The Trans Rights Debate

[One Day Soon]

Couldn't see another thread on this (though I'm sure there was one) so thought it best to start one in its own right. Admins please move if the other thread does exist.

I see that Netflix via Dave Chappelle is now a focal point for the angry voices on either side of this one, hard on the heels of a series of domestic criticisms and defences of Stonewall. It feels to me like this is growing as a political issue as it reaches greater public awareness. It needs resolved fast before the Trumps and Johnsons of this world are able to weaponise it for culture war but I just don't see any easy way of doing so.

[Pretty Boy]

I've not see the Dave Chapelle show in question so I'll happily admit to speaking from a position of ignorance, he may well have crossed a line. However I remember hearing Val McDermid speaking a couple of years back about a certain Irn Bru advert (I'm sure some will remember it) that has obviously not aged well. She suggested that sometimes you just have to accept that something is a joke, laugh it off and compartmentalise it separately from genuine discrimination. Given she is someone who has campaigned for and written extensively about LGBTQ+ rights I think she is probably worth listening to.

More generally I think the 'trans debate' is very noisy with 2 sides shouting slogans and 'their' science at each other but it actually impacts a tiny number of people. Basic rights for people who have transitioned largely don't directly impact on the day to day lives of most of us. The idea that people are going to use self ID as a means of gaining access to women's changing rooms seems a comparable level of scaremongering to what homosexuals came up against in the 70s and 80s. Yes, there may be the odd rogue case but it's hardly going to become the norm. On something of a flip side I would suggest various organisations need to move past the 'bodies with a cervix' stuff though and just call women what they are. I don't think it's a stretch to suggest that trans women have a heightened awareness of their own bodies given it has been an issue for them their whole lives. Are they really going to pitch up for a smear test if leaflets and adverts ask women to come forward?

It really doesn't seem all that difficult to allow people who have undergone reassignment surgery or are in the process of doing so to live their lives as a man or a woman whilst still respecting the rights and safety of others. In fact it seems a lot of those rights overlap. A bit common sense and a rational discussion would go a long way but I think we are some way from that point as things stand. There is near hysteria on both sides of the debate.

[Moulin Yarns]

I've not see the Dave Chapelle show in question so I'll happily admit to speaking from a position of ignorance, he may well have crossed a line. However I remember hearing Val McDermid speaking a couple of years back about a certain Irn Bru advert (I'm sure some will remember it) that has obviously not aged well. She suggested that sometimes you just have to accept that something is a joke, laugh it off and compartmentalise it separately from genuine discrimination. Given she is someone who has campaigned for and written extensively about LGBTQ+ rights I think she is probably worth listening to.

More generally I think the 'trans debate' is very noisy with 2 sides shouting slogans and 'their' science at each other but it actually impacts a tiny number of people. Basic rights for people who have transitioned largely don't directly impact on the day to day lives of most of us. The idea that people are going to use self ID as a means of gaining access to women's changing rooms seems a comparable level of scaremongering to what homosexuals came up against in the 70s and 80s. Yes, there may be the odd rogue case but it's hardly going to become the norm. On something of a flip side I would suggest various organisations need to move past the 'bodies with a cervix' stuff though and just call women what they are. I don't think it's a stretch to suggest that trans women have a heightened awareness of their own bodies given it has been an issue for them their whole lives. Are they really going to pitch up for a smear test if leaflets and adverts ask women to come forward?

It really doesn't seem all that difficult to allow people who have undergone reassignment surgery or are in the process of doing so to live their lives as a man or a woman whilst still respecting the rights and safety of others. In fact it seems a lot of those rights overlap. A bit common sense and a rational discussion would go a long way but I think we are some way from that point as things stand. There is near hysteria on both sides of the debate.

👍

What is wrong with calling it what it really is, human rights?

[One Day Soon]

I've not see the Dave Chapelle show in question so I'll happily admit to speaking from a position of ignorance, he may well have crossed a line. However I remember hearing Val McDermid speaking a couple of years back about a certain Irn Bru advert (I'm sure some will remember it) that has obviously not aged well. She suggested that sometimes you just have to accept that something is a joke, laugh it off and compartmentalise it separately from genuine discrimination. Given she is someone who has campaigned for and written extensively about LGBTQ+ rights I think she is probably worth listening to.

More generally I think the 'trans debate' is very noisy with 2 sides shouting slogans and 'their' science at each other but it actually impacts a tiny number of people. Basic rights for people who have transitioned largely don't directly impact on the day to day lives of most of us. The idea that people are going to use self ID as a means of gaining access to women's changing rooms seems a comparable level of scaremongering to what homosexuals came up against in the 70s and 80s. Yes, there may be the odd rogue case but it's hardly going to become the norm. On something of a flip side I would suggest various organisations need to move past the 'bodies with a cervix' stuff though and just call women what they are. I don't think it's a stretch to suggest that trans women have a heightened awareness of their own bodies given it has been an issue for them their whole lives. Are they really going to pitch up for a smear test if leaflets and adverts ask women to come forward?

It really doesn't seem all that difficult to allow people who have undergone reassignment surgery or are in the process of doing so to live their lives as a man or a woman whilst still respecting the rights and safety of others. In fact it seems a lot of those rights overlap. A bit common sense and a rational discussion would go a long way but I think we are some way from that point as things stand. There is near hysteria on both sides of the debate.


Something as seemingly uncontentious as this goes to the heart of the current 'debate' which isn't actually a debate at all, it's a jargon-littered war with both sides locked on transmit and no receive. That isn't doing either Trans or women's rights any favours.

[Kato]

I've not see the Dave Chapelle show in question so I'll happily admit to speaking from a position of ignorance, he may well have crossed a line. However I remember hearing Val McDermid speaking a couple of years back about a certain Irn Bru advert (I'm sure some will remember it) that has obviously not aged well. She suggested that sometimes you just have to accept that something is a joke, laugh it off and compartmentalise it separately from genuine discrimination. Given she is someone who has campaigned for and written extensively about LGBTQ+ rights I think she is probably worth listening to.

More generally I think the 'trans debate' is very noisy with 2 sides shouting slogans and 'their' science at each other but it actually impacts a tiny number of people. Basic rights for people who have transitioned largely don't directly impact on the day to day lives of most of us. The idea that people are going to use self ID as a means of gaining access to women's changing rooms seems a comparable level of scaremongering to what homosexuals came up against in the 70s and 80s. Yes, there may be the odd rogue case but it's hardly going to become the norm. On something of a flip side I would suggest various organisations need to move past the 'bodies with a cervix' stuff though and just call women what they are. I don't think it's a stretch to suggest that trans women have a heightened awareness of their own bodies given it has been an issue for them their whole lives. Are they really going to pitch up for a smear test if leaflets and adverts ask women to come forward?

It really doesn't seem all that difficult to allow people who have undergone reassignment surgery or are in the process of doing so to live their lives as a man or a woman whilst still respecting the rights and safety of others. In fact it seems a lot of those rights overlap. A bit common sense and a rational discussion would go a long way but I think we are some way from that point as things stand. There is near hysteria on both sides of the debate.Way too sensible a post, there is zero screeching/growling in it which adds nothing to the direction "social media" wants it to go. [emoji1]

I've attended night clubs all my life (still do occasionally) then found myself working with and alongside many of the artists involved in US style House Music. House/Disco came about because gay/trans/hispanic/Black people weren't accepted in "normal" estaishments, so the built their own culture - browse for the history of Dave Mancuso's Loft parties for that history.

Those clubs are theirs. I'm accepted, a white heterosexual, as a "step-child" of House given I'm none of the above, but still accepted. The gay/trans people I've met and befriended have an attitude that couldn't be further away from that displayed within the debates that I've seen, on social media especially. They see us all as human beings and don't enjoy being put in a box.

I can only think that the "stirring up" of anger and entrenched views stem mainly from bad actors who see yet another avenue towards a bone of contention within the culture wars.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[Kato]

Who knew there was so much money involved and to be made from this.

https://thefederalist.com/2018/02/20/rich-white-men-institutionalizing-transgender-ideology/

Given there is so much dough involved I'm more convinced than ever that the anonymous cowards that harrass people on social media and cost perfectly reasonable people their jobs are paid bots.

Dave Chapelle is bang on. If a "rights" movement involves rich, white, male capitalists then everyone else has to move down the queue.

The wife has been saying the same for ages, the "trans movement" and those "identifying" as "a woman" want all the hard won stuff that feminists have gained over the years but they want it and grab it with the sensibilities of the old school patriarchy.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[Keith_M]

Because of this stupid Trans-Rights debate, everything you say is potentially offensive. They've even had to create new, PC versions of old jokes and phrases.


e.g. "...Aye, and if my Aunty decided to self identify as a man, she'd be my Uncle".


I mean, that's not even funny!

[Colr]

The sharing changing rooms in shops issue gets made a lot.

Not sure why women are being required to use communal changing rooms. I’ve never had to use a communal changing room in a shop in my puff. They’re always individual cubicles. Women shouldn’t have to put up with that if its the case.

Strikes me women don’t get very considerate treatment. Like the total under provision of women’s toilets in places like theatres.

[heretoday]

We heard of a girl at an independent school who insists on being referred to as "they" - two people as it were. She's being indulged in this too! Her friends are also considering regendering etc apparently.
That's one wacky school! Not enough cold baths and hockey sticks in my view.

[147lothian]

I've watched a few you tubes of Dave Chappelle, he's a really funny guy, it's comedy, not to be taken serious, I find it quite ironic that that you have middle class white people claiming to be progressive and trying to get a black comedian cancelled, sums up the confused times were living in.

[Kato]

I've watched a few you tubes of Dave Chappelle, he's a really funny guy, it's comedy, not to be taken serious, I find it quite ironic that that you have middle class white people claiming to be progressive and trying to get a black comedian cancelled, sums up the confused times were living in.He does switch to serious though. He's capable of turning his gags around to make a point.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[147lothian]

He does switch to serious though. He's capable of turning his gags around to make a point.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

He's a comedian, he doesn't make serious points he makes jokes, he covers a lot of ground but it seems like it's only people who think that a biological man can become a woman by simply declaring he's a woman that think he's making a serious point.

[Moulin Yarns]

He's a comedian, he doesn't make serious points he makes jokes, he covers a lot of ground but it seems like it's only people who think that a biological man can become a woman by simply declaring he's a woman that think he's making a serious point.

Are we talking about Eddie Izzard here, although I wouldn't call him/her/it a comedian.

[147lothian]

Are we talking about Eddie Izzard here, although I wouldn't call him/her/it a comedian.

Hopefully not I find Eddie Izzard a bit irritating.

[Kato]

He's a comedian, he doesn't make serious points he makes jokes, he covers a lot of ground but it seems like it's only people who think that a biological man can become a woman by simply declaring he's a woman that think he's making a serious point.I don't think you are listening all that closely, which is fair enough as some things have layers to be looked at or not.

A quick Google search showed this among many articles covering his change in style.

https://www.vulture.com/2018/01/dave-chappelle-how-seriously-does-he-want-to-be-taken.html

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[wookie70]

The changing room argument is nonsense in my view but the elite sport one needs consideration and has been an issue for a long time.

Live and let live I say and whether an individual identifies as one gender or not means nowhere near as much to me as if they are honest, generous, decent and a huge number of other factors that make them a good or bad person. The only person I regularly speak to who identifies differently to the norm just wants a bit of respect. Their action towards others will be the deciding factor in how gain that respect with the majority of the population

[neil7908]

We heard of a girl at an independent school who insists on being referred to as "they" - two people as it were. She's being indulged in this too! Her friends are also considering regendering etc apparently.
That's one wacky school! Not enough cold baths and hockey sticks in my view.

I'm not so sure what the fuss is about. Royals have been calling themselves "we" for centuries and no one seems bothered. Maybe we should stop indulging Lizzy? Cold bath for her perhaps?

[Keith_M]

I'm not so sure what the fuss is about. Royals have been calling themselves "we" for centuries and no one seems bothered. Maybe we should stop indulging Lizzy? Cold bath for her perhaps?


They are not amused

[500miles]

He's a comedian, he doesn't make serious points he makes jokes, he covers a lot of ground but it seems like it's only people who think that a biological man can become a woman by simply declaring he's a woman that think he's making a serious point.

Dave Chappelle does a lot of social commentary. His 8:46 show is incredibly compelling, and there's hardly a joke in it.

Given the current Hannah Gadsby blowback, I find it ironic that not only is Dave Chappelle better at being funny than her, but also better at not being funny.

[One Day Soon]

Anyone who thinks Dave Chappelle is just a comedian hasn't paid close enough attention. He's sharp as a tack politically and most of his content is rooted in politics.

[Sylar]

Are we talking about Eddie Izzard here, although I wouldn't call him/her/it a comedian.

What hope is there for decency or an informed debate when people refer to another human being as 'it'? :rolleyes:

Not OK.

[The dalmeny]

We heard of a girl at an independent school who insists on being referred to as "they" - two people as it were. She's being indulged in this too! Her friends are also considering regendering etc apparently.
That's one wacky school! Not enough cold baths and hockey sticks in my view.

Wait until you get on Ze & Zir

[Crunchie]

What hope is there for decency or an informed debate when people refer to another human being as 'it'? :rolleyes:

Not OK.
Agreed, I thought about reporting it but I'm not a snitch.

[Keith_M]

What hope is there for decency or an informed debate when people refer to another human being as 'it'? :rolleyes:

Not OK.



Would you mind explaining that to my wife. I don't find it particularly flattering when we're in the cafe and she says to the person serving "it wants another cup of coffee".

