence happens to bigoted people as well. It is not a discerning crime. But these spaces are also for you."

“But if you bring unacceptable beliefs that are discriminatory in nature, we will begin to work with you on your journey of recovery from trauma.
“But please also expect to be challenged on your prejudices"

[007]

I’ve edited my reply but in the same vein should we make it more difficult for trans people from entering professions dealing with vulnerable people just in case? Perhaps even prohibiting it?

You've again avoided saying whether or not a 100% guarantee can be given that it won't make it easier for predators. Let's cover that matter off first before moving to another aspect of the debate.

You said it won't but you're not prepared to guarantee it which means you are not 100% confident so you are accepting there is a chance (maybe just a very very small one) that it might.

[WeeRussell]

You've again avoided saying whether or not a 100% guarantee can be given that it won't make it easier for predators. Let's cover that matter off first before moving to another aspect of the debate.

You said it won't but you're not prepared to guarantee it which means you are not 100% confident so you are accepting there is a chance (maybe just a very very small one) that it might.

Can you 100% guarantee if the change doesn’t go ahead now, that a trans persons won’t feel aggrieved and go out and attack someone?

I know . Ridiculous, isn’t it.

[Hibrandenburg]

In the same way I can’t 100% guarantee that the person opposite me at work hasn’t got themselves a job there to perv on people that pass our office window, no I can’t.

It seems like an unlikely scenario though. And I don’t see how this ‘new law’ enhances the potential efficiency of sexual predators.

On a more general point, and not in any way aimed at you to be clear: I wasn’t very sure where I stood on the whole debate, and wasn’t aware of much of the detail. Things do become a little clearer the more the usual suspects who want to find fault in anything connected to “Sturgeon” are putting forward their obsessive, and at times bizarre, arguments with no substance.

A sterling job as always.

That's pretty much the point I've found myself at. I was unsure what side of the debate I was on until I actually read the new legislation and saw that most of the concerns were theoretical, however the clincher for me was those making the arguments against.

[neil7908]

You've again avoided saying whether or not a 100% guarantee can be given that it won't make it easier for predators. Let's cover that matter off first before moving to another aspect of the debate.

You said it won't but you're not prepared to guarantee it which means you are not 100% confident so you are accepting there is a chance (maybe just a very very small one) that it might.

If your basis for passing any legislation is having a 100% guarantee on its actions then I'm afraid nothing will get done as that's an impossible bar to achieve.

I've said this before on this thread and I'll say it again. There is an awful lot of posters on here who seem heavily invested in women's safety and rights judging by the frequency and type of post on this thread.

I look around the rest of the site though, and that concern doesn't seem to continue. In fact there are very few other threads around this topic. We've just had yet another case of the Met police shielding and failing to deal with a horrifically violent officer preying on women. And yet it's trans people we should be most worried about and who need post after post written about them based on stuff here.

Given the standard seems to be the legislation cannot be be 100% guaranteed to stop an abuser finding a way round it, maybe we should shut the Met police as ultimately we can't be 100% sure there are not serving officers who are a grave threat to women.

[greenlex]

You've again avoided saying whether or not a 100% guarantee can be given that it won't make it easier for predators. Let's cover that matter off first before moving to another aspect of the debate.

You said it won't but you're not prepared to guarantee it which means you are not 100% confident so you are accepting there is a chance (maybe just a very very small one) that it might.
There is nothing easier than going and doing the deed. Why bother going to the bother of changing your gender to do it so therefore it by very definition isn’t easier. It’s more work if you like. As has been said numerous times they are going to do it regardless. will it facilitate an opportunity? Perhaps but no more than the other situations regarding professions. It’s not an excuse not to change the process speed wise regarding trans people.

[007]

Can you 100% guarantee if the change doesn’t go ahead now, that one of these big nasty trans persons won’t feel aggrieved and go out and attack someone?

I know . Ridiculous, isn’t it.

Your sarcastic implication that I'm anti-trans is what's ridiculous.

You are equating what a trans person might do if the bill doesn't go through with what a predator might do if it does. That is also ridiculous.

I don't think a trans person would do that but can't guarantee it. I think it is very very low risk. You can't guarantee a predator won't try and take advantage of the changes if they do go ahead. What level of risk would you put on it?

[WeeRussell]

Your sarcastic implication that I'm anti-trans is what's ridiculous.

You are equating what a trans person might do if the bill doesn't go through with what a predator might do if it does. That is also ridiculous.

I don't think a trans person would do that but can't guarantee it. I think it is very very low risk. You can't guarantee a predator won't try and take advantage of the changes if they do go ahead. What level of risk would you put on it?

Yes I apologise for the (since edited prior to your reply) first line as after reading it I realised how it came across.

It’s all ridiculous, which was my point. And I’m not equating anything - I was asking for a 100% guarantee of a seemingly daft and hypothetical scenario, in the same way you’ve been demanding the same of a number of people before agreeing to discuss anything else.

I don’t think the proposed changes will make any difference to the likelihood of a predator attacking. I can’t guarantee it but think it’s very very low risk.

[Stairway 2 7]

That's pretty much the point I've found myself at. I was unsure what side of the debate I was on until I actually read the new legislation and saw that most of the concerns were theoretical, however the clincher for me was those making the arguments against.

Who people like Joanna Cherry, Michelle Thomson or the severely disabled lady a few pages back that said this will effect her getting female only intimate care.

This isn't black and white even if the defenders pray they can frame it as that. I don't believe it will increase sexual assault at all personally. But I do believe women shouldn't have their rights diminished. The vast majority of the population back 90% of this legislation, so the transphobic shtick doesn't work.

The one 1% of nutters on each side should be ignored and shouted down. On one side idiots that think trans are weird or sexual predators and on the other side ones that think lesbians who wouldn't go with a trans are bigoted or females who want female only care/spaces are bigots.

The problem is the later group are increasing given positions of power in this debate and are even in the government decision making process

[greenlex]

Your sarcastic implication that I'm anti-trans is what's ridiculous.

You are equating what a trans person might do if the bill doesn't go through with what a predator might do if it does. That is also ridiculous.

I don't think a trans person would do that but can't guarantee it. I think it is very very low risk. You can't guarantee a predator won't try and take advantage of the changes if they do go ahead. What level of risk would you put on it?

I think it’s a lower risk than a trans person losing the plot being aggrieved so I’m going to put it at the very very very low category.
You are arguing that a sexual predator will effectively turn trans to get access to victims that they can already access quite freely at the moment should they wish. Really?

[Ozyhibby]

If your basis for passing any legislation is having a 100% guarantee on its actions then I'm afraid nothing will get done as that's an impossible bar to achieve.

I've said this before on this thread and I'll say it again. There is an awful lot of posters on here who seem heavily invested in women's safety and rights judging by the frequency and type of post on this thread.

I look around the rest of the site though, and that concern doesn't seem to continue. In fact there are very few other threads around this topic. We've just had yet another case of the Met police shielding and failing to deal with a horrifically violent officer preying on women. And yet it's trans people we should be most worried about and who need post after post written about them based on stuff here.

Given the standard seems to be the legislation cannot be be 100% guaranteed to stop an abuser finding a way round it, maybe we should shut the Met police as ultimately we can't be 100% sure there are not serving officers who are a grave threat to women.

You should see how all these magnificent defenders of women’s rights talk to and about NS online.[emoji102]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WeeRussell]

Who people like Joanna Cherry, Michelle Thomson or the severely disabled lady a few pages back that said this will effect her getting female only intimate care.

This isn't black and white even if the defenders pray they can frame it as that. I don't believe it will increase sexual assault at all personally. But I do believe women shouldn't have their rights diminished. The vast majority of the population back 90% of this legislation, so the transphobic shtick doesn't work.

The one 1% of nutters on each side should be ignored and shouted down. On one side idiots that think trans are weird or sexual predators and on the other side ones that think lesbians who wouldn't go with a trans are bigoted or females who want female only care/spaces are bigots.

The problem is the later group are increasing given positions of power in this debate and are even in the government decision making process

This is a pretty fair post, I agree with a lot of it. And I don’t think the names you’ve given are the sort of people who Hibrandenberg was referring to, no. Certainly wasn’t who I meant.

It’s definitely not black and white. Both H and I have said as much by conceding we weren’t entirely sure where we stood here. I would argue that there’s been more manufactured and ridiculous scenarios painted over the last few pages of this thread, then there has legitimate concerns. Which was kind of our point.

On your last line though, do you not think the theme of both sides applies here too?

I personally think that there will be far more than 1% of people ‘against the bill’ who are anti-trans, or at least don’t have the legitimate concerns they are pretending to, whether they admit that to themselves or not. But that’s another argument.

Is the vast majority/90% thing something you’ve read, or a general estimate?

Someone earlier in the thread told us (along the lines of) the majority of people don’t care about trans people’s rights because they want better education and housing, which is an example of the more silly and ignorant arguments.

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/23217899.will-tories-ever-learn-not-interfere-parliament/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

This is a pretty fair post, I agree with a lot of it. And I don’t think the names you’ve given are the sort of people who Hibrandenberg was referring to, no. Certainly wasn’t who I meant.

It’s definitely not black and white. Both H and I have said as much by conceding we weren’t entirely sure where we stood here. I would argue that there’s been more manufactured and ridiculous scenarios painted over the last few pages of this thread, then there has legitimate concerns. Which was kind of our point.

On your last line though, do you not think the theme of both sides applies here too?

I personally think that there will be far more than 1% of people ‘against the bill’ who are anti-trans, or at least don’t have the legitimate concerns they are pretending to, whether they admit that to themselves or not. But that’s another argument.

Sorry I meant 1% of total pop that is on that extreme side. Yes perhaps a higher percentage of those against the bill have backwards views.