[Stairway 2 7]

https://news.sky.com/story/transgender-athletes-should-not-have-to-lower-testosterone-to-compete-ioc-says-as-it-changes-guidelines-12470620?dcmp=snt-sf-twitter

Transgender women should not be forced to reduce their testosterone levels to compete in sports, new International Olympic Committee (IOC) guidelines have said.

The IOC has labelled athlete sex testing as "invasive" and "disrespectful" in a new report that looks to be promote inclusion for transgender competitors

The guidelines will replace ones from 2015 and reverses the IOC's previous stance on transgender athletes.

Ridiculous it could get to a point when it's unusual for someone born a woman to win a boxing gold

[Kato]

https://news.sky.com/story/transgender-athletes-should-not-have-to-lower-testosterone-to-compete-ioc-says-as-it-changes-guidelines-12470620?dcmp=snt-sf-twitter

Transgender women should not be forced to reduce their testosterone levels to compete in sports, new International Olympic Committee (IOC) guidelines have said.

The IOC has labelled athlete sex testing as "invasive" and "disrespectful" in a new report that looks to be promote inclusion for transgender competitors

The guidelines will replace ones from 2015 and reverses the IOC's previous stance on transgender athletes.

Ridiculous it could get to a point when it's unusual for someone born a woman to win a boxing goldHave a spectrum of medals given there are a spectrum of people out there. It's done with the Paralympics.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[500miles]

Have a spectrum of medals given there are a spectrum of people out there. It's done with the Paralympics.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

We shouldn't be moving the goalposts of a secular competition based on belief - and identity is just that.

[Kato]

We shouldn't be moving the goalposts of a secular competition based on belief - and identity is just that.Sometimes. Sometimes it's just fact.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[500miles]

Sometimes. Sometimes it's just fact.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

Sex is absolutely a fact. Gender is a belief that people have built up around those facts.

One is measurable and definable, the other is not. In matters like this, we must a stand by what is proven and measurable. This is "prayer in school" stuff.

[lapsedhibee]

Sex is absolutely a fact.

I get confused easily. Is intersex also a fact? :dunno:

[500miles]

I get confused easily. Is intersex also a fact? :dunno:

Intersex is indeed a fact but

1.intersex conditions- like Turner's syndrome and Klinefelter syndrome, still occur within a sex binary. You don't get females with Klinefelter's or Males with Turner's syndrome.

2. Intersex people aren't trans people. They exist with definable and measurable conditions.

I think trans people should be allowed to compete in sport, but that the men's competition should be defined as "open", thus preventing unfair sex based advantages, because it is male sexual development which grants that advantage.

[lord bunberry]

I don’t envy the sporting bodies that have to make a ruling on this, whatever they come up with will cause outrage. Imo if one athlete has an unfair advantage over another then it shouldn’t be allowed. Sport should give every competitor a chance to make it to the top, if one competitor is at a level that others can’t physically reach then it’s not fair. I’m sure someone will now come and tell me why I’m wrong, but that’s why I think it’s an impossible decision.

[superfurryhibby]

Here's a link to an article criticising the current director of Edinburgh Rape Crisis. The person concerned is a man who self -identifies as a woman. It's an unbelievable situation and is probably a microcosm of the whole debate. Who's rights prevail? My own view is simplistic. If you have a boaby then when it comes down to fundamentals, you're a man. In terms of safe spaces for women who have been subject to sexual assault, I'm happy to accept a female only environment is vital. Self identification is not enough.

https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/transgender-zealot-in-charge-of-rape-crisis-centre/

"Mridul Wadhwa, a man who passes as a woman but who does not have a Gender Recognition Certificate and is understood not to have undergone reassignment surgery, is of the opinion that a rape survivor who seeks help from Rape Crisis Edinburgh and asks to be examined by a woman doctor rather than a trans doctor is a bigot and needs re-educating to help her get over the trauma of rape.

Wadhwa, a former SNP parliamentary candidate, left the party after MSPs overwhelmingly backed an amendment to allow survivors of rape and sexual violence to ask for biological women rather than trans women to examine and counsel them. Wadhwa is of the opinion that women who want genuine safe spaces for traumatised women have ‘unacceptable beliefs’, and tells them ‘You have to rethink your relationship with prejudice’.

[He's here!]

Here's a link to an article criticising the current director of Edinburgh Rape Crisis. The person concerned is a man who self -identifies as a woman. It's an unbelievable situation and is probably a microcosm of the whole debate. Who's rights prevail? My own view is simplistic. If you have a boaby then when it comes down to fundamentals, you're a man. In terms of safe spaces for women who have been subject to sexual assault, I'm happy to accept a female only environment is vital. Self identification is not enough.

https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/transgender-zealot-in-charge-of-rape-crisis-centre/

"Mridul Wadhwa, a man who passes as a woman but who does not have a Gender Recognition Certificate and is understood not to have undergone reassignment surgery, is of the opinion that a rape survivor who seeks help from Rape Crisis Edinburgh and asks to be examined by a woman doctor rather than a trans doctor is a bigot and needs re-educating to help her get over the trauma of rape.

Wadhwa, a former SNP parliamentary candidate, left the party after MSPs overwhelmingly backed an amendment to allow survivors of rape and sexual violence to ask for biological women rather than trans women to examine and counsel them. Wadhwa is of the opinion that women who want genuine safe spaces for traumatised women have ‘unacceptable beliefs’, and tells them ‘You have to rethink your relationship with prejudice’.

The trans rights mantra that 'a transwoman is a woman' does not stand up to any sort of serious scrutiny. It means that anyone who says they are a woman is a woman, full stop. Biology is irrelevant because gender trumps sex and it is therefore not necessary for a transwoman to have reassignment surgery. Basically, if some women have a p***s so be it.

Taken to extremes, there have even been accusations that those men who would not consider dating a 'woman' with a p***s are transphobic - ditto for women who wouldn't include 'men' with a vagina among their dating pool:

http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2019/06/who-will-date-a-trans-person/

[superfurryhibby]

The trans rights mantra that 'a transwoman is a woman' does not stand up to any sort of serious scrutiny. It means that anyone who says they are a woman is a woman, full stop. Biology is irrelevant because gender trumps sex and it is therefore not necessary for a transwoman to have reassignment surgery. Basically, if some women have a p***s so be it.

Taken to extremes, there have even been accusations that those men who would not consider dating a 'woman' with a p***s are transphobic - ditto for women who wouldn't include 'men' with a vagina among their dating pool:

http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2019/06/who-will-date-a-trans-person/

I am just blown away that anyone with a ***** could be appointed to a leadership role in a service like Edinburgh Rape Crisis, never mind the fact that they then use their influence to try and undermine the concept of single gender safe spaces for female victims of sexual abuse. It's an abhorrent situation

[Moulin Yarns]

This is probably too simplistic but, if your aunt has testes then he is your uncle. Similarly if your uncle has ovaries then she is your aunt.

What is visible on the outside is of no relevance, you can't judge a book by its cover.


However, I genuinely think that some people do believe that they are in the wrong body.

[The Modfather]

I am just blown away that anyone with a ***** could be appointed to a leadership role in a service like Edinburgh Rape Crisis, never mind the fact that they then use their influence to try and undermine the concept of single gender safe spaces for female victims of sexual abuse. It's an abhorrent situation

Assuming your word in asterisk is the male organ, why should having a male organ preclude someone from having a leadership role in a service like Edinburgh Rape Crisis?

[superfurryhibby]

Assuming your word in asterisk is the male organ, why should having a male organ preclude someone from having a leadership role in a service like Edinburgh Rape Crisis?

It’s widely accepted that there are services exempt from equalities act and are the preserve of a single gender. Another well known one is Woman’s Aid.

Edinburgh Rape Crisis offer support to all people below the age of 18 and exclusively to women if you are over 18.

You should read the quotes in my earlier post or the article link I posted. He has an agenda which conflicts with the rights of female survivors of sexual assault. Personally, I think calling women bigoted and in need of education if they want a female doctor after being attacked or saying that single gendered safe space for victims of sexual assault reflects “ unacceptable beliefs”....I think that is enough to preclude someone from the leadership role he occupies.

He can gender self identify all he wants, but when that self identification creates conflict in a very public way, around such an emotive subject, then you have to question why and what is right.

[CropleyWasGod]

I am just blown away that anyone with a ***** could be appointed to a leadership role in a service like Edinburgh Rape Crisis, never mind the fact that they then use their influence to try and undermine the concept of single gender safe spaces for female victims of sexual abuse. It's an abhorrent situation

Presumably the majority of the ERC board, all of them cis-female at first sight (although no assumptions made here), were comfortable with their appointment.

[He's here!]

https://twitter.com/i/status/1461101683430367238

?!

[Keith_M]

I'm not in any way a person with extreme views so I'm more than a little disturbed to read comments from people (not necessarily on here) that suggest that those that don't exactly share their point of view on things like Transgender issues are Nazis/Fascists/Bigots, etc.

As far as I'm aware, nobody has suggested putting anybody in a Concentration Camp.

I think the person that wrote that needs to consider just how offensive that comment was.

[Colr]

The well known expression “If yer maw had ba’s she’d be yer da” is somewhat meaningless in this context.

[Stairway 2 7]

https://www.ladbible.com/news/transgender-swimmer-just-beat-two-us-records-at-her-latest-competition-20211207?source=facebook

There could be a point that every record in women's events is held by someone born a male

[Hibernia&Alba]

It's such an alien issue to me, that Trans rights isn't something I can discuss with any confidence. I've never met a Trans person and I have no understanding of the psychological issue a person experiences when feeling they were born the wrong gender. It's just so outside my realm of experience. Ultimately trans people must be afforded the same rights and respect as everyone else. As said above, some basic decency and common sense can go a long way. The fact many of us struggle to understand the issue must never be an excuse for discrimination or hysterical fearmongering. Gender reassignment is a new phenomenon and over time we all learn more.

[He's here!]

Hadn't spotted this until now. Police Scotland suggesting if a rapist with male genitalia identifies as a woman the crime will be recorded ad having been committed by a woman:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/justice-secretary-keith-brown-admits-letting-rape-suspects-self-identify-as-women-has-dangers-5m9jrwv0p

I thought that by law rape could only be committed by a man?!

[Radium]

Hadn't spotted this until now. Police Scotland suggesting if a rapist with male genitalia identifies as a woman the crime will be recorded ad having been committed by a woman:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/justice-secretary-keith-brown-admits-letting-rape-suspects-self-identify-as-women-has-dangers-5m9jrwv0p

I thought that by law rape could only be committed by a man?!

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2009/9/section/1

Rape is a statutory offence which refers to a person committing the crime, not a man/ male. Deliberately not posting the details of the offence on the thread


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[James310]

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2009/9/section/1

Rape is a statutory offence which refers to a person committing the crime, not a man/ male. Deliberately not posting the details of the offence on the thread


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But can only be committed by someone with a *****?

Starts with P ends with S

[danhibees1875]

But can only be committed by someone with a *****?

Starts with P ends with S

Are they just confirming that if a woman with a ***** is the perpetrator then they'll be identified as a woman whilst being prosecuted for rape.

i.e. it doesn't matter what they identify as, they can still be charged.

Presumably knocking back any suggestions that being able to self-identity allows you to get away with certain crimes.

[Radium]

But can only be committed by someone with a *****?

Starts with P ends with S

That’s what the legislation says.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pretty Boy]

I was reading some lierature my partner was given after she had a small procedure post giving birth. After about the 5th page the references to 'persons with a cervix' and 'individuals with a womb' was almost comical.

We all know not all women have ovaries or wombs for various reasons but just refer to women FFS. That kind of thing just feeds the hysteria from people who are transphobic/extreme feminist.

[James310]

I was reading some lierature my partner was given after she had a small procedure post giving birth. After about the 5th page the references to 'persons with a cervix' and 'individuals with a womb' was almost comical.

We all know not all women have ovaries or wombs for various reasons but just refer to women FFS. That kind of thing just feeds the hysteria from people who are transphobic/extreme feminist.

I think it was in the news recently the word "mother" has been removed from all Scottish Government produced maternity literature. Probably the same literature you have.

[Jamesie]

I think it was in the news recently the word "mother" has been removed from all Scottish Government produced maternity literature. Probably the same literature you have.

I did find myself thinking earlier about the money spent - no doubt on consultancies and research etc - on this sort of amendment when the FM was bemoaning the lack of cash to help Scottish businesses during the pandemic.

[Moulin Yarns]

Totally at a tangent, but news reader on BBC radio Scotland Drive time referred to the former MSP Ruth Davidson as Lord Davidson. 🤔😁

[Mr Grieves]

I think it was in the news recently the word "mother" has been removed from all Scottish Government produced maternity literature. Probably the same literature you have.

Do you need to use the word mother when talking about maternity? :confused:

[James310]

Do you need to use the word mother when talking about maternity? :confused:

Well the word maternity means motherhood...?

[Mr Grieves]

Well the word maternity means motherhood...?

I know, so was the word maternity used in this literature you read about?

[Keith_M]

I was reading some lierature my partner was given after she had a small procedure post giving birth. After about the 5th page the references to 'persons with a cervix' and 'individuals with a womb' was almost comical.

We all know not all women have ovaries or wombs for various reasons but just refer to women FFS. That kind of thing just feeds the hysteria from people who are transphobic/extreme feminist.


:agree:


That's just nonsense and it does no one any favours.

[He's here!]

https://www.rebelnews.com/the_guardian_disables_person_of_the_year_poll_afte r_jk_rowling_comes_out_ahead

These things have a tendency to backfire...

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.rebelnews.com/the_guardian_disables_person_of_the_year_poll_afte r_jk_rowling_comes_out_ahead

These things have a tendency to backfire...

Doubt it because it’s an issue that the vast majority of people don’t care a jot about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mr Grieves]

https://www.rebelnews.com/the_guardian_disables_person_of_the_year_poll_afte r_jk_rowling_comes_out_ahead

These things have a tendency to backfire...