I genuinely believe though that the vast vast majority of the population agree with more rights and better treatment of trans, but want a few caveats. I don't think that is anti trans just perhaps weighing one groups rights without losing to much of another's groups rights.

[Hibrandenburg]

Who people like Joanna Cherry, Michelle Thomson or the severely disabled lady a few pages back that said this will effect her getting female only intimate care.

This isn't black and white even if the defenders pray they can frame it as that. I don't believe it will increase sexual assault at all personally. But I do believe women shouldn't have their rights diminished. The vast majority of the population back 90% of this legislation, so the transphobic shtick doesn't work.

The one 1% of nutters on each side should be ignored and shouted down. On one side idiots that think trans are weird or sexual predators and on the other side ones that think lesbians who wouldn't go with a trans are bigoted or females who want female only care/spaces are bigots.

The problem is the later group are increasing given positions of power in this debate and are even in the government decision making process

No, people on here who regularly comment on women regarding their appearance rather than their character or beliefs or who previously said that men who stand in support of women are somehow creepy but are now themselves stalwarts of female equality and those who are normally so conservative that they'd like to conserve us all back to Victorian times. There's more to the polarisation behind this debate on here than trans rights or women's rights.

[archie]

Why would a sexual deviant want to specifically target women's refuges when they have a multitude of options open to them anyway? Considering the small percentage of actual sexual abusers over society as a whole, what do you honestly think the likelihood is of a sexual abuser with no previous criminal convictions, waiting 3 months so they can pretend to be a woman, just so they can specifically target a women's refuge? I would say not very likely at all. It's not exactly a place where they'd be less likely to be caught, considering these are vulnerable women who have a close watch over them at all times to ensure their own safety.

So why have women's groups been raising issues? Why did a Government minister take a position that got her sacked? Why did the UN Rapporteur on violence against women raise concerns? All of these women got it wrong and just didn't understand their fears were groundless ? Is that it?

[007]

If your basis for passing any legislation is having a 100% guarantee on its actions then I'm afraid nothing will get done as that's an impossible bar to achieve.

I've said this before on this thread and I'll say it again. There is an awful lot of posters on here who seem heavily invested in women's safety and rights judging by the frequency and type of post on this thread.

I look around the rest of the site though, and that concern doesn't seem to continue. In fact there are very few other threads around this topic. We've just had yet another case of the Met police shielding and failing to deal with a horrifically violent officer preying on women. And yet it's trans people we should be most worried about and who need post after post written about them based on stuff here.

Given the standard seems to be the legislation cannot be be 100% guaranteed to stop an abuser finding a way round it, maybe we should shut the Met police as ultimately we can't be 100% sure there are not serving officers who are a grave threat to women.

I'm not talking about legislations needing to have a 100% guarantee on their actions. I'm talking about 1 legislation having a 100% guarantee it's intended actions won't have a side effect that's detrimental to women and girl's safety. What is wrong with being concerned about that?

It is appropriate to this thread. Are you suggesting that because it isn't elsewhere on this site then nobody is concerned about it?

You're analogy with the police doesn't work. Nobody has proposed a legislation which has a side effect of making it easier for the police to commit abuse.

Seems like you are happy to accept a potential increase in risk to women's and girl's saftey. Are you?

[WeeRussell]

No, people on here who regularly comment on women regarding their appearance rather than their character or beliefs or who previously said that men who stand in support of women are somehow creepy but are now themselves stalwarts of female equality and those who are normally so conservative that they'd like to conserve us all back to Victorian times. There's more to the polarisation behind this debate on here than trans rights or women's rights.

Yep. I’d also add that it would be interesting to see if one or two of our posters who have put themselves at the heart of this debate, would be quite as vocal in their concerns, or even on the same side, if (for example) Nicola Sturgeon and J K Rowling were to swap stances.

[Ozyhibby]

So why have women's groups been raising issues? Why did a Government minister take a position that got her sacked? Why did the UN Rapporteur on violence against women raise concerns? All of these women got it wrong and just didn't understand their fears were groundless ? Is that it?

I think their fears are groundless. They may be real but they do appear to be groundless. I don’t see any prospect of a large rise in trans predators. It hasn’t happened in any other country that introduced self ID so I can’t see why it would happen here?
All I see are evermore obscure hypotheticals getting thrown around. I’m not surprised that some women are now afraid.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

This is a pretty fair post, I agree with a lot of it. And I don’t think the names you’ve given are the sort of people who Hibrandenberg was referring to, no. Certainly wasn’t who I meant.

It’s definitely not black and white. Both H and I have said as much by conceding we weren’t entirely sure where we stood here. I would argue that there’s been more manufactured and ridiculous scenarios painted over the last few pages of this thread, then there has legitimate concerns. Which was kind of our point.

On your last line though, do you not think the theme of both sides applies here too?

I personally think that there will be far more than 1% of people ‘against the bill’ who are anti-trans, or at least don’t have the legitimate concerns they are pretending to, whether they admit that to themselves or not. But that’s another argument.

Is the vast majority/90% thing something you’ve read, or a general estimate?

Someone earlier in the thread told us (along the lines of) the majority of people don’t care about trans people’s rights because they want better education and housing, which is an example of the more silly and ignorant arguments.

Didn't see your edits. The 90% is an estimate from what polling there is. The vast majority agree to people changing sex. They agree to every other change bar a couple that is changing the age to 16, changing with the help of a doctor, having female only spaces/situations and sports

[Ozyhibby]

Yep. I’d also add that it would be interesting to see if one or two of our posters who have put themselves at the heart of this debate, would be quite as vocal in their concerns, or even on the same side, if (for example) Nicola Sturgeon and J K Rowling were to swap stances.

Zero chance of that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[James310]

however the clincher for me was those making the arguments against.

Women? Feminist groups?

[Stairway 2 7]

Yep. I’d also add that it would be interesting to see if one or two of our posters who have put themselves at the heart of this debate, would be quite as vocal in their concerns, or even on the same side, if (for example) Nicola Sturgeon and J K Rowling were to swap stances.

I personally think Harry potter is pish and Nicola Sturgeon is by far the best current UK leader

[Ozyhibby]

There is a thread on here all about women’s safety which some of the posters on this thread who seem very worried about the threat of trans predators have barely posted on. It seems women only really need protected from trans people?
Or maybe, there is just no way to attack NS on that thread?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[007]

Yes I apologise for the (since edited prior to your reply) first line as after reading it I realised how it came across.

It’s all ridiculous, which was my point. And I’m not equating anything - I was asking for a 100% guarantee of a seemingly daft and hypothetical scenario, in the same way you’ve been demanding the same of a number of people before agreeing to discuss anything else.

I don’t think the proposed changes will make any difference to the likelihood of a predator attacking. I can’t guarantee it but think it’s very very low risk.

I accept your apology.

I and many others don't think it's a daft hypothetical. I think it is a very real possibility. Whilst it may be very very low risk, I think any risk is too much risk, hence my benchmark of 100%. There are plenty who think that as it currently stands, predators will think they can take advantage. I don't think their views should be dismissed as ridiculous.

[James310]

There is a thread on here all about women’s safety which some of the posters on this thread who seem very worried about the threat of trans predators have barely posted on. It seems women only really need protected from trans people?
Or maybe, there is just no way to attack NS on that thread?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Trans predators? Why are you conflating trans people with predators? From what I can see most people are just concerned about predators who will abuse the new system.

This is the kind of thing Maggie Chapman would say, and she was correctly shouted down by SNP politicians when she said similar in Parliament.

[Stairway 2 7]

There is a thread on here all about women’s safety which some of the posters on this thread who seem very worried about the threat of trans predators have barely posted on. It seems women only really need protected from trans people?
Or maybe, there is just no way to attack NS on that thread?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Is this the new tactic for moral high ground. First say its only right wingers that appose, get pointed out that left wingers appose so change tactic. Say you don't care about women's rights or its only about the snp. Pretty pathetic to be honest.

[WeeRussell]

I personally think Harry potter is pish and Nicola Sturgeon is by far the best current UK leader

😂 I didn’t mean you, but is interesting to learn you have such a damning opinion of Harry Potter 😁

I agree with your statement with the exception I don’t have any real strong feelings on HP either way.

[Ozyhibby]

[emoji23] I didn’t mean you, but is interesting to learn you have such a damning opinion of Harry Potter [emoji16]

I agree with your statement with the exception I don’t have any real strong feelings on HP either way.

My youngest loved Harry Potter. I’ve contributed more than my fair share to JK Rowling vast wealth and was more than happy to do so. The books are great.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[007]

There is a thread on here all about women’s safety which some of the posters on this thread who seem very worried about the threat of trans predators have barely posted on. It seems women only really need protected from trans people?
Or maybe, there is just no way to attack NS on that thread?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't think women need protected from trans people. I think they shouldn't be put at increased risk from predators who wwill more easily be able to pass themselves off as trans people.

My posts are about the legislation so are applicable to this thread. For me it's not about Nicola Sturgeon though by suggesting people are using women's safety to attack her you have let slip that for you this isn't really about trans rights.

[007]

Sorry I meant 1% of total pop that is on that extreme side. Yes perhaps a higher percentage of those against the bill have backwards views.

I genuinely believe though that the vast vast majority of the population agree with more rights and better treatment of trans, but want a few caveats. I don't think that is anti trans just perhaps weighing one groups rights without losing to much of another's groups rights.

I can agree with that.

[Ozyhibby]

I don't think women need protected from trans people. I think they shouldn't be put at increased risk from predators who wwill more easily be able to pass themselves off as trans people.

My posts are about the legislation so are applicable to this thread. For me it's not about Nicola Sturgeon though by suggesting people are using women's safety to attack her you have let slip that for you this isn't really about trans rights.