Do you take that website seriously? What a *****hole

[CropleyWasGod]

https://www.rebelnews.com/the_guardian_disables_person_of_the_year_poll_afte r_jk_rowling_comes_out_ahead

These things have a tendency to backfire...

Which things? The hoax?

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19820170.jk-rowling-guardian-claims-paper-pulled-poll-revealed-hoax/

[Lendo]

https://www.rebelnews.com/the_guardian_disables_person_of_the_year_poll_afte r_jk_rowling_comes_out_ahead

These things have a tendency to backfire...

RebelNews :faf:

Absolute textbook example of fake news.

[He's here!]

Which things? The hoax?

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19820170.jk-rowling-guardian-claims-paper-pulled-poll-revealed-hoax/

Sounds like a fudge from the Guardian 😉

To their credit I see they have included her among those nominated, which will likely bring them plenty flak from the more extreme trans activists.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/30/guardian-readers-nominate-their-person-of-the-year

The daft thing about the abuse she takes (and the pathetic haste with which those ropey young acting 'talents' who owe their careers to Rowling have turned on her lest they too be 'cancelled' for saying and believing things shared by the vast majority of the population) is that those who actually take the time to read what she had to say will see that her views are incredibly measured and sympathetic.

[WeeRussell]

Sounds like a fudge from the Guardian 😉

To their credit I see they have included her among those nominated, which will likely bring them plenty flak from the more extreme trans activists.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/30/guardian-readers-nominate-their-person-of-the-year

The daft thing about the abuse she takes (and the pathetic haste with which those ropey young acting 'talents' who owe their careers to Rowling have turned on her lest they too be 'cancelled' for saying and believing things shared by the vast majority of the population) is that those who actually take the time to read what she had to say will see that her views are incredibly measured and sympathetic.

Have some of the Harry Potter cast spoke out against JK Rowling?!

[Ozyhibby]

Sounds like a fudge from the Guardian [emoji6]

To their credit I see they have included her among those nominated, which will likely bring them plenty flak from the more extreme trans activists.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/30/guardian-readers-nominate-their-person-of-the-year

The daft thing about the abuse she takes (and the pathetic haste with which those ropey young acting 'talents' who owe their careers to Rowling have turned on her lest they too be 'cancelled' for saying and believing things shared by the vast majority of the population) is that those who actually take the time to read what she had to say will see that her views are incredibly measured and sympathetic.

Your desperate to make this an issue.[emoji23]
If JK Rowling has been cancelled then it’s the worst attempt in history given her book sales even now, 25 years in. [emoji23] As for attacking actors because they hold a different view? Are they not allowed?

This thread has been running three months and it’s at about 70 posts. Given how much we love to debate issues people care about, you’d think it would be much bigger?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[He's here!]

Have some of the Harry Potter cast spoke out against JK Rowling?!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-53023580

Some of the others, most notably Robbie Coltrane and Ralph Fiennes, however, have strongly supported her.

[WeeRussell]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-53023580

Some of the others, most notably Robbie Coltrane and Ralph Fiennes, however, have strongly supported her.

Thanks. Not sure Ron Weasley saying he stands with the trans community is worth a rant about actors owing their careers to Rowling though!

[CropleyWasGod]

Sounds like a fudge from the Guardian ��

To their credit I see they have included her among those nominated, which will likely bring them plenty flak from the more extreme trans activists.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/30/guardian-readers-nominate-their-person-of-the-year

The daft thing about the abuse she takes (and the pathetic haste with which those ropey young acting 'talents' who owe their careers to Rowling have turned on her lest they too be 'cancelled' for saying and believing things shared by the vast majority of the population) is that those who actually take the time to read what she had to say will see that her views are incredibly measured and sympathetic.

There's no fudge by the Guardian. Someone set up a hoax on them. That's all. You, like others, fell for it.

[He's here!]

Your desperate to make this an issue.[emoji23]
If JK Rowling has been cancelled then it’s the worst attempt in history given her book sales even now, 25 years in. [emoji23] As for attacking actors because they hold a different view? Are they not allowed?

This thread has been running three months and it’s at about 70 posts. Given how much we love to debate issues people care about, you’d think it would be much bigger?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No need to read the thread if you're not interested in it?

Might not be a priority issue among the dozen or so regular (almost exclusively male?) posters on here but there's no doubt the trans debate has become a polarising national debate in recent years. If you work among the teenage/student community in particular it's eye-popping to see how fiery an issue it is.

Sure, Rowling's legacy makes her uncancellable but it doesn't mean she just needs to accept the c**p that gets thrown at her.

If the criticism centred around how poorly written the Harry Potter books are then I might have some sympathy for it...

[WeeRussell]

No need to read the thread if you're not interested in it?

Might not be a priority issue among the dozen or so regular (almost exclusively male?) posters on here but there's no doubt the trans debate has become a polarising national debate in recent years. If you work among the teenage/student community in particular it's eye-popping to see how fiery an issue it is.

Sure, Rowling's legacy makes her uncancellable but it doesn't mean she just needs to accept the c**p that gets thrown at her.

If the criticism centred around how poorly written the Harry Potter books are then I might have some sympathy for it...

What are your views on ‘trans rights’ in that case? Other than it being a national debate and people not being allowed to challenge JK Rowling?

[He's here!]

What are your views on ‘trans rights’ in that case? Other than it being a national debate and people not being allowed to challenge JK Rowling?

Anyone can criticise her if they like but to demonise her for believing in biological sex is absurd IMHO.

I stand with her on that. As she points out if you erase the concept of sex you erase the lived reality of women. That's not a criticism of trans people, just a belief that we shouldn't abandon the current gender recognition legislation in favour of a gender free for all (ie whereby if a man simply says he's a woman he literally IS one - or vice versa). That, I feel, paves the way for as many practical issues as philosophical ones.

[Ozyhibby]

Anyone can criticise her if they like but to demonise her for believing in biological sex is absurd IMHO.

I stand with her on that. As she points out if you erase the concept of sex you erase the lived reality of women. That's not a criticism of trans people, just a belief that we shouldn't abandon the current gender recognition legislation in favour of a gender free for all (ie whereby if a man simply says he's a woman he literally IS one - or vice versa). That, I feel, paves the way for as many practical issues as philosophical ones.

Haven’t seen her demonised on here?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[He's here!]

Haven’t seen her demonised on here?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I never said she had been.

[superfurryhibby]

Anyone can criticise her if they like but to demonise her for believing in biological sex is absurd IMHO.

I stand with her on that. As she points out if you erase the concept of sex you erase the lived reality of women. That's not a criticism of trans people, just a belief that we shouldn't abandon the current gender recognition legislation in favour of a gender free for all (ie whereby if a man simply says he's a woman he literally IS one - or vice versa). That, I feel, paves the way for as many practical issues as philosophical ones.

I wonder what drives all of this stuff. It seems to be having a hugely disproportionate influence on the Scottish Government?

My instinct is to say that a significant majority of people don't really care all that much and in simplistic terms would agree that if you have a cock, then you're a man. You have the right to remove said cock, if you meet the criteria etc, otherwise go and pay for it. Equally, this applies to possessors of tits and fannies.

We are entering the realms of absurdity when advice to pregnant woman, and I use the term woman here deliberately, because as we all know, only biological females have the capacity to give birth, omits references to motherhood etc. That turns the whole thing into farce.

[Hibs4185]

I wonder what drives all of this stuff. It seems to be having a hugely disproportionate influence on the Scottish Government?

My instinct is to say that a significant majority of people don't really care all that much and in simplistic terms would agree that if you have a cock, then you're a man. You have the right to remove said cock, if you meet the criteria etc, otherwise go and pay for it. Equally, this applies to possessors of tits and fannies.

We are entering the realms of absurdity when advice to pregnant woman, and I use the term woman here deliberately, because as we all know, only biological females have the capacity to give birth, omits references to motherhood etc. That turns the whole thing into farce.

It’s a hot topic for the Greens and due to the SNP/Green coalition that’s why it’s becoming more prominent. I’m sure they have to implement some sort of law by a certain date this year under the agreement.

[He's here!]

It’s a hot topic for the Greens and due to the SNP/Green coalition that’s why it’s becoming more prominent. I’m sure they have to implement some sort of law by a certain date this year under the agreement.

Yep, gender reform bill to be introduced within the first year of this parliament. The price of getting the Greens on board. Essentially means a man can be legally declared a woman simply by stating he is one - and vice versa.

[superfurryhibby]

Yep, gender reform bill to be introduced within the first year of this parliament. The price of getting the Greens on board. Essentially means a man can be legally declared a woman simply by stating he is one - and vice versa.

You would have thought the Greens had greener things to press an agenda with. Maybe starting with land use, planning processes and the demolition of so called green belt around our towns and cities.

[Stairway 2 7]

Yep, gender reform bill to be introduced within the first year of this parliament. The price of getting the Greens on board. Essentially means a man can be legally declared a woman simply by stating he is one - and vice versa.

What a load of nonsense. Men should be able to call themselves women and live as one, as long as we agree there is a difference. It not fair but its true you were born a dude. You can't be a female rape counselor, you can't smash **** out of women in the ring. If you want to your pathetic get grip. I can't run the 100 metres at the European championships, its unfair but nature made me slow as ****

[Ozyhibby]

What a load of nonsense. Men should be able to call themselves women and live as one, as long as we agree there is a difference. It not fair but its true you were born a dude. You can't be a female rape counselor, you can't smash **** out of women in the ring. If you want to your pathetic get grip. I can't run the 100 metres at the European championships, its unfair but nature made me slow as ****

Perfectly represents my views on this so much as I care.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WeeRussell]

Perfectly represents my views on this so much as I care.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’d say I’m not far away from this either. I’ll defend anyone’s right to dress and live as whatever gender makes them comfortable, and if they don’t want to call themselves a man OR a woman, so be it. It’s not harming anyone else and I’ll stand by them against any bullying or abuse they may get for their choices.

But I’ll stop short of denying that men and women exist through being born that way.

[Hibs4185]

You would have thought the Greens had greener things to press an agenda with. Maybe starting with land use, planning processes and the demolition of so called green belt around our towns and cities.

A well known Green Councillor has an investment property in Edinburgh that he rents out at full price. Harps on about affordable housing etc to anyone who will listen though.

Utter hypocrisy

[He's here!]

What a load of nonsense. Men should be able to call themselves women and live as one, as long as we agree there is a difference. It not fair but its true you were born a dude. You can't be a female rape counselor, you can't smash **** out of women in the ring. If you want to your pathetic get grip. I can't run the 100 metres at the European championships, its unfair but nature made me slow as ****

If everyone felt that way it wouldn't be such a contentious issue. Decent summary here of what it's all about:

https://www.theweek.co.uk/news/society/954778/the-trans-debate-a-fiercely-fought-battleground-in-uk-culture-wars

[Keith_M]

I’d say I’m not far away from this either. I’ll defend anyone’s right to dress and live as whatever gender makes them comfortable, and if they don’t want to call themselves a man OR a woman, so be it. It’s not harming anyone else and I’ll stand by them against any bullying or abuse they may get for their choices.

But I’ll stop short of denying that men and women exist through being born that way.


Your viewpoint is described nowadays as Gender Critical and would be widely condemned by many.

Though it sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

[WeeRussell]

Your viewpoint is described nowadays as Gender Critical and would be widely condemned by many.

Though it sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

I imagine you're probably right, Keith. My use of the word gender rather than sex wasn't deliberate but I guess my failure to distinguish between the two would be condemned also.

This is why I haven't ventured too far into this debate :greengrin

[James310]

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/former-green-msp-who-quit-25880300

Harsh to treat him like this.

[w pilton hibby]

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/former-green-msp-who-quit-25880300

Harsh to treat him like this.

Love the comment at the end of the piece


"I guess having been a member of the green party, potential employers have quickly realised that he has no employable skills. Why else would he have been a green msp, other than to join the gravy train!"

[James310]

Love the comment at the end of the piece


"I guess having been a member of the green party, potential employers have quickly realised that he has no employable skills. Why else would he have been a green msp, other than to join the gravy train!"

Andy Wightman was probably the most respected Green due to his work on land reform, but he wanted to vote to allow rape victims the choice to choose the sex of the person examining them after a rape, but the Greens (and Lib Dems) were against this so threatened him with expulsion from the party.

Apparently that makes him transphobic, but I see nothing wrong with letting a woman choose a woman examiner after she has been raped by a man.

[superfurryhibby]

If everyone felt that way it wouldn't be such a contentious issue. Decent summary here of what it's all about:

https://www.theweek.co.uk/news/society/954778/the-trans-debate-a-fiercely-fought-battleground-in-uk-culture-wars

I think what most people feel and the drivers of some political agendas have little in common.

I'm just quoting you because the link isn't active, for some reason quoting makes it accessible.

[Ozyhibby]

Surprised someone like Andy Wightman has had trouble finding work. He always seemed very capable. Blotted his record slightly with the leaked finding that NS broke ministerial code when she clearly hadn’t. Still, seems strange he can’t find work although he prob hasn’t had to try that hard given the package that MSP’s get when they lose their seat.
He is also a lesson to all MSP’s and MP’s who think that they are in any way unique. The vast majority are voted in on a party ticket and their personal qualities are not a factor at all in their election. He had no chance of winning a seat as an independent. There are very few who manage that.

As for the young greens? What a bunch of clowns. They won’t go very far in politics if they can’t avoid basic errors like they made last night.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Skol]

Surprised someone like Andy Wightman has had trouble finding work. He always seemed very capable. Blotted his record slightly with the leaked finding that NS broke ministerial code when she clearly hadn’t. Still, seems strange he can’t find work although he prob hasn’t had to try that hard given the package that MSP’s get when they lose their seat.
He is also a lesson to all MSP’s and MP’s who think that they are in any way unique. The vast majority are voted in on a party ticket and their personal qualities are not a factor at all in their election. He had no chance of winning a seat as an independent. There are very few who manage that.

As for the young greens? What a bunch of clowns. They won’t go very far in politics if they can’t avoid basic errors like they made last night.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I thought the suspicion it was Fraser or ACH. Has it been confirmed it was Wightman ?

Also, I thought the committee did find the code was breached. It was the other chap who concluded differently?

[He's here!]

I thought the suspicion it was Fraser or ACH. Has it been confirmed it was Wightman ?

Also, I thought the committee did find the code was breached. It was the other chap who concluded differently?

They found her guilty of misleading parliament but not 'knowingly' IIRC.

[Colr]

http://bbc.in/3JOLbeG

Bit at the bottom.

[Ozyhibby]

http://bbc.in/3JOLbeG

Bit at the bottom.

Streeting handles interview well. Clearly a divisive issue but among a tiny amount of people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Colr]

Streeting handles interview well. Clearly a divisive issue but among a tiny amount of people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It is but taking up a disproportionate amount of debate. My local CLP spend more time talking about this subject than the housing crisis!

[He's here!]

http://bbc.in/3JOLbeG

Bit at the bottom.

More qoutes from him on this here. One of the few politicians I've seen not tying themselves in knots over this issue - and the wider cancel culture:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jk-rowling-trans-wes-streeting-b1989029.html

[Stairway 2 7]

I'm lost with this one

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/sport/olympics/controversial-swimmer-beaten-by-fellow-transgender-athlete-in-first-meet-since-sparking-outrage/ar-AASCNFd?ocid=msedgntp

Controversial swimmer beaten by fellow transgender athlete in first meet since sparking outrage

Controversial swimmer Lia Thomas was crushed by fellow transgender athlete Iszac Henig in front of stunned onlookers in an Ivy League women's swim meet in the US.

Thomas, a*swimmer*at the University of Pennsylvania who transitioned from male to female in recent years, garnered attention when she smashed two US women's records in the 200m and 500m freestyle disciplines last year.

Making her return to competition over the weekend, Thomas took part in four races during an Ivy League meeting against rivals Dartmouth and Hale, and won her first two, but was beaten in her second two by Henig, who is currently transitioning from female to male.

Thomas finished fifth in the 100-yard freestyle in a time of 52.84 seconds, while Henig was over three seconds faster at 49.57 seconds.

[Colr]

I'm lost with this one

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/sport/olympics/controversial-swimmer-beaten-by-fellow-transgender-athlete-in-first-meet-since-sparking-outrage/ar-AASCNFd?ocid=msedgntp

Controversial swimmer beaten by fellow transgender athlete in first meet since sparking outrage

Controversial swimmer Lia Thomas was crushed by fellow transgender athlete Iszac Henig in front of stunned onlookers in an Ivy League women's swim meet in the US.

Thomas, a*swimmer*at the University of Pennsylvania who transitioned from male to female in recent years, garnered attention when she smashed two US women's records in the 200m and 500m freestyle disciplines last year.

Making her return to competition over the weekend, Thomas took part in four races during an Ivy League meeting against rivals Dartmouth and Hale, and won her first two, but was beaten in her second two by Henig, who is currently transitioning from female to male.

Thomas finished fifth in the 100-yard freestyle in a time of 52.84 seconds, while Henig was over three seconds faster at 49.57 seconds.

Could be a route for me to have that football career that I always wanted!

[James310]

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/judy-murray-expresses-concern-integration-25909425

[Ozyhibby]

I’m all for giving trans people every right they need but there are certain jobs they can’t do and that surely isn’t incompatible with that?
There is no way someone who is born male can compete in woman’s sport. That’s a job that just isn’t open to them in the same way being a pole dancer in the pubic triangle isn’t open to me.
I don’t see this as incompatible with giving them the right to self identify.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pretty Boy]

I think there has to be some acceptance that in this debate there are areas in which one person's rights inadvertently impact those of another person.

A couple of years ago I ran in a race that stated it was LGBTQIA+ friendly and informed all competitors they could run in whichever gender category they chose to. There was a not insignificant cash sum for the winners of the male and female categories. I finished 3rd overall and several places ahead of 1st female. Had I been so inclined under the rules of the race I could have looked at previous results, realised my likely performance would have placed me ahead of the historical female performance, entered that category and walked away with several hundred pounds I didn't really earn.

Of course that's a ridiculous scenario and something I doubt has happened more than a handful of times, if that, in the thousands of running events that take place in the UK every year. However there was a wider issue that caused a huge furore online. As part of their commitment to equality the organisers made all changing, toileting and showering facilities gender neutral. They also fixed the entry list after a ballot to ensure there was a 50/50 split of male and female runners. I used the changing facilities some time after I finished, watched others finish, had a beer and had a blether with others hanging around. The facility was exclusively dominated by males, recognisable because they looked like males and were wearing running numbers informing they had entered as males. There was, quite literally, not a single female using the facilities despite them making up 50% of the field.

I wa smart enough to realise this wasn't an issue to put my head above the parapet for. Ultimately it wasn't my battle because I had been able to shower and change. In the race group post race a few female runners did raise the issue and stated in future female exclusive changing facilities might be in order. Whilst there seemed to be broad support from females who had run the in race a very vocal group, who to my knowledge hadn't competed, went ballistic. They shouted down the posters as 'terfs' and 'transphobes', called them bigots and demanded they be banned from future races. I was mystified then and I'm mystified now. There was no suggestion the comments were anti trans or that they women in question were afraid of trans people. The concerns were around having showering facilties in which male sexual organs were on show openly and how this made some women feel uncomfortable. Would it be transphobic to say that a trans woman can't use female facilities? Quite probably. Is it transphobic to say women should have a safe space in which they don't have to view a ***** and testicles that they don't consent to? Surely not.

If we accept there may be a bit of a grey area around some people's rights there then surely trying to seek common ground and compromise is the best way forward rather than a back and forth shouting match? For me the obvious solution is what they have at the London Marathon finishers area. A changing area for males, females and a gender neutral area. I ran London this year and used the GN area because the male area was mobbed. It was quiet, still predominantly male but there was a small number of women using the facility. Problem almost solved surely.

[He's here!]

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/judy-murray-expresses-concern-integration-25909425

Perfectly reasoned, rational comments which will nevertheless draw venomous flak for certain quarters.

[James310]

Can't see many thinking this is a good idea, having an 11 yr old myself then I am pretty staggered by this and can't imagine the Scottish Government going along with this at all.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/let-children-12-alter-legal-gender-scotland-qpvq5bk2x

Children as young as 12 should be allowed to immediately seek a legal change to their gender without a “reflection period”, a charity that is funded by the taxpayer has advised ministers.
Scottish government proposals to fast-track gender changes would require people to live in their acquired gender for three months instead of the present two years before being allowed to apply for a gender recognition certificate.

However, Children in Scotland (CIS) said that such a requirement could be detrimental to mental health. In a submission to the Scottish government it states: “We believe this is an arbitrary time period that does not reflect the issues that many trans young people face. It presents an unnecessary time barrier which could have negative effects on trans young people’s mental health. We would prefer a move towards a formalised self-identification model where people can legally change gender at a time chosen by them.”

The charity said that its discussions with trans young people through LGBT Youth Scotland, which is also opposed to the three-month requirement, suggests “they do not make the decision to change gender lightly and have spent time considering this decision before applying”.

It has also recommended to ministers that they rethink their plan to reduce the minimum age for a gender recognition certificate from 18 to 16, arguing that they should instead consider lowering it to 12 and with no need for parental consent.

The Equalities and Human Rights Commission in Scotland agrees with CIS that a period of reflection is unnecessary, provided that applicants can fully demonstrate they understand the legal, social and personal implications of a legal change to their status.

Last night the commission said: “This is an evolving issue which we are constantly considering, and we continue to look at it as legislative proposals emerge.”

For Women Scotland (FWS), a feminist group that campaigns for sex-based rights and says the gender recognition reforms will erode women’s rights, described the intervention by CIS as “extraordinary”, especially as some people would go on to switch gender again. FWS said: “As the number of detransitioners rises, it is downright irresponsible to hurry vulnerable children, some as young as 12 years old, into decisions at what is often a confusing period.”

The Scottish government said it would bring forward the Gender Recognition Reform Bill. It said: “We are committed to making changes to the Gender Recognition Act 2004 to improve and simplify the process for a trans person to gain legal recognition. We remain committed to developing guidance on realising trans rights while continuing to protect women’s rights.”

[Since90+2]

Can't see many thinking this is a good idea, having an 11 yr old myself then I am pretty staggered by this and can't imagine the Scottish Government going along with this at all.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/let-children-12-alter-legal-gender-scotland-qpvq5bk2x

Children as young as 12 should be allowed to immediately seek a legal change to their gender without a “reflection period”, a charity that is funded by the taxpayer has advised ministers.
Scottish government proposals to fast-track gender changes would require people to live in their acquired gender for three months instead of the present two years before being allowed to apply for a gender recognition certificate.

However, Children in Scotland (CIS) said that such a requirement could be detrimental to mental health. In a submission to the Scottish government it states: “We believe this is an arbitrary time period that does not reflect the issues that many trans young people face. It presents an unnecessary time barrier which could have negative effects on trans young people’s mental health. We would prefer a move towards a formalised self-identification model where people can legally change gender at a time chosen by them.”

The charity said that its discussions with trans young people through LGBT Youth Scotland, which is also opposed to the three-month requirement, suggests “they do not make the decision to change gender lightly and have spent time considering this decision before applying”.

It has also recommended to ministers that they rethink their plan to reduce the minimum age for a gender recognition certificate from 18 to 16, arguing that they should instead consider lowering it to 12 and with no need for parental consent.

The Equalities and Human Rights Commission in Scotland agrees with CIS that a period of reflection is unnecessary, provided that applicants can fully demonstrate they understand the legal, social and personal implications of a legal change to their status.

Last night the commission said: “This is an evolving issue which we are constantly considering, and we continue to look at it as legislative proposals emerge.”

For Women Scotland (FWS), a feminist group that campaigns for sex-based rights and says the gender recognition reforms will erode women’s rights, described the intervention by CIS as “extraordinary”, especially as some people would go on to switch gender again. FWS said: “As the number of detransitioners rises, it is downright irresponsible to hurry vulnerable children, some as young as 12 years old, into decisions at what is often a confusing period.”

The Scottish government said it would bring forward the Gender Recognition Reform Bill. It said: “We are committed to making changes to the Gender Recognition Act 2004 to improve and simplify the process for a trans person to gain legal recognition. We remain committed to developing guidance on realising trans rights while continuing to protect women’s rights.”

This stuff needs to be stopped in its track now. It's utterly ridiculous.

[Bishop Hibee]

This stuff needs to be stopped in its track now. It's utterly ridiculous.

Agree 100%. Quite disturbing really. Nobody is born into the wrong body.

[James310]

https://fairplayforwomen.com/scottish-government-in-court-over-unlawful-definition-of-sex-in-census/

[AgentDaleCooper]

Agree 100%. Quite disturbing really. Nobody is born into the wrong body.

that's an extremely loaded statement. i'm not saying that they are or aren't, but gender dysphoria is a recognised medical condition, and sufferers feel exactly that, with gender re-assignment surgery often being the only remedy. having a moral stance about a medical condition is pretty dodgy at best.

i totally get how people find things alarming when it is something that could effect their own children, but the most important thing if you want to have an opinion on a complex issue is to learn about the facts of the issue, and how often it is that these fears are realised - generally speaking, they very rarely are, if ever. off the cuff moral statements from both sides do nothing to help anyone.

[Moulin Yarns]

that's an extremely loaded statement. i'm not saying that they are or aren't, but gender dysphoria is a recognised medical condition, and sufferers feel exactly that, with gender re-assignment surgery often being the only remedy. having a moral stance about a medical condition is pretty dodgy at best.

i totally get how people find things alarming when it is something that could effect their own children, but the most important thing if you want to have an opinion on a complex issue is to learn about the facts of the issue, and how often it is that these fears are realised - generally speaking, they very rarely are, if ever. off the cuff moral statements from both sides do nothing to help anyone.

👍

My niece has a son with autistic signals who refers to everyone as she, for example I'm an aunt rather than uncle, he is 9 and still plays with barbie dolls. Is this wrong?

[Crunchie]

https://fairplayforwomen.com/scottish-government-in-court-over-unlawful-definition-of-sex-in-census/
Thank goodness for women like Dr Nicola Williams, you have to wonder why the SG would go down this route and what's their agenda.

[He's here!]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-60141382

Think the EHRC are right to suggest a pause to better assess the implications of this legislation.

[CropleyWasGod]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-60141382

Think the EHRC are right to suggest a pause to better assess the implications of this legislation.

The EHRC are playing games IMO.

I've been involved in enough SG consultations to know the process. Whilst (despite what Patrick Harvey says) they are entitled to participate in the consultation, even though they are a UK Government body, they should be doing so within the protocols of that process.

To do what they did publicly both undermines the SG process, and attempts to give their opinion more weight than it is entitled to.

Whilst their argument may have merit, there are ways of doing it. Not respecting those ways does them no favours .

[Crunchie]

The EHRC are playing games IMO.

I've been involved in enough SG consultations to know the process. Whilst (despite what Patrick Harvey says) they are entitled to participate in the consultation, even though they are a UK Government body, they should be doing so within the protocols of that process.

To do what they did publicly both undermines the SG process, and attempts to give their opinion more weight than it is entitled to.

Whilst their argument may have merit, there are ways of doing it. Not respecting those ways does them no favours .