I’ve made clear from the off that it’s not an issue I care much about at all. I’m socially liberal so fall on the side I do but had I been an advisor to the SG I would have said don’t waste any political capital at all on it because it affects such a tiny amount of people and moves even less votes. I’m sure NS had advisors telling her just that. That’s why she is a leader and they are not though. She does what she thinks is right no matter what.
Starmer and Sarwar must be listening to their advisors which is why they are in hiding. A real lack of leadership credentials on show from them. I doubt Tony Blair would have hidden the way Starmer is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[007]

I’ve made clear from the off that it’s not an issue I care much about at all. I’m socially liberal so fall on the side I do but had I been an advisor to the SG I would have said don’t waste any political capital at all on it because it affects such a tiny amount of people and moves even less votes. I’m sure NS had advisors telling her just that. That’s why she is a leader and they are not though. She does what she thinks is right no matter what.
Starmer and Sarwar must be listening to their advisors which is why they are in hiding. A real lack of leadership credentials on show from them. I doubt Tony Blair would have hidden the way Starmer is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

👍

[Stairway 2 7]

I can agree with that.

Care to elaborate

[Stairway 2 7]

I’ve made clear from the off that it’s not an issue I care much about at all. I’m socially liberal so fall on the side I do but had I been an advisor to the SG I would have said don’t waste any political capital at all on it because it affects such a tiny amount of people and moves even less votes. I’m sure NS had advisors telling her just that. That’s why she is a leader and they are not though. She does what she thinks is right no matter what.
Starmer and Sarwar must be listening to their advisors which is why they are in hiding. A real lack of leadership credentials on show from them. I doubt Tony Blair would have hidden the way Starmer is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There people more Liberal and left than you that appose gra, it doesn't go on political lines

Starmer is probably just waiting until the court case is over.if it isn't legal then there is no discussion to be had. If it is then it passes

[Just Alf]

Ian Murray on BBC Scotland just now, saying Labour got the amendment added to the Scottish Bill that ensured the primacy of the UK equality act.

I thought the lack of something like that is why the Tories are triggering a Section 35?

Maybe they just don't like the legislation after all and a 35 is a handy way to block it.

[147lothian]

Would it be pedantic to suggest that someone could grab a victim by the face and force them into a cubicle without being a fully recognised trans person?

I don't really think what your saying is pedantic because it has more than a grain of truth to it, my guess is that the predator at the Fife supermarkets didn't attack the girls out of being trans, my guess is that identifying as a woman was used by by this individual as a cover to gain access to a woman only space.

My personal opinion on the GRB is that is bad legislation because it could also be used by predators to gain access to woman only spaces, this most likely comes from having a wife and daughters but what really irks me is that I would much rather have Nicola Sturgeon in charge than Sunak or Starmer who I see as two cheeks of the same arse, but I think that Nicola has lost her way on this issue out of trying to appease the Greens, Maggie Chapmen's comments about it being ok to give beta blockers to 8 year old's fills me with dread.

[007]

Care to elaborate

It sounds plausible to me. I don't have anything else to add.

[archie]

Ian Murray on BBC Scotland just now, saying Labour got the amendment added to the Scottish Bill that ensured the primacy of the UK equality act.

I thought the lack of something like that is why the Tories are triggering a Section 35?

Maybe they just don't like the legislation after all and a 35 is a handy way to block it.
Just because it's stated in the legislation doesn’t mean it will have that effect. The courts will sort that one way or another.

[archie]

I think their fears are groundless. They may be real but they do appear to be groundless. I don’t see any prospect of a large rise in trans predators. It hasn’t happened in any other country that introduced self ID so I can’t see why it would happen here?
All I see are evermore obscure hypotheticals getting thrown around. I’m not surprised that some women are now afraid.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You are missing the point. It's not a concern about 'trans predators' but predators using the legislation. But why does it have to be predators. Why can’t people have single sex care if they want it?

[WeeRussell]

There people more Liberal and left than you that appose gra, it doesn't go on political lines

Starmer is probably just waiting until the court case is over.if it isn't legal then there is no discussion to be had. If it is then it passes

Is it normal for him, or other party leaders, to wait for court cases before making comment on such a highly politicised subject, which is very prevalent in the media right now?

[Ozyhibby]

You are missing the point. It's not a concern about 'trans predators' but predators using the legislation. But why does it have to be predators. Why can’t people have single sex care if they want it?

Does the act change people right to single sex care?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Crunchie]

Is this the new tactic for moral high ground. First say its only right wingers that appose, get pointed out that left wingers appose so change tactic. Say you don't care about women's rights or its only about the snp. Pretty pathetic to be honest.
It's what the left have been doing for years now, and pretty successfully too.

[archie]

Does the act change people right to single sex care?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If someone self declares as a sex then what basis in law is there to object to them providing care?

[Stairway 2 7]

It sounds plausible to me. I don't have anything else to add.

Haha I'm so sorry it was early and I thought you said I can't agree. Thought you were just basically saying nah and that's it. If your agree then nowt to add really ha. Sorry I'm a tit or need glasses or both

[Stairway 2 7]

Is it normal for him, or other party leaders, to wait for court cases before making comment on such a highly politicised subject, which is very prevalent in the media right now?

Yes if he feels it doesn't involve in. In as much if the court rules it isn't legal then it shouldn't stand, if they rule it is then its Scottish Parliaments choice.

Although I don't agree with it. If it's legal then it must stand

[archie]

Is it normal for him, or other party leaders, to wait for court cases before making comment on such a highly politicised subject, which is very prevalent in the media right now?

If I was Starmer I'd say nothing. Let the Tories and the SNP/Greens slug it out.

[Ozyhibby]

If I was Starmer I'd say nothing. Let the Tories and the SNP/Greens slug it out.

You don’t think there is a political cost to hiding from issues?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ronaldo7]

I know I am a bit pissed, but you know nothing!!! the majority of the Met are hard working decent people, you know nothing about rape victims and the trauma suffered by them both male and female. I have dealt with the cruelty committed to others that you could not imagine. I was SOIT trained so do me a favour STFU or piss off

Charming.

[weecounty hibby]

If I was Starmer I'd say nothing. Let the Tories and the SNP/Greens slug it out.

And that is his strategy so far, just be like the Tories and hope no one notices. He won't win the next election by hiding. I actually don't think he will win it anyway

[archie]

You don’t think there is a political cost to hiding from issues?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He will make that calculation. As it's such a contentious issue I can see a logic to keeping out of it. In some respects I think it's easier just now as the 'issue' has moved on to whether the Scottish Parliament has exceeded it's powers. The Tories and the SNP/Greens will slug that out, but ultimately it will be a legal interpretation that determines it. There is a lot in it for the Tories and the SNP/Greens that goes far beyond the actual issue, which is why you are getting the megaphone rhetoric.

[Stairway 2 7]

And that is his strategy so far, just be like the Tories and hope no one notices. He won't win the next election by hiding. I actually don't think he will win it anyway

I'd put your money up at the bookies then. 1/3 labour win 9/4 the tories, punt on

[archie]

And that is his strategy so far, just be like the Tories and hope no one notices. He won't win the next election by hiding. I actually don't think he will win it anywayOK, but if I was Starmer I'd take advice from people who actually wanted me to win.

[Ozyhibby]

He will make that calculation. As it's such a contentious issue I can see a logic to keeping out of it. In some respects I think it's easier just now as the 'issue' has moved on to whether the Scottish Parliament has exceeded it's powers. The Tories and the SNP/Greens will slug that out, but ultimately it will be a legal interpretation that determines it. There is a lot in it for the Tories and the SNP/Greens that goes far beyond the actual issue, which is why you are getting the megaphone rhetoric.

Your discounting the fact the Scottish Labour Party have already taken sides.
The issue itself isn’t the problem. I doubt that moves a single vote. It’s the impression of cowardice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

Your discounting the fact the Scottish Labour Party have already taken sides.
The issue itself isn’t the problem. I doubt that moves a single vote. It’s the impression of cowardice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you take FM, I've no doubt you would hail her bravery on this issue. There are also people in her own party who see this as reckless, dangerous and can't understand why you choose this hill to die on. Time will tell.

[He's here!]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-64315517

[Stairway 2 7]

Your discounting the fact the Scottish Labour Party have already taken sides.
The issue itself isn’t the problem. I doubt that moves a single vote. It’s the impression of cowardice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'd be stunned if most of the uk didn't really care about what Starmer is or isn't saying about this. It's obviously going to go to a big long court case. He was in pf he would be mad to talk now, just wait and see what the outcome is. If its shown to be illegal then all the talk beforehand was utterly pointless

[weecounty hibby]

OK, but if I was Starmer I'd take advice from people who actually wanted me to win.
As much as I am firmly an independence supporter I want Labour to win a UK election.

[weecounty hibby]

I'd put your money up at the bookies then. 1/3 labour win 9/4 the tories, punt on

2 years out.

[CropleyWasGod]

Your discounting the fact the Scottish Labour Party have already taken sides.
The issue itself isn’t the problem. I doubt that moves a single vote. It’s the impression of cowardice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In terms of the electorate that Starmer is playing to, it's just not an issue. To the Red Wall, Scottish politics rarely register and are an irrelevance.

In many ways, keeping silent and watching the debate is a learning experience. When England decides to move on gender reform, much of the debate will be pre-rehearsed, based on the Scottish experience.

[Stairway 2 7]

If you take FM, I've no doubt you would hail her bravery on this issue. There are also people in her own party who see this as reckless, dangerous and can't understand why you choose this hill to die on. Time will tell.

Braver are the people speaking up when they know it will affect their career by challenging the bill

[Stairway 2 7]

2 years out.