I think it has every right to be out there in the public domain.

[James310]

Visits from the Police now to see what someone was thinking. No crime, just to see what someone was thinking.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b14bcfe6-8092-11ec-8532-85a58274df7c?shareToken=db13a9ffe2a2cc1776012e1a82 587c25


The founder of a charity supporting women who have suffered domestic violence has been interviewed by police after she was reported for hate crime after stressing its female-only services.

Nicola Murray was left “shocked and panicky” when detectives arrived at her door after an online announcement by Brodie’s Trust that it would no longer refer women to Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre (ERCC).

Talking to the officers, Murray, from Stanley, near Perth, was taken aback when she said they told her: “We need to speak to you to ascertain what your thinking was behind making your statement.”

Murray, 43, founded Brodie’s Trust in 2018 to support women from all over the world “who’ve suffered pregnancy loss through domestic violence or forced termination” by directing victims to local services for help.

She and a colleague determined its revised policy towards ERCC following statements by Mridul Wadhwa, the trans woman appointed its CEO last year, who claimed “bigoted” victims of sexual violence should expect to be “challenged on their prejudices”.

ERCC clarified its position, saying it was not seeking to “re-educate survivors” but Wadhwa angered some feminists again when she accused opponents of controversial reforms to the Gender Recognition Act of legitimising far-right discrimination of trans people.

Ministers want to change the act to make it easier for people to change their legally recognised gender. A bill is expected at Holyrood this year. Earlier this week the Equality and Human Rights Commission told them “more detailed consideration is needed”.

In September Murray posted a message on social media on behalf of Brodie’s Trust saying: “Due to deeply concerning comments made by the current CEO of ERCC we have taken the decision to no longer signpost to this service. We cannot in all conscience send vulnerable women to the service in its current state.” The message continued: “We have no interest in our clients’ religion, sexuality nor political views . . . We are a women-only service run by women for women and will not be intimidated into changing our stance on this matter.”

Detectives from Edinburgh arrived at her door on November 4. Murray said: “I ushered them through to the living room. The first thing they said was, ‘Some of your tweets have been brought to our attention.’ When they brought out the screengrabs of the statement, I said, ‘Really?’

They said, ‘Yeah, we just have to speak to you. You’ve not said anything hateful, there isn’t a crime here.’

“I said: ‘So why are you here?’ They said, ‘Because we need to speak to you to ascertain what your thinking was behind making your statement.’

“I said, ‘Protecting women and letting them know that when they come to us they have a woman-only space, and we won’t let anyone in who won’t maintain that.’”

Murray said: “Then they said, ‘We better watch what we are saying — we don’t want to be quoted as police officers saying such and such.’

I said, ‘Don’t worry about that. It is insanity, isn’t it?’ They said, ‘It is.’ They wished me well and went away.

“I was taken aback by the whole thing. I don’t believe anyone who has read that statement could view it as hateful. It was simply an affirmation of what we are doing: we are a women-only space, we aren’t going to change that, given what we do. Men cannot get pregnant, therefore they cannot experience a miscarriage and domestic violence. Why would they even want to come?”

Marion Millar, an Airdrie accountant, was arrested last year under the 2003 Telecommunications Act for tweets deemed hateful, including one with ribbons in the colours of the suffragettes, tied in a supposed noose. All charges were later dropped.

Police Scotland did not confirm details of the interview at Murray’s house, but she has a photograph of the two officers entering her house.

Last week The Times reported a warning from Police Scotland that it could not comply fully with the demands of the new Hate Crime Act until next year, because officers were struggling to cope with a surge in reported offences caused by Twitter rows.

A 76 per cent rise in reported crimes in which the transgender issue was the aggravating factor (76 reports) contrasted with 6.1 per cent growth in all hate crime reports (3,782) reflecting the impact of online rows about trans rights and gender identity, according to the Scottish Police Federation.

The figures prompted a robust debate on social media. Whadwa posted: “Since 2019, I have reported hate to the police more times than I can count. No charges, no convictions. All those things happened to me. There are witnesses and they suffered with me, my family, my friends and colleagues and others that matter to me.”

Wadhwa and ERCC were approached for comment. Assistant Chief Constable Gary Ritchie said: “Hate crime and discrimination of any kind is deplorable and entirely unacceptable. Police Scotland will investigate every report of a hate crime or hate incident.”

In a statement the Scottish Police Federation said: “QED.”

[He's here!]

The EHRC are playing games IMO.

I've been involved in enough SG consultations to know the process. Whilst (despite what Patrick Harvey says) they are entitled to participate in the consultation, even though they are a UK Government body, they should be doing so within the protocols of that process.

To do what they did publicly both undermines the SG process, and attempts to give their opinion more weight than it is entitled to.

Whilst their argument may have merit, there are ways of doing it. Not respecting those ways does them no favours .

I don't get the sense that they're failing to respect procedure or playing games. Their argument, as you say, has merit and the call for a pause seems respectfully put. This is a more significant issue than many probably realise and the SG appear to have had their hands tied thanks their deal with the Greens, which commits them to rush this legislation through in the first year of the current parliament.

[CropleyWasGod]

I don't get the sense that they're failing to respect procedure or playing games. Their argument, as you say, has merit and the call for a pause seems respectfully put. This is a more significant issue than many probably realise and the SG appear to have had their hands tied thanks their deal with the Greens, which commits them to rush this legislation through in the first year of the current parliament.

My point is about the political games that are being played out here. A UKG agency is putting pressure on the SG,which is naughty against the backdrop of the Indy debate. There are many other, less public and less contentious, ways that could have been done.

FTR, I said their case "may" have merit, not "does".

[He's here!]

My point is about the political games that are being played out here. A UKG agency is putting pressure on the SG,which is naughty against the backdrop of the Indy debate. There are many other, less public and less contentious, ways that could have been done.

FTR, I said their case "may" have merit, not "does".

Fair enough, you clearly know more about these consultation processes than I do, although I'm not convinced politics influences the thinking of most on the wider gender recognition issue. I certainly don't see the indy debate as a significant player here. The EHRC viewpoint will chime with many IMHO.

[superfurryhibby]

Visits from the Police now to see what someone was thinking. No crime, just to see what someone was thinking.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b14bcfe6-8092-11ec-8532-85a58274df7c?shareToken=db13a9ffe2a2cc1776012e1a82 587c25


The founder of a charity supporting women who have suffered domestic violence has been interviewed by police after she was reported for hate crime after stressing its female-only services.

Nicola Murray was left “shocked and panicky” when detectives arrived at her door after an online announcement by Brodie’s Trust that it would no longer refer women to Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre (ERCC).

Talking to the officers, Murray, from Stanley, near Perth, was taken aback when she said they told her: “We need to speak to you to ascertain what your thinking was behind making your statement.”

Murray, 43, founded Brodie’s Trust in 2018 to support women from all over the world “who’ve suffered pregnancy loss through domestic violence or forced termination” by directing victims to local services for help.

She and a colleague determined its revised policy towards ERCC following statements by Mridul Wadhwa, the trans woman appointed its CEO last year, who claimed “bigoted” victims of sexual violence should expect to be “challenged on their prejudices”.

ERCC clarified its position, saying it was not seeking to “re-educate survivors” but Wadhwa angered some feminists again when she accused opponents of controversial reforms to the Gender Recognition Act of legitimising far-right discrimination of trans people.

Ministers want to change the act to make it easier for people to change their legally recognised gender. A bill is expected at Holyrood this year. Earlier this week the Equality and Human Rights Commission told them “more detailed consideration is needed”.

In September Murray posted a message on social media on behalf of Brodie’s Trust saying: “Due to deeply concerning comments made by the current CEO of ERCC we have taken the decision to no longer signpost to this service. We cannot in all conscience send vulnerable women to the service in its current state.” The message continued: “We have no interest in our clients’ religion, sexuality nor political views . . . We are a women-only service run by women for women and will not be intimidated into changing our stance on this matter.”

Detectives from Edinburgh arrived at her door on November 4. Murray said: “I ushered them through to the living room. The first thing they said was, ‘Some of your tweets have been brought to our attention.’ When they brought out the screengrabs of the statement, I said, ‘Really?’

They said, ‘Yeah, we just have to speak to you. You’ve not said anything hateful, there isn’t a crime here.’

“I said: ‘So why are you here?’ They said, ‘Because we need to speak to you to ascertain what your thinking was behind making your statement.’

“I said, ‘Protecting women and letting them know that when they come to us they have a woman-only space, and we won’t let anyone in who won’t maintain that.’”

Murray said: “Then they said, ‘We better watch what we are saying — we don’t want to be quoted as police officers saying such and such.’

I said, ‘Don’t worry about that. It is insanity, isn’t it?’ They said, ‘It is.’ They wished me well and went away.

“I was taken aback by the whole thing. I don’t believe anyone who has read that statement could view it as hateful. It was simply an affirmation of what we are doing: we are a women-only space, we aren’t going to change that, given what we do. Men cannot get pregnant, therefore they cannot experience a miscarriage and domestic violence. Why would they even want to come?”

Marion Millar, an Airdrie accountant, was arrested last year under the 2003 Telecommunications Act for tweets deemed hateful, including one with ribbons in the colours of the suffragettes, tied in a supposed noose. All charges were later dropped.

Police Scotland did not confirm details of the interview at Murray’s house, but she has a photograph of the two officers entering her house.

Last week The Times reported a warning from Police Scotland that it could not comply fully with the demands of the new Hate Crime Act until next year, because officers were struggling to cope with a surge in reported offences caused by Twitter rows.

A 76 per cent rise in reported crimes in which the transgender issue was the aggravating factor (76 reports) contrasted with 6.1 per cent growth in all hate crime reports (3,782) reflecting the impact of online rows about trans rights and gender identity, according to the Scottish Police Federation.

The figures prompted a robust debate on social media. Whadwa posted: “Since 2019, I have reported hate to the police more times than I can count. No charges, no convictions. All those things happened to me. There are witnesses and they suffered with me, my family, my friends and colleagues and others that matter to me.”

Wadhwa and ERCC were approached for comment. Assistant Chief Constable Gary Ritchie said: “Hate crime and discrimination of any kind is deplorable and entirely unacceptable. Police Scotland will investigate every report of a hate crime or hate incident.”

In a statement the Scottish Police Federation said: “QED.”

The eagerness of ERCC to involve the Police and the ridiculous of the Police indulging this is very worrying. How could anyone consider this tweet offensive.

"In September Murray posted a message on social media on behalf of Brodie’s Trust saying: “Due to deeply concerning comments made by the current CEO of ERCC we have taken the decision to no longer signpost to this service. We cannot in all conscience send vulnerable women to the service in its current state.” The message continued: “We have no interest in our clients’ religion, sexuality nor political views . . . We are a women-only service run by women for women and will not be intimidated into changing our stance on this matter.”

Here's a quote from an organisation that has the polar opposite political outlook from myself.

Freedom of speech is the foundation for democracy. Without freedom of speech there is no other freedom which is why tyrants always eliminate freedom of speech first. Leftists in America are determined to eliminate freedom of speech by enforcing their own code of political correctness which labels any opposing speech as hate speech. Speakers with conservative points of view are disinvited or intimidated through organized boycotts and violent protests. It is unAmerican to disallow the expression of opposing views but Leftists are tyrannical in their demand for conformity to their approved rhetoric.

Attempting to read a bit more about gender identity and why it has risen to such to political prominence, I find that, via a basic web search, that this is a widely held view. IThe first few pages of my browser are fuil of independent right wing articles that echo these views.

I'm amazed at how these left wing activists, who have no manifest organised party political power in the USA and UK, can be so influential and exert such leverage on governments? This then leads me to question who gains from being forced down a path that will only open the doors to many other beliefs /thinking becoming hateful.

[He's here!]

Observer editorial spot on re why the Scottish Government have called this wrong IMHO:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jan/30/observer-view-ehrc-decision-scotland-gender-recognition-reforms?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

[James310]

A Swiss man has self identified as a woman and now apparently gets his pension a year earlier. 🤔

[superfurryhibby]

Observer editorial spot on re why the Scottish Government have called this wrong IMHO:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jan/30/observer-view-ehrc-decision-scotland-gender-recognition-reforms?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

The key part of the article

"But because reforming the Gender Recognition Act will affect another protected characteristic, sex, it is critically important that any proposals to reform it in the UK are informed by proper consultation with all those affected. That has not happened in Scotland. Instead, Nicola Sturgeon has simply denied such a conflict exists. Women raising legitimate concerns that opinion polls show are widely shared have been tarnished as “transphobic” by Scottish politicians.

This is politicians fomenting rather than diffusing contested debates. It has created a culture where women of the view that biological sex cannot be wholly replaced by gender identity in law – a belief itself protected by equalities legislation – get harassed out of jobs and visited by the police as a result of expressing lawful and legitimate views. Everyone loses: in a world where some people are bullied out of the democratic process of debate and consultation, it is impossible to build social consensus around the balancing of rights of two groups facing significant discrimination".

The women visited by Police (WTF was that about) is the person who made the statement I quoted a few posts ago. Given how hard it can be to get out thinly stretched Police to attend actual crimes (like bicycle theft/sale where a person has identified their bike for sale on Gumtree and the like), I just find it unbelievable that the (admittedly reluctant Polis) can find time to indulge this pish.

Much as I support Independence, I'm not a fan of Sturgeon and the SNP.

[CropleyWasGod]

The key part of the article

"But because reforming the Gender Recognition Act will affect another protected characteristic, sex, it is critically important that any proposals to reform it in the UK are informed by proper consultation with all those affected. That has not happened in Scotland. Instead, Nicola Sturgeon has simply denied such a conflict exists. Women raising legitimate concerns that opinion polls show are widely shared have been tarnished as “transphobic” by Scottish politicians.