Your bet will still count. If I thought they wouldn't win I'd be mad not putting a decent wedge on the tories winning

[James310]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-64315517

If anyone knows it would be him, probably the most qualified of all the different "experts" that have had an opinion. Says it's a "mistake" for the Scottish Government to take this to court as they will lose.

If he is right and the court agrees there is going to be some very senior politicians embarrassed as they are categorically saying it doesn't impact UK legislation.

On the flip side if it doesn't impact UK laws there will be equally embarrassed politicians on the other side.

[Ozyhibby]

If anyone knows it would be him, probably the most qualified of all the different "experts" that have had an opinion. Says it's a "mistake" for the Scottish Government to take this to court as they will lose.

If he is right and the court agrees there is going to be some very senior politicians embarrassed as they are categorically saying it doesn't impact UK legislation.

Losing the court case will be bad for trans people but not for people who support Indy. It will be another example of Scotland not being able to make decisions without permission from England.
The UK govt forcing the Scottish Parliament to go to court to act on devolved issues isn’t bad for building support for independence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

If anyone knows it would be him, probably the most qualified of all the different "experts" that have had an opinion. Says it's a "mistake" for the Scottish Government to take this to court as they will lose.

If he is right and the court agrees there is going to be some very senior politicians embarrassed as they are categorically saying it doesn't impact UK legislation.

On the flip side if it doesn't impact UK laws there will be equally embarrassed politicians on the other side.
This has the potential to blow up in everyone's face. I think the Haldane judgement has been a game changer. That feeds directly into the same sex spaces argument that UKG has put forward. I'm not a lawyer, but it appears to me that it makes the SG case harder, partly because the other points UKG has raised don't look like slam dunks. But we'll see.

[Stairway 2 7]

Losing the court case will be bad for trans people but not for people who support Indy. It will be another example of Scotland not being able to make decisions without permission from England.
The UK govt forcing the Scottish Parliament to go to court to act on devolved issues isn’t bad for building support for independence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Don't think that's true when about 80% of people polled are against sections of the bill. This doesn't fall on regular political lines

[archie]

Losing the court case will be bad for trans people but not for people who support Indy. It will be another example of Scotland not being able to make decisions without permission from England.
The UK govt forcing the Scottish Parliament to go to court to act on devolved issues isn’t bad for building support for independence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
OK, but there is danger too. Does FM really want to be seen in the same light as Maggie Chapmam? Losing another case doesn’t scream competence. And like it or not, when there is a case that can in any way be linked to the legislation, you can be sure that the finger will be pointed at the Scottish
Government. And allowing the Tories to position themselves as defenders of women's rights!

[CropleyWasGod]

Anyone know when Alister Jack is due to appear before the Equalities Committee at Holyrood? Has he been called to appear yet?

[James310]

Losing the court case will be bad for trans people but not for people who support Indy. It will be another example of Scotland not being able to make decisions without permission from England.
The UK govt forcing the Scottish Parliament to go to court to act on devolved issues isn’t bad for building support for independence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ah yet another reason for Independence! Or alternatively it's a court of law making a judgement on the law. If the Scottish Parliament via the Scottish Government has passed illegal Bills that's their problem, I don't see how that boosts the case for Indy. Can't see the logic in people thinking the Scottish Government messed up and passed an illegal Bill as they failed to do the correct checks and balances, where do I sign up for the Yes campaign.

You were adamant the Supreme Court ruling would boost the case for Indy, that pretty much everything will boost the base for Indy actually, last poll for Indy? 44%.

You keep bringing this back to Independence and Nicola Sturgeon, is that where your real concerns are, the impact this has on Independence and Nicola Sturgeon?

[Ozyhibby]

Ah yet another reason for Independence! Or alternatively it's a court of law making a judgement on the law. If the Scottish Parliament via the Scottish Government has passed illegal Bills that's their problem, I don't see how that boosts the case for Indy. Can't see the logic in people thinking the Scottish Government messed up and passed an illegal Bill as they failed to do the correct checks and balances, where do I sign up for the Yes campaign.

You were adamant the Supreme Court ruling would boost the case for Indy, that pretty much everything will boost the base for Indy actually, last poll for Indy? 44%.

You keep bringing this back to Independence and Nicola Sturgeon, is that where your real concerns are, the impact this has on Independence and Nicola Sturgeon?

James, that last paragraph really hurts. It shows you are not reading my posts.

All the rest is drivel.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ronaldo7]

Anyone know when Alister Jack is due to appear before the Equalities Committee at Holyrood? Has he been called to appear yet?

He was called yesterday. My bet is he won't attend.

[CropleyWasGod]

He was called yesterday. My bet is he won't attend.

Ta.

Is there a mechanism for sanction if he dingies them?

[James310]

He was called yesterday. My bet is he won't attend.

I hope he does, and doesn't refuse to attend like Nicola Sturgeon did when invited to the Scottish Affairs Committee at Westminster. She was "busy".

Mark Drakeford has been at Westminster a few times at the Welsh Committee.

[ronaldo7]

OK, but there is danger too. Does FM really want to be seen in the same light as Maggie Chapmam? Losing another case doesn’t scream competence. And like it or not, when there is a case that can in any way be linked to the legislation, you can be sure that the finger will be pointed at the Scottish
Government. And allowing the Tories to position themselves as defenders of women's rights!

Will anyone believe the Tories are the defenders of women though. I think not.

They could always attach the rape clause at the bottom of their leaflets.

[ronaldo7]

Ta.

Is there a mechanism for sanction if he dingies them?

Don't think so.

[CropleyWasGod]

I hope he does, and doesn't refuse to attend like Nicola Sturgeon did when invited to the Scottish Affairs Committee at Westminster. She was "busy".

Mark Drakeford has been at Westminster a few times at the Welsh Committee.

You're such a bitch sometimes :greengrin

I hope he attends too, but not for petty party points scoring reasons.

Miaow.

[ronaldo7]

I hope he does, and doesn't refuse to attend like Nicola Sturgeon did when invited to the Scottish Affairs Committee at Westminster. She was "busy".

Mark Drakeford has been at Westminster a few times at the Welsh Committee.

She's deeply entrenched in your every thought. 😂

Any idea where she was? You'll have it in your diary.📒

[JeMeSouviens]

OK, but if I was Starmer I'd take advice from people who actually wanted me to win.

Unless by some miracle we could have Indy next year, I desperately want Labour to win UK-wide and I think they will. I don't mind if Starmer is centrist but I'm not keen on spineless. Not standing up for the right of Holyrood to pass legislation that's within competence and the lack of or extremely lukewarm support for the unions are both spineless imo. I think he risks looking like a phony and that's about the only way I can see him managing to lose tbh.

[Stairway 2 7]

Unless by some miracle we could have Indy next year, I desperately want Labour to win UK-wide and I think they will. I don't mind if Starmer is centrist but I'm not keen on spineless. Not standing up for the right of Holyrood to pass legislation that's within competence and the lack of or extremely lukewarm support for the unions are both spineless imo. I think he risks looking like a phony and that's about the only way I can see him managing to lose tbh.

Agree with regards to the unions. In regards to this legislation will you retract that opinion if the court proves its not legal

[archie]

Will anyone believe the Tories are the defenders of women though. I think not.

They could always attach the rape clause at the bottom of their leaflets.

And yet because of how this has been approached they have been given the space to do this. Incide, do you know what the 'rape clause' is?

[Ozyhibby]

Agree with regards to the unions. In regards to this legislation will you retract that opinion if the court proves its not legal

I don’t think it’s legality has been challenged?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

She's deeply entrenched in your every thought. 😂

Any idea where she was? You'll have it in your diary.📒

I suspect the poster was anticipating 'democratic outrage' argument if the SoS didn't attend. FWIW I would attend if I was him. It would give him a platform as a defender of womens rights in the face of attacks from Committee members. Whether that is justified isn't the point. SG actions allow him to frame it that way.

[Stairway 2 7]

I don’t think it’s legality has been challenged?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Semantics. Whether it impacts on non devolved laws, but you know that

[Ozyhibby]

I suspect the poster was anticipating 'democratic outrage' argument if the SoS didn't attend. FWIW I would attend if I was him. It would give him a platform as a defender of womens rights in the face of attacks from Committee members. Whether that is justified isn't the point. SG actions allow him to frame it that way.

That’s what it will look like in front of the 5 women on the committee.[emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JeMeSouviens]

Agree with regards to the unions. In regards to this legislation will you retract that opinion if the court proves its not legal

Firstly, it's legality is not in dispute and Holyrood's competence to legislate on it is not in dispute either. If it were the UK gov would be using section 33 of the Scotland act. Section 35 gives them a veto:


If a Bill contains provisions—

(a)which the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe would be incompatible with any international obligations or the interests of defence or national security, or

(b)which make modifications of the law as it applies to reserved matters and which the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe would have an adverse effect on the operation of the law as it applies to reserved matters

Clearly (b) is in play but it's a practical implementation based judgment, not a letter of the law one.

Secondly, Starmer should be standing behind his Scot Lab colleagues who notwithstanding some dissenters voted as a party for this legislation, whatever his personal feelings on the issue.

[Stairway 2 7]

That’s what it will look like in front of the 5 women on the committee.[emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maggie Chapman is one on the committee and she's the current laughing stock of the press and social media just now. A free ride for a politician right now opposing that fruitcake

[Stairway 2 7]

Firstly, it's legality is not in dispute and Holyrood's competence to legislate on it is not in dispute either. If it were the UK gov would be using section 33 of the Scotland act. Section 35 gives them a veto:



Clearly (b) is in play but it's a practical implementation based judgment, not a letter of the law one.

Secondly, Starmer should be standing behind his Scot Lab colleagues who notwithstanding some dissenters voted as a party for this legislation, whatever his personal feelings on the issue.

Semantics again. If they lose the court case will you say fair enough it wasn't competent.

Starmer is correct in waiting for the courts to decide

[archie]

That’s what it will look like in front of the 5 women on the committee.[emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well if he frames his comments and answers carefully it could be quite effective. Tories on the Committee will feed him softballs and if he wants to go for the jugular he would keep bringing up Maggie Chapman's comments to get them on the official record. Sadly the point of the meeting will be all concered trying to get their soundbites on the news. He's got plenty to work with. Whether he would be any good at it I simply don't know.

[ronaldo7]

And yet because of how this has been approached they have been given the space to do this. Incide, do you know what the 'rape clause' is?

I found this site to be very informative on the rape clause.

https://www.womensaidni.org/everything-wanted-know-rape-clause/

[archie]

Firstly, it's legality is not in dispute and Holyrood's competence to legislate on it is not in dispute either. If it were the UK gov would be using section 33 of the Scotland act. Section 35 gives them a veto:



Clearly (b) is in play but it's a practical implementation based judgment, not a letter of the law one.

Secondly, Starmer should be standing behind his Scot Lab colleagues who notwithstanding some dissenters voted as a party for this legislation, whatever his personal feelings on the issue.

I think the reasonable grounds issue is quite a low bar. If the UKG law officers give the SoS advice to that effect then does that provide reasonable grounds? I don't know. But as I understand it, SG has sought a judicial review of the decision. I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that a judicial review would test if UKG a) had the power to act (they clearly do) and b) whether it was reasonable. Have I got this right?

[ronaldo7]

I suspect the poster was anticipating 'democratic outrage' argument if the SoS didn't attend. FWIW I would attend if I was him. It would give him a platform as a defender of womens rights in the face of attacks from Committee members. Whether that is justified isn't the point. SG actions allow him to frame it that way.

Sounds like he's made his mind up then. :greengrin

FWIW I'd like the SOS to attend, as I'm sure the women will eat him alive. :greengrin

[archie]

I found this site to be very informative on the rape clause.

https://www.womensaidni.org/everything-wanted-know-rape-clause/

I think the 'rape clause' is a fantastic weaponisation of language. The clause actually proves additional funding for women who have a child through rape. The rationale is, presumably, that it was unfair to apply the two child benefit cap where a women had been raped. In the miserable legislation it is part of it was a little chink of compassion. Paradoxically, scrapping the provision would worsen the position of people affected.But it was irresistible for politicos not to link Tories and rape in the same sentence. Cynical, but effective.

[Ozyhibby]

Maggie Chapman is one on the committee and she's the current laughing stock of the press and social media just now. A free ride for a politician right now opposing that fruitcake

I give you that as a score draw v Alistair Jack.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JeMeSouviens]

I think the reasonable grounds issue is quite a low bar. If the UKG law officers give the SoS advice to that effect then does that provide reasonable grounds? I don't know. But as I understand it, SG has sought a judicial review of the decision. I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that a judicial review would test if UKG a) had the power to act (they clearly do) and b) whether it was reasonable. Have I got this right?

Yes, I agree and I think you've got it right.

[archie]

I give you that as a score draw v Alistair Jack.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I suspect Jack knows what sex he is, which gives him a head start.

[Ozyhibby]

I think the reasonable grounds issue is quite a low bar. If the UKG law officers give the SoS advice to that effect then does that provide reasonable grounds? I don't know. But as I understand it, SG has sought a judicial review of the decision. I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that a judicial review would test if UKG a) had the power to act (they clearly do) and b) whether it was reasonable. Have I got this right?

Predicting legal cases like this is a mugs game. There is so much open to interpretation.
I looked at Jack’s document yesterday and thought there appears to be nothing in it but the law might just interpret that there doesn’t need to be and what the SoS says goes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JeMeSouviens]

Semantics again. If they lose the court case will you say fair enough it wasn't competent.

Starmer is correct in waiting for the courts to decide

It really isn't.

[Stairway 2 7]

I give you that as a score draw v Alistair Jack.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Different sport they are playing. Jack is mentally competent but an evil money grabbing spiv. Chapman is just not in the real world

[ronaldo7]

I think the 'rape clause' is a fantastic weaponisation of language. The clause actually proves additional funding for women who have a child through rape. The rationale is, presumably, that it was unfair to apply the two child benefit cap where a women had been raped. In the miserable legislation it is part of it was a little chink of compassion. Paradoxically, scrapping the provision would worsen the position of people affected.But it was irresistible for politicos not to link Tories and rape in the same sentence. Cynical, but effective.

Carefully made, due to the callous Tories taking away benefits from families who need it.

There are many other issues on the removal of the child benefit for families who have more than two children. Some women don't use contraception due to their religious beliefs, but this bit in the link covers it well enough.

"Any other issues?
Well, yes. The policy may discriminate against people who don’t use contraception or disagree with abortion on religious grounds. Families from Catholic, Evangelical, Muslim or Jewish faiths tend to have bigger families for these reasons. There are also strong human rights and equality arguments, as the cap will disproportionately affect women, children, and fail to meet the UK’s obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child and Convention on Elimination of Discrimination Against Women."

Sometimes those making laws just have to accept the flack coming their way, and I for one won't hesitate to link the Tories with the rape clause. It was of their making.

[Stairway 2 7]

There's probably not much to debate until after the probably drawn out court case. Hopefully the loser has the good grace to say they were wrong

[archie]

Predicting legal cases like this is a mugs game. There is so much open to interpretation.
I looked at Jack’s document yesterday and thought there appears to be nothing in it but the law might just interpret that there doesn’t need to be and what the SoS says goes.


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkI think the point of the judicial review is whether UKG acted reasonably, rather than if they are 'right' if you know what I mean.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

It really isn't.

Indeed. Can the courts really be trusted to apply the actual law rather than being swayed by political influence these days? I personally don't think that they can. The tories have made huge strides over the past 12 years to butcher the judiciary system for their own end.

[archie]

Carefully made, due to the callous Tories taking away benefits from families who need it.

There are many other issues on the removal of the child benefit for families who have more than two children. Some women don't use contraception due to their religious beliefs, but this bit in the link covers it well enough.

"Any other issues?
Well, yes. The policy may discriminate against people who don’t use contraception or disagree with abortion on religious grounds. Families from Catholic, Evangelical, Muslim or Jewish faiths tend to have bigger families for these reasons. There are also strong human rights and equality arguments, as the cap will disproportionately affect women, children, and fail to meet the UK’s obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child and Convention on Elimination of Discrimination Against Women."

Sometimes those making laws just have to accept the flack coming their way, and I for one won't hesitate to link the Tories with the rape clause. It was of their making.

Yes, but that's for effect. The issue is surely the two children cap. But that doesn't have the same impact. And the use of language has been effective.

[Ozyhibby]

There's probably not much to debate until after the probably drawn out court case. Hopefully the loser has the good grace to say they were wrong

The only people losing are trans people. The rest of us will be just fine.
Whichever way it goes I’ll see as the Scottish Parliament being weakened.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ronaldo7]

Yes, but that's for effect. The issue is surely the two children cap. But that doesn't have the same impact. And the use of language has been effective.

When women's aid groups are using it, who am I to disagree.

[JeMeSouviens]

I think the 'rape clause' is a fantastic weaponisation of language. The clause actually proves additional funding for women who have a child through rape. The rationale is, presumably, that it was unfair to apply the two child benefit cap where a women had been raped. In the miserable legislation it is part of it was a little chink of compassion. Paradoxically, scrapping the provision would worsen the position of people affected.But it was irresistible for politicos not to link Tories and rape in the same sentence. Cynical, but effective.

I sort of agree but the whole idea of punishing children because their parents have more than 2 is so awful that any weaponisation is more than warranted imo. Plus the actual rape clause only grants an exemption if rape is proved. *******s.

[Ozyhibby]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230118/c0c32f171c6b9fc9e570e1ab1067cfbf.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WeeRussell]

I hope he does, and doesn't refuse to attend like Nicola Sturgeon did when invited to the Scottish Affairs Committee at Westminster. She was "busy".

Mark Drakeford has been at Westminster a few times at the Welsh Committee.

Immediately after accusing Oz of always bringing this back to Nicola Sturgeon. Brilliant 😂

This whole parody thing of pretending you’re for real posting like this every single day for so long is an incredible effort. I would have put money on you coming out with a ‘gotcha’ style reveal long before now.

[WeeRussell]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230118/c0c32f171c6b9fc9e570e1ab1067cfbf.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It’s wrong but we won’t come out and say it’s wrong. How very Scottish labour.

[JeMeSouviens]

Immediately after accusing Oz of always bringing this back to Nicola Sturgeon. Brilliant 😂

This whole parody thing of pretending you’re for real posting like this every single day for so long is an incredible effort. I would have put money on you coming out with a ‘gotcha’ style reveal long before now.

One of the funniest things I've ever read on here. Been chuckling to myself all morning. :greengrin

[James310]

One of the funniest things I've ever read on here. Been chuckling to myself all morning. :greengrin

Small things amuse small.....you know the rest. I will be chuckling to myself for a while about that as looks like we are both easily amused.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

It’s wrong but we won’t come out and say it’s wrong. How very Scottish labour.

Ian Murray must have a whole lot of blisters on his backside from all the fence sitting he did yesterday while he desperately tries to calculate what side of the fence is in the interests of his own personal career.

[Ozyhibby]

Ian Murray must have a whole lot of blisters on his backside from all the fence sitting he did yesterday while he desperately tries to calculate what side of the fence is in the interests of his own personal career.

Like many, if Nicola Sturgeon is on one side, he is on the other. No matter what the issue might be.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

Ian Murray must have a whole lot of blisters on his backside from all the fence sitting he did yesterday while he desperately tries to calculate what side of the fence is in the interests of his own personal career.