This is politicians fomenting rather than diffusing contested debates. It has created a culture where women of the view that biological sex cannot be wholly replaced by gender identity in law – a belief itself protected by equalities legislation – get harassed out of jobs and visited by the police as a result of expressing lawful and legitimate views. Everyone loses: in a world where some people are bullied out of the democratic process of debate and consultation, it is impossible to build social consensus around the balancing of rights of two groups facing significant discrimination".

The women visited by Police (WTF was that about) is the person who made the statement I quoted a few posts ago. Given how hard it can be to get out thinly stretched Police to attend actual crimes (like bicycle theft/sale where a person has identified their bike for sale on Gumtree and the like), I just find it unbelievable that the (admittedly reluctant Polis) can find time to indulge this pish.

Much as I support Independence, I'm not a fan of Sturgeon and the SNP.

That bit isn't correct. There have been 2 consultations so far; the second of which attracted the highest number of responses that there has been for any SG consultation.

The point of these consultations is, as it says, to consult and amend draft legislation if appropriate. That process is continuing, and will continue through committees until such times as the debate gets to Parliament.

[superfurryhibby]

That bit isn't correct. There have been 2 consultations so far; the second of which attracted the highest number of responses that there has been for any SG consultation.

The point of these consultations is, as it says, to consult and amend draft legislation if appropriate. That process is continuing, and will continue through committees until such times as the debate gets to Parliament.

Who was consulted? I haven't seen reference to this, although perhaps this has been discussed on here before. I will be straight onto the Observer to point this out. Here's hoping that common sense prevails, or that some SNP MSP's refuse to toe the party line.

I'm intrigued by how some issues get a public hearing in this way and others never make it to any meaningful consultation. I confess to having little understanding of how politics at Holyrood operates and what drives it. Was this part of the SNP manifesto for example? These are many issues that I suspect are much more burning for the average man/woman (should that be person?) yet they aren't on the agenda for consultation and legislative change (like a national energy company or encroachment on to green belt for housing, failure to address the lack of social housing).

[CropleyWasGod]

Who was consulted? I haven't seen reference to this, although perhaps this has been discussed on here before. I will be straight onto the Observer to point this out. Here's hoping that common sense prevails, or that some SNP MSP's refuse to toe the party line.

I'm intrigued by how some issues get a public hearing in this way and others never make it to any meaningful consultation. I confess to having little understanding of how politics at Holyrood operates and what drives the agendas. Was this part of the SNP manifesto for example? These are many issues that I suspect are much more burning for the average man/woman (should that be person?) yet they aren't on the agenda for consultation and legislative change (like a national energy company or encroachment on to green belt for housing, failure to address the lack of social housing).

Everyone :greengrin

It's a public process, and anyone with a view (from anywhere, not just Scotland) can contribute. The results of the second consultation are here:-

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

Just because the SG had a particular proposal, doesn't mean that will become law. That's the point of the exercise.

[superfurryhibby]

Everyone :greengrin

It's a public process, and anyone with a view (from anywhere, not just Scotland) can contribute. The results of the second consultation are here:-

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

Just because the SG had a particular proposal, doesn't mean that will become law. That's the point of the exercise.

The Observer did also say this

"The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is the statutory regulator of the Equality Act. Last week, it told the Scottish government that its proposed reforms to the Gender Recognition Act 2004, which allows trans people to change the way their sex is recorded for legal purposes, should be paused because the consultation on these changes has not adequately taken into account their impact on women’s sex-based rights. The Scottish government is proposing to move to a system whereby people can change their sex for legal purposes through self-declaration, instead of needing a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria".

They imply that the Scottish Government's consultations weren't allowing other viewpoints to be fully heard.

The consultation said this;
Those broadly opposed to a statutory declaration-based system

"These respondents generally thought a convincing case for change has not been made, and that the current system is broadly fit for purpose. This was often connected to a view that the draft Bill should simply be scrapped and to specific concerns about the removal of the need for a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria before receiving a GRC. These respondents were often very concerned about the potential impact of the proposed changes on society in general, but on the safety and wellbeing of women and girls in particular. They generally disagreed with reducing the age at which a person can apply for legal gender recognition to 16.

This was the perspective of many individual respondents and the considerable majority of the Women's Groups and Religious or Belief Bodies that responded"

Is the Observer deliberately misleading it's readers on this issue?

[CropleyWasGod]

The Observer did also say this

"The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is the statutory regulator of the Equality Act. Last week, it told the Scottish government that its proposed reforms to the Gender Recognition Act 2004, which allows trans people to change the way their sex is recorded for legal purposes, should be paused because the consultation on these changes has not adequately taken into account their impact on women’s sex-based rights. The Scottish government is proposing to move to a system whereby people can change their sex for legal purposes through self-declaration, instead of needing a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria".

They imply that the Scottish Government's consultations weren't allowing other viewpoints to be fully heard.

The consultation said this;
Those broadly opposed to a statutory declaration-based system

"These respondents generally thought a convincing case for change has not been made, and that the current system is broadly fit for purpose. This was often connected to a view that the draft Bill should simply be scrapped and to specific concerns about the removal of the need for a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria before receiving a GRC. These respondents were often very concerned about the potential impact of the proposed changes on society in general, but on the safety and wellbeing of women and girls in particular. They generally disagreed with reducing the age at which a person can apply for legal gender recognition to 16.

This was the perspective of many individual respondents and the considerable majority of the Women's Groups and Religious or Belief Bodies that responded"

Is the Observer deliberately misleading it's readers on this issue?

I have no idea. The process is transparent, so I'm not sure why they would do.

But the implication underlined in bold is just plain wrong.

[Mr Grieves]

Visits from the Police now to see what someone was thinking. No crime, just to see what someone was thinking.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b14bcfe6-8092-11ec-8532-85a58274df7c?shareToken=db13a9ffe2a2cc1776012e1a82 587c25


The founder of a charity supporting women who have suffered domestic violence has been interviewed by police after she was reported for hate crime after stressing its female-only services.

Nicola Murray was left “shocked and panicky” when detectives arrived at her door after an online announcement by Brodie’s Trust that it would no longer refer women to Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre (ERCC).

Talking to the officers, Murray, from Stanley, near Perth, was taken aback when she said they told her: “We need to speak to you to ascertain what your thinking was behind making your statement.”

Murray, 43, founded Brodie’s Trust in 2018 to support women from all over the world “who’ve suffered pregnancy loss through domestic violence or forced termination” by directing victims to local services for help.

She and a colleague determined its revised policy towards ERCC following statements by Mridul Wadhwa, the trans woman appointed its CEO last year, who claimed “bigoted” victims of sexual violence should expect to be “challenged on their prejudices”.

ERCC clarified its position, saying it was not seeking to “re-educate survivors” but Wadhwa angered some feminists again when she accused opponents of controversial reforms to the Gender Recognition Act of legitimising far-right discrimination of trans people.

Ministers want to change the act to make it easier for people to change their legally recognised gender. A bill is expected at Holyrood this year. Earlier this week the Equality and Human Rights Commission told them “more detailed consideration is needed”.

In September Murray posted a message on social media on behalf of Brodie’s Trust saying: “Due to deeply concerning comments made by the current CEO of ERCC we have taken the decision to no longer signpost to this service. We cannot in all conscience send vulnerable women to the service in its current state.” The message continued: “We have no interest in our clients’ religion, sexuality nor political views . . . We are a women-only service run by women for women and will not be intimidated into changing our stance on this matter.”

Detectives from Edinburgh arrived at her door on November 4. Murray said: “I ushered them through to the living room. The first thing they said was, ‘Some of your tweets have been brought to our attention.’ When they brought out the screengrabs of the statement, I said, ‘Really?’

They said, ‘Yeah, we just have to speak to you. You’ve not said anything hateful, there isn’t a crime here.’

“I said: ‘So why are you here?’ They said, ‘Because we need to speak to you to ascertain what your thinking was behind making your statement.’

“I said, ‘Protecting women and letting them know that when they come to us they have a woman-only space, and we won’t let anyone in who won’t maintain that.’”

Murray said: “Then they said, ‘We better watch what we are saying — we don’t want to be quoted as police officers saying such and such.’

I said, ‘Don’t worry about that. It is insanity, isn’t it?’ They said, ‘It is.’ They wished me well and went away.

“I was taken aback by the whole thing. I don’t believe anyone who has read that statement could view it as hateful. It was simply an affirmation of what we are doing: we are a women-only space, we aren’t going to change that, given what we do. Men cannot get pregnant, therefore they cannot experience a miscarriage and domestic violence. Why would they even want to come?”

Marion Millar, an Airdrie accountant, was arrested last year under the 2003 Telecommunications Act for tweets deemed hateful, including one with ribbons in the colours of the suffragettes, tied in a supposed noose. All charges were later dropped.

Police Scotland did not confirm details of the interview at Murray’s house, but she has a photograph of the two officers entering her house.

Last week The Times reported a warning from Police Scotland that it could not comply fully with the demands of the new Hate Crime Act until next year, because officers were struggling to cope with a surge in reported offences caused by Twitter rows.

A 76 per cent rise in reported crimes in which the transgender issue was the aggravating factor (76 reports) contrasted with 6.1 per cent growth in all hate crime reports (3,782) reflecting the impact of online rows about trans rights and gender identity, according to the Scottish Police Federation.

The figures prompted a robust debate on social media. Whadwa posted: “Since 2019, I have reported hate to the police more times than I can count. No charges, no convictions. All those things happened to me. There are witnesses and they suffered with me, my family, my friends and colleagues and others that matter to me.”

Wadhwa and ERCC were approached for comment. Assistant Chief Constable Gary Ritchie said: “Hate crime and discrimination of any kind is deplorable and entirely unacceptable. Police Scotland will investigate every report of a hate crime or hate incident.”

In a statement the Scottish Police Federation said: “QED.”

Noticed the times have removed this article and issued a correction (not for the first time btw) :rolleyes:

[CropleyWasGod]

Noticed the times have removed this article and issued a correction (not for the first time btw) :rolleyes:

Do you have the text of the correction?

[Mr Grieves]

Do you have the text of the correction?

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/corrections-and-clarifications-5phnn0xh2

Our article “Police interview charity chief after tweet ending referrals to rape centre” (Jan 29) and subsequent articles reported that Police Scotland interviewed Nicola Murray, the head of the Brodie’s Trust domestic abuse support group, about a reported hate crime. The police have now confirmed she was not the subject of a complaint or investigation.

[CropleyWasGod]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/corrections-and-clarifications-5phnn0xh2

Our article “Police interview charity chief after tweet ending referrals to rape centre” (Jan 29) and subsequent articles reported that Police Scotland interviewed Nicola Murray, the head of the Brodie’s Trust domestic abuse support group, about a reported hate crime. The police have now confirmed she was not the subject of a complaint or investigation.

Ta.

I'm now curious as to how this story arose. It won't be the last time that such nonsense happens.

[500miles]

Ta.

I'm now curious as to how this story arose. It won't be the last time that such nonsense happens.

Having dug a bit, it does appear that the woman was visited by the police, but it sounds like a story that happened down south which was recorded as a non-crime hate incident.

Its looks like she has made her twitter private. She claims to run a domestic abuse charity, but it doesn't appear on the charity register. She was also in the paper about not wearing a mask because of ptsd.

Smells grifty.

[CropleyWasGod]

Having dug a bit, it does appear that the woman was visited by the police, but it sounds like a story that happened down south which was recorded as a non-crime hate incident.

Its looks like she has made her twitter private. She claims to run a domestic abuse charity, but it doesn't appear on the charity register. She was also in the paper about not wearing a mask because of ptsd.

Smells grifty.

The Telegraph and the Record still have the story up.

Brodies Trust is definitely not registered with OSCR.That in itself could warrant a visit from the polis 😏

The sad thing is that, like a lot of stuff, this just detracts from the actual debate.

[500miles]

The Telegraph and the Record still have the story up.

Brodies Trust is definitely not registered with OSCR.That in itself could warrant a visit from the polis 😏

The sad thing is that, like a lot of stuff, this just detracts from the actual debate.

There is a tonne of grifting around this subject. From trans teens inventing sob stories with gofundme's which disappear as quickly as they appear, to right wingers pretending to cate about women's rights and every social and political point in between.

I've not come across such a divisive issue where awful people are spread so evenly. I'd expected them to exclusively coalesce around recycled homophobia as usual, but apparently not.

[superfurryhibby]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/corrections-and-clarifications-5phnn0xh2

Our article “Police interview charity chief after tweet ending referrals to rape centre” (Jan 29) and subsequent articles reported that Police Scotland interviewed Nicola Murray, the head of the Brodie’s Trust domestic abuse support group, about a reported hate crime. The police have now confirmed she was not the subject of a complaint or investigation.


I'm quoting your post because I can't access the link as posted. Usually when it's quoted it becomes accessible for me.

Bordie's Trust may well be a not for profit organisation and they don't have to be a registered charity to operate as such (although they miss out on benefits associate with being one). I looked at the OSCR and also at their Facebook page and it does say "charitable organisation" on it. They don't appear to have a website. Perhaps they should change the wording to not for profit?

They say this..."We are a small unregistered charity and operate as a support group for women who have lost babies through domestic violence or forced termination. We do one to one and group support as appropriate, we offer advocacy, help with housing and benefits applications, support through the court process or reporting to the police if they choose to do so. Also practical help such as emergency groceries, power card top up, and essentials packs for new tenancy (pots & pans, utensils, plates, cutlery, bedding etc) where a service user has qualified for a community grant. It’s all very well getting a bed but you can’t sleep in it without bedding- or cook your tea without a pot.
We are not currently accepting donations but will be doing a new just giving appeal probably next month.
The best way to support our work at the moment is to like the page, share it, get the word out that we are here for the women who need us.
Our petition to the Scottish Parliament is currently under consideration with the committee having written to various organisations for their views ahead of the next stage- we are fairly optimistic that they will progress with it. Fingers crossed.