Everybody is positioning on this.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Everybody is positioning on this.

I'm not so sure about that. I don't think any of the MSPs who were brave enough to back this bill did so in the belief that it would be a career booster, considering the horrendously negative coverage it has received in the British Media over the years.

[Stairway 2 7]

I'm not so sure about that. I don't think any of the MSPs who were brave enough to back this bill did so in the belief that it would be a career booster, considering the horrendously negative coverage it has received in the British Media over the years.

Surely you agree that effects on career progression were worst for snp mps that apposed the bill.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Surely you agree that effects on career progression were worst for snp mps that apposed the bill.

Not if they stand as independents or for another party in the next election and ultimately win the popular vote. The Gender Reform Bill isn't exactly a vote winner based on current social attitudes towards it (heavily influenced by the media).

[He's here!]

Maggie Chapman is one on the committee and she's the current laughing stock of the press and social media just now. A free ride for a politician right now opposing that fruitcake

Glaikit is the word that sprung to mind when I heard her car crash interview the other day, but fruitcake is more apt.

[Stairway 2 7]

Not if they stand as independents or for another party in the next election and ultimately win the popular vote. The Gender Reform Bill isn't exactly a vote winner based on current social attitudes towards it (heavily influenced by the media).

This is just mental stuff. So it would be good for there career if they quit the snp, win against the snp as an independent or change party and win 👍

[TrumpIsAPeado]

This is just mental stuff. So it would be good for there career if they quit the snp, win against the snp as an independent or change party and win 👍

If they thought they were going to lose their seat as an SNP MSP anyway, then yes.

[archie]

I'm not so sure about that. I don't think any of the MSPs who were brave enough to back this bill did so in the belief that it would be a career booster, considering the horrendously negative coverage it has received in the British Media over the years.

I think their view was that it would be, but maybe the ground has shifted beneath their feet. One of the unintended consequences that I see is that commentators down south whobwould have a positive view of FM (mainly due to Brexit) are more critical.

[CropleyWasGod]

Tories tying themselves in knots over their proposed ban on conversion therapy in England for trans people.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/01/17/trans-conversion-therapy-ban-could-turn-parents-criminals/

I thought yesterday's announcement was too good to be true, and I was a bit suspicious about its timing.

[archie]

Tories tying themselves in knots over their proposed ban on conversion therapy in England for trans people.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/01/17/trans-conversion-therapy-ban-could-turn-parents-criminals/

I thought yesterday's announcement was too good to be true, and I was a bit suspicious about the timing.

I wonder if this is going to be the next drafting mess of legislation. My fundamental issue with the gender reform legislation is vagueness and lack of clarity of definitions. This has the potential to be worse.

[Stairway 2 7]

All conversation therapy should be illegal. Conversations between parents and kids were surely never going to be close to being criminalised

[archie]

All conversation therapy should be illegal. Conversations between parents and kids were surely never going to be close to being criminalised

You see this is the issue. People quite rightly have a horror at some of the cases of beatings, forced exorcism etc. But these are already illegal. So what is it you want to ban? That vagueness is where the concerns around therapy, counselling etc. Come in. Also, what if someone wants conversion therapy?

[CropleyWasGod]

You see this is the issue. People quite rightly have a horror at some of the cases of beatings, forced exorcism etc. But these are already illegal. So what is it you want to ban? That vagueness is where the concerns around therapy, counselling etc. Come in. Also, what if someone wants conversion therapy?

Here's a decent starting point. The SG is slightly ahead of the UKG in developing something.

https://www.gov.scot/publications/expert-advisory-group-ending-conversion-practices-report-recommendations/pages/3/

[Stairway 2 7]

You see this is the issue. People quite rightly have a horror at some of the cases of beatings, forced exorcism etc. But these are already illegal. So what is it you want to ban? That vagueness is where the concerns around therapy, counselling etc. Come in. Also, what if someone wants conversion therapy?

Start by banning any organisation or group who's raison d'etre is conversion. You can't police everything and things will go underground ect but you do what you can. Is someone wants support they should be able to have it and it should be impartial

[TrumpIsAPeado]

You see this is the issue. People quite rightly have a horror at some of the cases of beatings, forced exorcism etc. But these are already illegal. So what is it you want to ban? That vagueness is where the concerns around therapy, counselling etc. Come in. Also, what if someone wants conversion therapy?

I don't think anybody wants conversion therapy. Nobody can be happier in life pretending to be anything other than themselves. Some people however feel that they have to get it, due to peer and societal pressures and stigma that simply shouldn't exist.

[Ozyhibby]

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-news-agents/id1640878689?i=1000595021007


Worth a listen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ronaldo7]

I think this had caught Keir by surprise.

Keir Starmer's spokesman says the party can't identify any aspect of the Scottish Gender Recognition Reform act that would undermine single sex spaces, but want to wait to see the government's own legal advice before offering a view.

https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1615702357110853632

[archie]

Here's a decent starting point. The SG is slightly ahead of the UKG in developing something.

https://www.gov.scot/publications/expert-advisory-group-ending-conversion-practices-report-recommendations/pages/3/I've seen it. Just not clear what problem they need to solve that isn’t already illegal.

[archie]

Start by banning any organisation or group who's raison d'etre is conversion. You can't police everything and things will go underground ect but you do what you can. Is someone wants support they should be able to have it and it should be impartial

That's a hell of a wide definition. What do you mean by conversion?

[archie]

I don't think anybody wants conversion therapy. Nobody can be happier in life pretending to be anything other than themselves. Some people however feel that they have to get it, due to peer and societal pressures and stigma that simply shouldn't exist.

Really? No one ever wants to change themselves? This also assumes that people live in a steady state throughout their lifetime. But surely people's perspective can change.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Really? No one ever wants to change themselves? This also assumes that people live in a steady state throughout their lifetime. But surely people's perspective can change.

Sexuality and gender identification are not perspectives. People don't choose to be attracted to the same sex and transgenderism isn't some hobby that people lose interest in. It's hard wired into their very being.

[James310]

Sexuality and gender identification are not perspectives. People don't choose to be attracted to the same sex and transgenderism isn't some hobby that people lose interest in. It's hard wired into their very being.

How would you explain detransitioners then? Some gave very powerful evidence to the committee in the Scottish Parliament.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/scottish-government-holyrood-snp-newcastle-glasgow-b1041530.html

“When I presented myself to a gender identity clinic, I felt so certain that medical transition was the only solution for me, but now I wish that greater care had been taken to consider all my underlying issues"

It can't be hard wired into them all would you accept?

[TrumpIsAPeado]

How would you explain detransitioners then? Some gave very powerful evidence to the committee in the Scottish Parliament.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/scottish-government-holyrood-snp-newcastle-glasgow-b1041530.html

“When I presented myself to a gender identity clinic, I felt so certain that medical transition was the only solution for me, but now I wish that greater care had been taken to consider all my underlying issues"

It can't be hard wired into them all would you accept?

If it isn't hard wired, then it isn't transgenderism. A transgender person doesn't "think" that they are transgender, they simply are. They couldn't possibly be themselves if they weren't.

I have no doubt there are people who get gender reassignment surgery who ultimately regret it, because it's not who they truly are. Just as they'll be people who go through life and regret not getting gender reassignment surgery because it is who they are.

[CropleyWasGod]

Sexuality and gender identification are not perspectives. People don't choose to be attracted to the same sex and transgenderism isn't some hobby that people lose interest in. It's hard wired into their very being.

Not sure I agree with you here.

Sexuality is a spectrum, that people can and do move up and down throughout their lives.

Or have I picked you up wrong?

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Not sure I agree with you here.

Sexuality is a spectrum, that people can and do move up and down throughout their lives.

Or have I picked you up wrong?

Sexuality is a spectrum. However that doesn't mean that people simply move around it. It's not that people's sexuality changes over time. It's that it can take time for a person to discover what their true sexuality actually is. A person can spend years in a straight relationship for example, only to discover that they are actually gay. Does that mean that they were straight up to that point and just suddenly decided they were going to be gay from now on? I don't believe it works that way.

[Hibrandenburg]

There is a thread on here all about women’s safety which some of the posters on this thread who seem very worried about the threat of trans predators have barely posted on. It seems women only really need protected from trans people?
Or maybe, there is just no way to attack NS on that thread?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just pure coincidence.

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/glennbbc/status/1615753119740137472?s=46&t=HXjakbCq4w_0bHAan8HlMQ

Scottish Labour MSP’s seem to be unhappy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

Sexuality is a spectrum. However that doesn't mean that people simply move around it. It's not that people's sexuality changes over time. It's that it can take time for a person to discover what their true sexuality actually is. A person can spend years in a straight relationship for example, only to discover that they are actually gay. Does that mean that they were straight up to that point and just suddenly decided they were going to be gay from now on? I don't believe it works that way.

They absolutely do.

Sexuality is not binary. It can evolve and change based on life circumstances and experiences; many people move between straight, gay, bi, pan, asexuality etc. Most people, of course, stay at the same point on the spectrum throughout their lives, but of itself sexuality is fluid.

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/glennbbc/status/1615753990012010503?s=46&t=HXjakbCq4w_0bHAan8HlMQ

Very weak from Sarwar. They would have been just as well sticking with Richard Leonard.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

Sexuality is a spectrum. However that doesn't mean that people simply move around it. It's not that people's sexuality changes over time. It's that it can take time for a person to discover what their true sexuality actually is. A person can spend years in a straight relationship for example, only to discover that they are actually gay. Does that mean that they were straight up to that point and just suddenly decided they were going to be gay from now on? I don't believe it works that way.