[CropleyWasGod]

I'm quoting your post because I can't access the link as posted. Usually when it's quoted it becomes accessible for me.

Bordie's Trust may well be a not for profit organisation and they don't have to be a registered charity to operate as such (although they miss out on benefits associate with being one). I looked at the OSCR and also at their Facebook page and it does say "charitable organisation" on it. They don't appear to have a website. Perhaps they should change the wording to not for profit?

They say this..."We are a small unregistered charity and operate as a support group for women who have lost babies through domestic violence or forced termination. We do one to one and group support as appropriate, we offer advocacy, help with housing and benefits applications, support through the court process or reporting to the police if they choose to do so. Also practical help such as emergency groceries, power card top up, and essentials packs for new tenancy (pots & pans, utensils, plates, cutlery, bedding etc) where a service user has qualified for a community grant. It’s all very well getting a bed but you can’t sleep in it without bedding- or cook your tea without a pot.
We are not currently accepting donations but will be doing a new just giving appeal probably next month.
The best way to support our work at the moment is to like the page, share it, get the word out that we are here for the women who need us.
Our petition to the Scottish Parliament is currently under consideration with the committee having written to various organisations for their views ahead of the next stage- we are fairly optimistic that they will progress with it. Fingers crossed.

They need to get themselves proper advice.

They can't call themselves an "unregistered charity". There is no such thing.

If they want to do the valuable work they do, they should get themselves registered. Otherwise, they'll struggle to attract funding and may find themselves in bother with OSCR.

[Mr Grieves]

EHRC facing a legal challenge for being excessively influenced by the UK government. It looks like their stance on GRA changed when Liz Truss made "politically motivated" appointments to the EHRC.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-60331962

[CropleyWasGod]

EHRC facing a legal challenge for being excessively influenced by the UK government. It looks like their stance on GRA changed when Liz Truss made "politically motivated" appointments to the EHRC.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-60331962

Vice has been running a couple of stories recently about the politicisation of the EHRC. Whether these are part of a smear campaign remains to be seen, but if they have any substance, it does undermine a lot of their good work.

[James310]

https://twitter.com/mbmpolicy/status/1492400579854929922?t=Je0ze8j6QoBFpYQvIhENnA&s=19

[hibsbollah]

EHRC facing a legal challenge for being excessively influenced by the UK government. It looks like their stance on GRA changed when Liz Truss made "politically motivated" appointments to the EHRC.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-60331962

The EHRC (see Labour anti semitism inquiry) is now a Tory Government front organisation, presumably done so because for years the right have been complaining that human rights and race relations have been a front for leftists. I think we’re at the point now where the civil service is so infested with appointees that the previous and genuine ‘public good’ culture that existed in the UK civil service is being badly eroded.

[500miles]

EHRC facing a legal challenge for being excessively influenced by the UK government. It looks like their stance on GRA changed when Liz Truss made "politically motivated" appointments to the EHRC.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-60331962

A lot of people angry about this who scoffed at the idea the EHRC would ever be politically influenced when it came to the Labour antisemitism investigation.

Like most of my complaints on the topic, I'm just wanting consistency from people on the issues surrounding it.

[He's here!]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/labour-mp-rosie-duffield-tempted-to-defect-over-lack-of-support-on-trans-stance-cjp3lz5mz

[WhileTheChief..]

I just find it unbelievable that the (admittedly reluctant Polis) can find time to indulge this pish.

Not related, but I think similar about the whole parties in Downing St nonsense.

Wanting the police involved, to hand out £20 fines or whatever to Boris and co is a total waste of time and money.

We've turned into a nation of grasses though. We're all meant to run and tell tales as quickly as possible these days.

Even better if you can post on Twitter to demonstrate how much of a good citizen you are.

[CropleyWasGod]

Not related, but I think similar about the whole parties in Downing St nonsense.

Wanting the police involved, to hand out £20 fines or whatever to Boris and co is a total waste of time and money.

We've turned into a nation of grasses though. We're all meant to run and tell tales as quickly as possible these days.

Even better if you can post on Twitter to demonstrate how much of a good citizen you are.

The story turned out to be false.

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-60420339


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[superfurryhibby]

The story turned out to be false.

The police confirmed she wasn't under investigation, but they still visited her?

The Police have been reported to the EHRC for their statement and inaccurate information giving associated with the statement they made linked to this matter.
https://fairplayforwomen.com/police-scotland-reported-to-equality-watchdog-for-breach-of-equality-law/
"
In a comment to the Times, Assistant Chief Constable Gary Ritchie said “Hate crime and discrimination of any kind is deplorable and entirely unacceptable”.

With regards to discrimination, this statement made on behalf of Police Scotland is inaccurate and misleading. The Equality Act 2010 sets out that discrimination can be lawful when that discrimination is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The statement made by Police Scotland that “discrimination of any kind is deplorable and entirely unacceptable” conveys the meaning to the public that service providers who lawfully discriminate on the grounds of sex are themselves deplorable, and it suggests that use of the single-sex exceptions is in some way unlawful.
https://fairplayforwomen.com/police-scotland-reported-to-equality-watchdog-for-breach-of-equality-law/


Police misrepresenting the law in this way is a serious matter. The idea that service providers are in any way deplorable and acting unlawfully is likely to foster bad relations between potential service users who are included and those who are excluded, as well as fostering bad relations with the service provider itself. It is also reasonable to expect this police statement would have a ‘chilling effect’ on other service providers who wish to lawfully provide female-only services. Thus, fettering the ability of service providers to choose the most appropriate, and least discriminatory, service to their target service users.

[CropleyWasGod]

The police confirmed she wasn't under investigation, but they still visited her?

The Police have been reported to the EHRC for their statement and inaccurate information giving associated with the statement they made linked to this matter.
https://fairplayforwomen.com/police-scotland-reported-to-equality-watchdog-for-breach-of-equality-law/
"
In a comment to the Times, Assistant Chief Constable Gary Ritchie said “Hate crime and discrimination of any kind is deplorable and entirely unacceptable”.

With regards to discrimination, this statement made on behalf of Police Scotland is inaccurate and misleading. The Equality Act 2010 sets out that discrimination can be lawful when that discrimination is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The statement made by Police Scotland that “discrimination of any kind is deplorable and entirely unacceptable” conveys the meaning to the public that service providers who lawfully discriminate on the grounds of sex are themselves deplorable, and it suggests that use of the single-sex exceptions is in some way unlawful.
https://fairplayforwomen.com/police-scotland-reported-to-equality-watchdog-for-breach-of-equality-law/


Police misrepresenting the law in this way is a serious matter. The idea that service providers are in any way deplorable and acting unlawfully is likely to foster bad relations between potential service users who are included and those who are excluded, as well as fostering bad relations with the service provider itself. It is also reasonable to expect this police statement would have a ‘chilling effect’ on other service providers who wish to lawfully provide female-only services. Thus, fettering the ability of service providers to choose the most appropriate, and least discriminatory, service to their target service users.

That statement is dated 30th January. It refers to the Times article which was later withdrawn.

[superfurryhibby]

That statement is dated 30th January. It refers to the Times article which was later withdrawn.

Yes, but the withdrawal of the article doesn't mean the Police didn't visit her? They said she wasn't or hadn't been under investigation, which is what she also said they told her.

Either way, the Police statement is fundamentally wrong and worryingly misinformed.

[He's here!]

Scottish govt loses court battle over legal definition of women:

https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,scottish-government-lose-court-battle-over-redefinition-of-women

[James310]

The GRA bill is coming to the Parliament this week.


by Mandy Rhodes
27 February 2022
@HolyroodMandy

Editor's Column: The Right to Be

It’s been a confusing time for sex. And that’s not me oversharing. But with the definitions of ‘sex’, ‘gender’ and indeed that of ‘woman’ itself now being battled out in court, we have only just traversed the outer edges of a toxic, but so far fringe, debate.

And as it has set us on a course for an argument fallaciously framed as being either pro- or anti-trans, we are about to see it get even more febrile as it breaks into the mainstream, with the Scottish Government making the case for the reform of the Gender Recognition Act.

For some of us, there has been a long and painful rehearsal to get to this point. Four years of deep introspection, emotional turmoil and complex argument that has already torn natural allies apart.

A time when invisible walls between longstanding contacts have been erected. When well-established relationships have become fractured. When reputations have been trashed, and livelihoods threatened.

When damaging and vexatious complaints have been made. When some of the most powerful legislators in the land have spoken behind closed doors but publicly failed to stand up for what they believed in or to defend those they should have stood squarely behind. A time of being ghosted by previously close contacts. And a time when you could start to feel a chill.

A dark, regressive time when arguments about whether biology even mattered or that a feeling of ‘just being’ should take precedence over a material reality.

A time when dependable champions for equality, who would normally argue from a platform of intellect and sense, turned into myopic bullies who shut down legitimate argument with a stinging rebuke of ‘transphobe’, and refused to engage in a challenge.

A time of deep contradictions. A time when, as a society, we woke up to the hellish lived experience of women and girls and their exhausting daily battle to keep safe from men. But at the same time, argued for the lifting of what meagre sex-based safeguards already existed.


A time when we were forced to question the very existence of biology, encouraged to use gender neutral terms around uniquely female specific practices like breast feeding, mothering and menstruation. And yet we ignored the disconnect of that argument when condemning practices like female genital mutilation, sex trafficking and forced marriage, where being female was the only determining factor for the victims.

A time when the UK’s statutory regulator, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, could be branded a ‘hate group’ and reported to the United Nations on the basis of “revelations, if true” that it had prepared guidance that could prevent trans people from using single-sex spaces. Something which it categorically denied. But where the “if true” carried a lot of heavy lifting, even among Scottish Government ministers.

And when Police Scotland had to review a policy that would potentially allow male rapists to identify as women.

A time, to be frank, when fantasy has been indulged. Disinformation bandied around. Statistics manipulated and mangled. Truth stretched. And when crass comparisons have been made by high-profile politicians between people who are ‘intersex’, which they, incidentally, failed to properly define, with people who have red hair, to simply make a crass point about percentages and the right of ‘ginger people’ to exist.

This is no time for cheap laughs.

A time when, bizarrely, even some trans people find themselves labelled transphobic for refusing to bow down to a gender ideology that says you can actually physically change your sex, when you can’t.

And a time when concerns expressed by women were extraordinarily dismissed as ‘not valid’ by the First Minister. And their cries of protest were pronounced as evidence of radicalisation and ignorance.

We are still to be told how expanding the pool of people that can legally declare themselves to be women, which is what the government will propose by removing any medical gatekeeping to a Gender Recognition Certificate, cannot impinge on the rights currently held by the women they were designed for under the UK Equality Act. But that will be for the First Minister to explain.

Arguably, there has never been a more divisive piece of legislation put before the Scottish Parliament. The rows over Section 28 (2a in Scotland) and the debates around equal marriage just do not compare.

And the narrative that says they are the same is a false one. An Aunt Sally constructed to silence critics by dint of an association with what was once a torrid time.

But embracing the rights of a human being to love who they want, to marry who they want, and to have those same legal protections as anyone else, gay or straight, is a fundamental of equality. And ones which trans people already have.

Women in Scotland are seeing their rights eroded while at the same time being told that ‘trans lives are not up for debate’ when theirs already are.

I know no one that doesn’t agree that a process that allows someone to legally identify in the gender in which they wish to live their lives could be done with more respect, dignity and support. Indeed, polling shows that to be the case. So, the question that hangs is why, when there is broad consensus for reform, has self-ID, which does not get the same public support, become such a totemic issue for the Scottish Government?

It’s not even the most pressing of demands for trans people. Better health provision is.

And I get that the First Minister wants another first. She wants Scotland to be seen as a beacon of truly progressive policies. And if not the first in the world, then at least the first across these islands. But does she really want that to happen at the expense of women’s rights, of increased division, and of good law?

Call me cynical, but in the same way that the Scottish Parliament was found to have breached its legal powers by the Supreme Court at the end of last year, for attempting to incorporate into Scots law the statutes within the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the First Minister, as she did then around children’s rights, could always then blame Westminster for not allowing her to advance the cause of equality for trans people. It’s a thought

[He's here!]

The GRA bill is coming to the Parliament this week.


by Mandy Rhodes
27 February 2022
@HolyroodMandy

Editor's Column: The Right to Be

It’s been a confusing time for sex. And that’s not me oversharing. But with the definitions of ‘sex’, ‘gender’ and indeed that of ‘woman’ itself now being battled out in court, we have only just traversed the outer edges of a toxic, but so far fringe, debate.

And as it has set us on a course for an argument fallaciously framed as being either pro- or anti-trans, we are about to see it get even more febrile as it breaks into the mainstream, with the Scottish Government making the case for the reform of the Gender Recognition Act.

For some of us, there has been a long and painful rehearsal to get to this point. Four years of deep introspection, emotional turmoil and complex argument that has already torn natural allies apart.

A time when invisible walls between longstanding contacts have been erected. When well-established relationships have become fractured. When reputations have been trashed, and livelihoods threatened.

When damaging and vexatious complaints have been made. When some of the most powerful legislators in the land have spoken behind closed doors but publicly failed to stand up for what they believed in or to defend those they should have stood squarely behind. A time of being ghosted by previously close contacts. And a time when you could start to feel a chill.

A dark, regressive time when arguments about whether biology even mattered or that a feeling of ‘just being’ should take precedence over a material reality.