That implies that there is a 'true' state that someone has that, once achieved, can't be moved from. There are plenty of examples of people who have been in same sex relationships who then move on to a straight relationship. I wouldn't presume that either of these were their 'true self'.

[archie]

Sexuality is a spectrum. However that doesn't mean that people simply move around it. It's not that people's sexuality changes over time. It's that it can take time for a person to discover what their true sexuality actually is. A person can spend years in a straight relationship for example, only to discover that they are actually gay. Does that mean that they were straight up to that point and just suddenly decided they were going to be gay from now on? I don't believe it works that way.
So where does this person fit in your spectrum? https://wearethecity.com/inspirational-profile-pips-bunce-director-credit-suisse/

[hibby rae]

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-news-agents/id1640878689?i=1000595021007


Worth a listen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Listened to it earlier, very good.

As an aside, the Newsagents podcast is very good generally.

[Ozyhibby]

Listened to it earlier, very good.

As an aside, the Newsagents podcast is very good generally.

Best one out there imo. You can tell they are enjoying being free from the BBC.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

Most here will ignore this because the KC'S opinion was sought by a religious group, but there are issues raised that should give pause for thought https://www.scottishlegal.com/articles/kc-finds-scottish-governments-conversion-therapy-proposals-draconian

[hibby rae]

Best one out there imo. You can tell they are enjoying being free from the BBC.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Absolutely, that one and one last month (I think) about the Government's actions against refugees were top-tier journalism

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Good coverage from Phil here, regarding the situation between Holyrood and Westminster.


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

If the UK Government were in anyway confident in their rhetoric about this bill impeding on non-devolved issues, they would have enacted Section 33 rather than Section 35. Section 35 is an order intended for emergency situations. The order is deliberately very vague and open to interpretation, which basically allows the UK Government to use it whenever they see fit to overrule any devolved legislation without legal scrutiny.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

That implies that there is a 'true' state that someone has that, once achieved, can't be moved from. There are plenty of examples of people who have been in same sex relationships who then move on to a straight relationship. I wouldn't presume that either of these were their 'true self'.

You are familiar with the term 'bisexuality' right? :wink:

[archie]

You are familiar with the term 'bisexuality' right? :wink:

Yes.

[hibby rae]

Good coverage from Phil here, regarding the situation between Holyrood and Westminster.


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

If the UK Government were in anyway confident in their rhetoric about this bill impeding on non-devolved issues, they would have enacted Section 33 rather than Section 35. Section 35 is an order intended for emergency situations. The order is deliberately very vague and open to interpretation, which basically allows the UK Government to use it whenever they see fit to overrule any devolved legislation without legal scrutiny.

That was good.

Agree with all of it and been saying it for a while, pretty much every Tory act right now is part of an electoral strategy.

[Moulin Yarns]

Surely you agree that effects on career progression were worst for snp mps that apposed the bill.

This is really bugging me, I know it shouldn't but...


appose
/əˈpəʊz/
verbTECHNICAL
place (something) side by side with or close to something else.
"the specimen was apposed to X-ray film"

[archie]

That was good.

Agree with all of it and been saying it for a while, pretty much every Tory act right now is part of an electoral strategy.

Shock, horror probe! A political party pursuing an electoral strategy. Whatever next?

[He's here!]

This has the potential to blow up in everyone's face. I think the Haldane judgement has been a game changer. That feeds directly into the same sex spaces argument that UKG has put forward. I'm not a lawyer, but it appears to me that it makes the SG case harder, partly because the other points UKG has raised don't look like slam dunks. But we'll see.

You're right, the Haldane judgement was a game changer. I remain bewildered by it. A bill which makes it easier for a male to 'become a woman' already had clear implications for women's rights but the Haldane judgement, which means they don't only change their gender but their sex reduces the concept of womanhood from a biological certainty to a mere identity, something anyone can assume should they so wish. Madness.

For a supposed feminist like Sturgeon to have so stubbornly insisted we enter this land of make believe, refusing to countenance even amendments like banning sex offenders from changng sex, is mind-boggling. The unhinged nonsense spouted by the likes of Maggie Chapman this week also underlines the perils of making the Scottish Greens your bedfellows. This is a mess of Sturgeon's making no matter how stridently she tries to blame Westminster.

[McSwanky]

Shock, horror probe! A political party pursuing an electoral strategy. Whatever next?How about running the country in a way that benefits most of its residents? Radical.

[Ozyhibby]

Sarwar got the right tone tonight on Scotland Tonight. Admitted he doesn’t agree with Starmer. I suspect his backbenchers had words.
Needs to not go into hiding for 24 hours when things are happening though but better non the less.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

How about running the country in a way that benefits most of its residents? Radical.

I agree, but all parties do it.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

You're right, the Haldane judgement was a game changer. I remain bewildered by it. A bill which makes it easier for a male to 'become a woman' already had clear implications for women's rights but the Haldane judgement, which means they don't only change their gender but their sex reduces the concept of womanhood from a biological certainty to a mere identity, something anyone can assume should they so wish. Madness.

For a supposed feminist like Sturgeon to have so stubbornly insisted we enter this land of make believe, refusing to countenance even amendments like banning sex offenders from changng sex, is mind-boggling. The unhinged nonsense spouted by the likes of Maggie Chapman this week also underlines the perils of making the Scottish Greens your bedfellows. This is a mess of Sturgeon's making no matter how stridently she tries to blame Westminster.

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

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

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

[Hibrandenburg]

Sarwar got the right tone tonight on Scotland Tonight. Admitted he doesn’t agree with Starmer. I suspect his backbenchers had words.
Needs to not go into hiding for 24 hours when things are happening though but better non the less.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Did you see Scottish Labour's party political broadcast last night? Titled Scottish Labour but no Sarwar to be seen, only Starmer.

[James310]

Do you have the same issues with the 14 other signatories?

12 of the 14 organisations funded by the Scottish Government.

https://archive.ph/f0kR9


"Gender bill lobbyists get millions from SNP"

"Scottish charities and civic groups that criticised the Westminster government’s decision to block Holyrood’s gender recognition laws receive millions in funding from the SNP-led administration"

I wonder if there is one single Scottish Government funded charity or civic group that is critical of the Bill? I haven't seen any.

Imagine if this was the Tory's funding these groups and they were coming out against the Bill supporting the UK Gov position, would the reaction really be nothing to see here, I am sure they are all impartial and don't let their funding situation influence their views? Either deliberately or via an unconscious bias. I would say that's highly unlikely, yet we seem to think it won't happen in Scotland but of course it would happen in England.

[Kato]

12 of the 14 organisations funded by the Scottish Government.

https://archive.ph/f0kR9


"Gender bill lobbyists get millions from SNP"

"Scottish charities and civic groups that criticised the Westminster government’s decision to block Holyrood’s gender recognition laws receive millions in funding from the SNP-led administration"

I wonder if there is one single Scottish Government funded charity or civic group that is critical of the Bill? I haven't seen any.

Imagine if this was the Tory's funding these groups and they were coming out against the Bill supporting the UK Gov position, would the reaction really be nothing to see here, I am sure they are all impartial and don't let their funding situation influence their views? Either deliberately or via an unconscious bias. I would say that's highly unlikely, yet we seem to think it won't happen in Scotland but of course it would happen in England.What do you think should happen to these Scottish Govt funded charities?



Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

12 of the 14 organisations funded by the Scottish Government.

https://archive.ph/f0kR9


"Gender bill lobbyists get millions from SNP"

"Scottish charities and civic groups that criticised the Westminster government’s decision to block Holyrood’s gender recognition laws receive millions in funding from the SNP-led administration"

I wonder if there is one single Scottish Government funded charity or civic group that is critical of the Bill? I haven't seen any.

Imagine if this was the Tory's funding these groups and they were coming out against the Bill supporting the UK Gov position, would the reaction really be nothing to see here, I am sure they are all impartial and don't let their funding situation influence their views? Either deliberately or via an unconscious bias. I would say that's highly unlikely, yet we seem to think it won't happen in Scotland but of course it would happen in England.

Do the SNP also fund Scottish Labour and the Scottish Lib Dems?
Is there any part of civic Scotland that supports the use of a s35 order by the Tories?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[James310]

What do you think should happen to these Scottish Govt funded charities?



Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

If they are being influenced in even the smallest way by their funding sources that should cease.

[James310]

Do the SNP also fund Scottish Labour and the Scottish Lib Dems?
Is there any part of civic Scotland that supports the use of a s35 order by the Tories?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do the SNP fund Labour and Lib Dems, I hope not.

[CropleyWasGod]

12 of the 14 organisations funded by the Scottish Government.

https://archive.ph/f0kR9


"Gender bill lobbyists get millions from SNP"

"Scottish charities and civic groups that criticised the Westminster government’s decision to block Holyrood’s gender recognition laws receive millions in funding from the SNP-led administration"

I wonder if there is one single Scottish Government funded charity or civic group that is critical of the Bill? I haven't seen any.

Imagine if this was the Tory's funding these groups and they were coming out against the Bill supporting the UK Gov position, would the reaction really be nothing to see here, I am sure they are all impartial and don't let their funding situation influence their views? Either deliberately or via an unconscious bias. I would say that's highly unlikely, yet we seem to think it won't happen in Scotland but of course it would happen in England.

I have personal experience of many of these groups speaking out and campaigning against the Government on 5 separate occasions.

They didn't lose their funding over those. And rightly so. They spoke their mind, based on their own experience, just as they are now.

[Bristolhibby]

You are familiar with the term 'bisexuality' right? :wink:

Or Pan-sexuality? Or being non binary, or gender fluid?

Lots of grey.

J

[James310]

I have personal experience of many of these groups speaking out and campaigning against the Government on 5 separate occasions.

They didn't lose their funding over those. And rightly so.

I am sure for many things they do, but on this occasion and in the past something doesn't add up. The accusations of the committee stage being stacked in favour of pro GRA activists and those against it being ignored or not even being called to give evidence. The multiple warnings about how this would impact the Equality Legislation in the UK widely ignored as well and then a coordinated response from SG funded groups all supporting the SG. You add it all together and it doesn't sit well.

I accept I have zero proof so I can't say this for a fact but when you look at this and add in everything else about the GRA it doesn't sit well.

Again only an opinion but it feels like a group of extreme trans activists have hijacked the Bill, people like Maggie Chapman, and they have taken the Scottish Government with them on the ride as seemingly willing participants.

I do wonder if there had been a free vote would we have seen more SNP and Labour MSPs vote against it. I saw one SNP MSPs basically say he had to vote for it as it was a whipped vote.

[CropleyWasGod]

I am sure for many things they do, but on this occasion and in the past something doesn't add up. The accusations of the committee stage being stacked in favour of pro GRA activists and those against it being ignored or not even being called to give evidence. The multiple warnings about how this would impact the Equality Legislation in the UK widely ignored as well and then a coordinated response from SG funded groups all supporting the SG. You add it all together and it doesn't sit well.

I accept I have zero proof so I can't say this for a fact but when you look at this and add in everything else about the GRA it doesn't sit well.

Again only an opinion but it feels like a group of extreme trans activists have hijacked the Bill, people like Maggie Chapman, and they have taken the Scottish Government with them on the ride as seemingly willing participants.

I do wonder if there had been a free vote would we have seen more SNP and Labour MSPs vote against it. I saw one SNP MSPs basically say he had to vote for it as it was a whipped vote.

Agreed.:wink:

[James310]

Agreed.:wink:

It all about opinions isn't it. Most of the time.

[hibby rae]

How about running the country in a way that benefits most of its residents? Radical.

Other parties, other Tory governments, have never done it to this extent. To the extent it benefits only the party, and they are damaging the state as a result.

*Meant to reply to the other poster 😉

[Kato]

If they are being influenced in even the smallest way by their funding sources that should cease.What a parochial little vendetta you wage.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[James310]

What a parochial little vendetta you wage.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Yawn.

[Kato]

Yawn.The truth can be boring.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

I have zero evidence but because I stand alone with the Conservative Party something must be wrong?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[James310]

The truth can be boring.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Well come back at me with how I am wrong and some opinions of your own on the topic the thread is about. Can't be that hard?

[James310]

I have zero evidence but because I stand alone with the Conservative Party something must be wrong?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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

[WeeRussell]

I am sure for many things they do, but on this occasion and in the past something doesn't add up.

I’ve been caught-out going on one of my obsessive non-substantiated rants yet again, but on this occasion I’m still right.

[James310]

I’ve been caught-out going on one of my obsessive non-substantiated rants yet again, but on this occasion I’m still right.

Have you? What do you mean?

[Kato]

Well come back at me with how I am wrong and some opinions of your own on the topic the thread is about. Can't be that hard?My opinion is that you don't give a monkeys about trans rights or the women who might be affected by the law. Its all about your parochial vendetta against the SNP and "wee nicky".

The country as whole is in the **** but oh look, a wedge issue!

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

My opinion is that you don't give a monkeys about trans rights or the women who might be affected by the law. Its all about your parochial vendetta against the SNP and "wee nicky".

The country as whole is in the **** but oh look, a wedge issue!

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

No, you’ve got it all wrong. It’s all about protecting women. That’s why they are all over the other thread about protecting women on the board. It’s a real passion. They are so passionate about it they are now attacking women’s charities and wanting them defunded.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[James310]

My opinion is that you don't give a monkeys about trans rights or the women who might be affected by the law. Its all about your parochial vendetta against the SNP and "wee nicky".

The country as whole is in the **** but oh look, a wedge issue!

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

See that wasn't that hard was it. My opinion is you are wrong, I disagree with allowing 16 year old children to self ID as a female or male at such a young age and I disagree with the fact convicted sex offenders can also self ID and potentially use it for committing yet further crimes. I also disagree with the path it's taking and the Greens talking about 8 year old children being able to self ID and be given puberty blockers. But if you support that kind of thing that's your right.

Maybe you just support it because like others you support everything the SNP do? Works both ways you know.

Do you support 16 year olds self IDing? If you do why? I have given my reasons why I don't.

[Kato]

See that wasn't that hard was it. My opinion is you are wrong, I disagree with allowing 16 year old children to self ID as a female or male at such a young age and I disagree with the fact convicted sex offenders can also self ID and potentially use it for committing yet further crimes. I also disagree with the path it's taking and the Greens talking about 8 year old children being able to self ID and be given puberty blockers. But if you support that kind of thing that's your right.

Maybe you just support it because like others you support everything the SNP do? Works both ways you know.

Do you support 16 year olds self IDing? If you do why? I have given my reasons why I don't.I don't have any strong views on culture war issues and think a lot of equalities/rights legislation is flawed. I doubt you've noticed but I'm not the strongest supporter of the SNP.

I'm also reluctant to argue each and every issue with someone who's views are always going to be transparently biased, every day, in every post, on every issue.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[James310]

I don't have any strong views on culture war issues and think a lot of equalities/rights legislation is flawed. I doubt you've noticed but I'm not the strongest supporter of the SNP.

I'm also reluctant to argue each and every issue with someone who's views are always going to be transparently biased, every day, in every post, on every issue.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

I support the SNP in their aim to make the lives of trans people easier, I just don't support some aspects of the Bill that I mentioned above like allowing 16 year olds to self ID and convicted sex offenders to do the same. I think you will find my views on these issues will actually be the majority position and I am not out of line with the majority of the public.

[Kato]

I support the SNP in their aim to make the lives of trans people easier, I just don't support some aspects of the Bill that I mentioned above like allowing 16 year olds to self ID and convicted sex offenders to do the same. I think you will find my views on these issues will actually be the majority position and I am not out of line with the majority of the public.Yeah, yeah.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[James310]

Yeah, yeah.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Yeah yeah?

[Kato]

Yeah, yeah as in being sarcastic.

As in - I don't believe you are posting on certain issues in good faith and that the only reason for your participation on most threads is because you hate the SNP.

I might be wrong of course and if I am, ah well its only a forum.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[James310]

Yeah, yeah as in being sarcastic.

As in - I don't believe you are posting on certain issues in good faith and that the only reason for your participation on most threads is because you hate the SNP.

I might be wrong of course and if I am, ah well its only a forum.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

As I said I think my position on allowing 16 year old and convicted sex offenders to self ID is probably the majority position with the public. I have big concerns around what is next, when people like Maggie Chapman have such influence.

[CropleyWasGod]

As I said I think my position on allowing 16 year old and convicted sex offenders to self ID is probably the majority position with the public. I have big concerns around what is next, when people like Maggie Chapman have such influence.

The police are to be informed if a convicted sex offender applies for a GRC, no? That was one of the later amendments IIRC.

[James310]

The police are to be informed if a convicted sex offender applies for a GRC, no? That was one of the later amendments IIRC.

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

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jan/18/the-guardian-view-on-scotlands-gender-reform-bill-understand-more-condemn-less?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Guardian editorial.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

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

What other rights do you want to take away from people convicted of offences? The right to get a job? The right to access public housing? Bus passes? The right to vote?
Slippery slope is it not?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

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

That's their job:)

[James310]

That's their job:)

In this case I don't think it is, it is referred to a Sheriff to review it and make a judgment, again though how on earth do you judge if someone is making a false or true application when you can self ID yourself.

[James310]

What other rights do you want to take away from people convicted of offences? The right to get a job? The right to access public housing? Bus passes? The right to vote?
Slippery slope is it not?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, just the right to self ID after 3 months, that's all.

Flipping it round why do you support a convicted child molester or rapist being allowed to declare themselves the opposite sex after 3 months and self IDing this change themselves?

[archie]

What other rights do you want to take away from people convicted of offences? The right to get a job? The right to access public housing? Bus passes? The right to vote?
Slippery slope is it not?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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

[CropleyWasGod]

In this case I don't think it is, it is referred to a Sheriff to review it and make a judgment, again though how on earth do you judge if someone is making a false or true application when you can self ID yourself.

So how does it work? I'm not clear.

[Ozyhibby]

So how does it work? I'm not clear.

It doesn’t matter so long as he can keep saying sex offenders and trans in the same sentence so that people begin to associate them together. That’s all that matters here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

So how does it work? I'm not clear.This is from a blog which is run by people concerned with the legislation, but it does walk through the issues and process (so far as it is understood) https://murrayblackburnmackenzie.org/2023/01/17/guest-blog-gender-recognition-safeguarding-and-the-limitations-of-the-martin-amendment/

[archie]

It doesn’t matter so long as he can keep saying sex offenders and trans in the same sentence so that people begin to associate them together. That’s all that matters here.


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkJust like the 'rape clause'?

[James310]

It doesn’t matter so long as he can keep saying sex offenders and trans in the same sentence so that people begin to associate them together. That’s all that matters here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are the one who keeps bringing up trans people and sex offenders and linking them. I am not concerned at all about trans people, I am concerned about sex offenders though. Shouldn't we all be?

I am intrigued as to why you support this part of the Bill though?

[James310]

So how does it work? I'm not clear.

The registered sex offender has to notify the police themselves they are applying for a GRC. Now call me naive but why would a registered sex offender notify the police if they are planning to obtain a GRC if they have bad intentions. Another example of poor legislation.

I don't see why a safeguarding amendment to stop convicted sex offenders applying was voted down, or at the very least some stronger safeguarding was not put in place.

And no I never mentioned trans people once, it's not trans people that are the problem here, it's sex offenders. (For Oz)