A time when dependable champions for equality, who would normally argue from a platform of intellect and sense, turned into myopic bullies who shut down legitimate argument with a stinging rebuke of ‘transphobe’, and refused to engage in a challenge.

A time of deep contradictions. A time when, as a society, we woke up to the hellish lived experience of women and girls and their exhausting daily battle to keep safe from men. But at the same time, argued for the lifting of what meagre sex-based safeguards already existed.


A time when we were forced to question the very existence of biology, encouraged to use gender neutral terms around uniquely female specific practices like breast feeding, mothering and menstruation. And yet we ignored the disconnect of that argument when condemning practices like female genital mutilation, sex trafficking and forced marriage, where being female was the only determining factor for the victims.

A time when the UK’s statutory regulator, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, could be branded a ‘hate group’ and reported to the United Nations on the basis of “revelations, if true” that it had prepared guidance that could prevent trans people from using single-sex spaces. Something which it categorically denied. But where the “if true” carried a lot of heavy lifting, even among Scottish Government ministers.

And when Police Scotland had to review a policy that would potentially allow male rapists to identify as women.

A time, to be frank, when fantasy has been indulged. Disinformation bandied around. Statistics manipulated and mangled. Truth stretched. And when crass comparisons have been made by high-profile politicians between people who are ‘intersex’, which they, incidentally, failed to properly define, with people who have red hair, to simply make a crass point about percentages and the right of ‘ginger people’ to exist.

This is no time for cheap laughs.

A time when, bizarrely, even some trans people find themselves labelled transphobic for refusing to bow down to a gender ideology that says you can actually physically change your sex, when you can’t.

And a time when concerns expressed by women were extraordinarily dismissed as ‘not valid’ by the First Minister. And their cries of protest were pronounced as evidence of radicalisation and ignorance.

We are still to be told how expanding the pool of people that can legally declare themselves to be women, which is what the government will propose by removing any medical gatekeeping to a Gender Recognition Certificate, cannot impinge on the rights currently held by the women they were designed for under the UK Equality Act. But that will be for the First Minister to explain.

Arguably, there has never been a more divisive piece of legislation put before the Scottish Parliament. The rows over Section 28 (2a in Scotland) and the debates around equal marriage just do not compare.

And the narrative that says they are the same is a false one. An Aunt Sally constructed to silence critics by dint of an association with what was once a torrid time.

But embracing the rights of a human being to love who they want, to marry who they want, and to have those same legal protections as anyone else, gay or straight, is a fundamental of equality. And ones which trans people already have.

Women in Scotland are seeing their rights eroded while at the same time being told that ‘trans lives are not up for debate’ when theirs already are.

I know no one that doesn’t agree that a process that allows someone to legally identify in the gender in which they wish to live their lives could be done with more respect, dignity and support. Indeed, polling shows that to be the case. So, the question that hangs is why, when there is broad consensus for reform, has self-ID, which does not get the same public support, become such a totemic issue for the Scottish Government?

It’s not even the most pressing of demands for trans people. Better health provision is.

And I get that the First Minister wants another first. She wants Scotland to be seen as a beacon of truly progressive policies. And if not the first in the world, then at least the first across these islands. But does she really want that to happen at the expense of women’s rights, of increased division, and of good law?

Call me cynical, but in the same way that the Scottish Parliament was found to have breached its legal powers by the Supreme Court at the end of last year, for attempting to incorporate into Scots law the statutes within the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the First Minister, as she did then around children’s rights, could always then blame Westminster for not allowing her to advance the cause of equality for trans people. It’s a thought

That's a well written piece.

[superfurryhibby]

A time of deep contradictions. A time when, as a society, we woke up to the hellish lived experience of women and girls and their exhausting daily battle to keep safe from men. But at the same time, argued for the lifting of what meagre sex-based safeguards already existed.

The article (posted above) is well presented, but it seems to me it falls into a very divisive trap of labelling and generalising when it comes to women and their daily lived experience with men.

Speaking personally, woman and girls have no need to fight a daily battle to keep safe from me. Stereotyping all men is just as dangerous a road to go down as the predatory misogyny that the author is referring to.

[matty_f]

A time of deep contradictions. A time when, as a society, we woke up to the hellish lived experience of women and girls and their exhausting daily battle to keep safe from men. But at the same time, argued for the lifting of what meagre sex-based safeguards already existed.

The article (posted above) is well presented, but it seems to me it falls into a very divisive trap of labelling and generalising when it comes to women and their daily lived experience with men.

Speaking personally, woman and girls have no need to fight a daily battle to keep safe from me. Stereotyping all men is just as dangerous a road to go down as the predatory misogyny that the author is referring to.

It’s really not and while you’re right that it’s not literally every man, it is potentially any man so from a woman’s perspective, unless she knows you, then unfortunately you and I need to live with being tarred with that brush until all men sort themselves out.

I have two daughters and two sisters, as well as a wife. Their lives experiences are littered with predatory and unpleasant experiences of men, and that’s everything from being ignored at a garage or a DIY shop (amongst others), to having daily instances of men - strangers - making comments, wolf-whistling from cars or vans, being followed, being pestered on the bus or train, the list is almost endless.

It’s a million miles away from being anywhere near as dangerous as the oratory misogyny the author refers to.

[superfurryhibby]

It’s really not and while you’re right that it’s not literally every man, it is potentially any man so from a woman’s perspective, unless she knows you, then unfortunately you and I need to live with being tarred with that brush until all men sort themselves out.

I have two daughters and two sisters, as well as a wife. Their lives experiences are littered with predatory and unpleasant experiences of men, and that’s everything from being ignored at a garage or a DIY shop (amongst others), to having daily instances of men - strangers - making comments, wolf-whistling from cars or vans, being followed, being pestered on the bus or train, the list is almost endless.

It’s a million miles away from being anywhere near as dangerous as the oratory misogyny the author refers to.

Sorry, that is stereotyping. You know that not all women share those views, neither do all feminists. What you said about the experiences of women you know is sad, but it's anecdotal. My anecdotal view is that these behaviours are still present, but nowhere near as pervasive as they once were. I'm not keen on the "potentially any man" stuff either, whether the woman knows you or not.

When you say "oratory misogyny", you are probably referring to the transgender rights activists that, for example, are describing women's right to a single gender safe space ?

[matty_f]

Sorry, that is stereotyping. You know that not all women share those views, neither do all feminists. What you said about the experiences of women you know is sad, but it's anecdotal. My anecdotal view is that these behaviours are still present, but nowhere near as pervasive as they once were. I'm not keen on the "potentially any man" stuff either, whether the woman knows you or not.

When you say "oratory misogyny", you are probably referring to the transgender rights activists that, for example, are describing women's right to a single gender safe space ?

No. “Oratory” was my phone deciding I wanted that word instead of the word i typed, which was “predatory”.

With the greatest of respect, it’s irrelevant whether you’re keen on it or not, from women’s (and not every single woman because that would be a ridiculous statement) perspective, any man is a potential threat.

I was brought up with “never talk to strangers” - the strangers in question where never women. That’s not to say women aren’t capable, but you know, if a bad thing was going to happen to you there’s a massive difference in the chances of that bad thing happening to you at the hands of a man than at the hands of a female.

I doubt any of us would want to be considered a potential threat, but we are.


With regards to being anecdotal, of course they are, however i can extend those anecdotes to female friends, female colleagues, extended family. They’ve all experienced it.

It’s absolutely not stereotyping to say that as men, some women will find you you and I a threat on some level, now that could be completely contextual and it could be on a very small scale, but it’s true.

We teach our daughters to watch out for it from a young age.

[superfurryhibby]

No. “Oratory” was my phone deciding I wanted that word instead of the word i typed, which was “predatory”.

With the greatest of respect, it’s irrelevant whether you’re keen on it or not, from women’s (and not every single woman because that would be a ridiculous statement) perspective, any man is a potential threat.

I was brought up with “never talk to strangers” - the strangers in question where never women. That’s not to say women aren’t capable, but you know, if a bad thing was going to happen to you there’s a massive difference in the chances of that bad thing happening to you at the hands of a man than at the hands of a female.

I doubt any of us would want to be considered a potential threat, but we are.


With regards to being anecdotal, of course they are, however i can extend those anecdotes to female friends, female colleagues, extended family. They’ve all experienced it.

It’s absolutely not stereotyping to say that as men, some women will find you you and I a threat on some level, now that could be completely contextual and it could be on a very small scale, but it’s true.

We teach our daughters to watch out for it from a young age.

I don't think that an ultra feminist perspective on gender relationships and male abuse of power is the only valid opinion. A women's perspective of the world must be a very narrow and fearful one if they were all to view men (would that include, gay men, disabled men, transgender men ?) as a potential threat.

As a man, a woman can view me anyway they choose, but as a starting point to that perception, viewing me as a potential threat on the basis of my gender is straying into discriminatory cliché and stereotyping (along the lines of all men are potential rapists). It is also very disempowering and would seem to me to undermine all the progress we have made around gender and addressing male abuse of power. There has been an enormous shift in my lifetime. Yes, there are still pockets of male entitled stupidity, but it's being eroded.

[WhileTheChief..]

It's a mixed up, muddled up, shook up world.

[matty_f]

I don't think that an ultra feminist perspective on gender relationships and male abuse of power is the only valid opinion. A women's perspective of the world must be a very narrow and fearful one if they were all to view men (would that include, gay men, disabled men, transgender men ?) as a potential threat.

As a man, a woman can view me anyway they choose, but as a starting point to that perception, viewing me as a potential threat on the basis of my gender is straying into discriminatory cliché and stereotyping (along the lines of all men are potential rapists). It is also very disempowering and would seem to me to undermine all the progress we have made around gender and addressing male abuse of power. There has been an enormous shift in my lifetime. Yes, there are still pockets of male entitled stupidity, but it's being eroded.

How would a woman, for example, walking alone at night be able to differentiate between a gay man and a straight man who was walking behind or towards her?

Context is important as well, which i mentioned, It’s highly unlikely that if your first encounter with a woman is at a kid’s birthday party where you’re there with your wife and kid, and there are other families around, that she’ll find you a threat at all. Or at a job interview etc.

If her first encounter with you was on a secluded path, then it’s likely she’d be weary, or meeting you for a first date. That’s why a lot of women feel that they need to tell a friend where they’re going and who they’re meeting and agree to phone to let them know they’re ok.

It’s not your fault, it’s not her fault, but her experiences of men (other men) will have informed how she views you in that context.

[matty_f]

I don't think that an ultra feminist perspective on gender relationships and male abuse of power is the only valid opinion. A women's perspective of the world must be a very narrow and fearful one if they were all to view men (would that include, gay men, disabled men, transgender men ?) as a potential threat.

As a man, a woman can view me anyway they choose, but as a starting point to that perception, viewing me as a potential threat on the basis of my gender is straying into discriminatory cliché and stereotyping (along the lines of all men are potential rapists). It is also very disempowering and would seem to me to undermine all the progress we have made around gender and addressing male abuse of power. There has been an enormous shift in my lifetime. Yes, there are still pockets of male entitled stupidity, but it's being eroded.

Just while it popped into my head, you asked about disabled men as well - without going into names because that’s not appropriate here, there was very recently a lot of focus on a disabled guy who was repeatedly using inappropriate sexually graphic language to girls on something like Tik Tok - it was something where they could pair up and chat to each other.

I’m clearly not saying that’s representative of all disabled people or of all girls’ experiences, but it’s another example of women having to be weary of men’s behaviour. There wasn’t anything to indicate this guy was a threat before the interaction.

[superfurryhibby]

How would a woman, for example, walking alone at night be able to differentiate between a gay man and a straight man who was walking behind or towards her?

Context is important as well, which i mentioned, It’s highly unlikely that if your first encounter with a woman is at a kid’s birthday party where you’re there with your wife and kid, and there are other families around, that she’ll find you a threat at all. Or at a job interview etc.

If her first encounter with you was on a secluded path, then it’s likely she’d be weary, or meeting you for a first date. That’s why a lot of women feel that they need to tell a friend where they’re going and who they’re meeting and agree to phone to let them know they’re ok.

It’s not your fault, it’s not her fault, but her experiences of men (other men) will have informed how she views you in that context.



Are our Wives, Partners, Mothers, Daughters and female friends really all living " a hellish daily experience" or "fighting and exhausting daily battle to keep themselves safe from men"?

It's not something that I identify with as based in reality for the women I know well. I suspect all women will have experienced casual sexism and misogyny, but is it really like a never ending battle for survival?

Maybe she could qualify the men part by calling them predatory or emotionally damaged men. What % of men have to indulge in sexist, misogynistic or threatening behaviours before we can reasonably just casually apply those descriptions to 50% of the human race?

We know that some people carry out atrocities in the name of religion, but we would never brand all adherents of a particular faith as terrorists just because some lunatic fringes carrying out appalling acts. On that basis is it OK to judge all men against the behaviours of some?

I think my objections to stereotyping still stand, particularly when the context whereby the writer is presenting a wider argument about discrimination and rights.

It's an interesting conversation, though provoking.

[Kato]

What % of men have to indulge in sexist, misogynistic or threatening behaviours before we can reasonably just casually apply those descriptions to 50% of the human race?



You're the only who thinks that is what is being said on this thread.



Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Since90+2]

Are our Wives, Partners, Mothers, Daughters and female friends really all living " a hellish daily experience" or "fighting and exhausting daily battle to keep themselves safe from men"?

It's not something that I identify with as based in reality for the women I know well. I suspect all women will have experienced casual sexism and misogyny, but is it really like a never ending battle for survival?

Maybe she could qualify the men part by calling them predatory or emotionally damaged men. What % of men have to indulge in sexist, misogynistic or threatening behaviours before we can reasonably just casually apply those descriptions to 50% of the human race?

We know that some people carry out atrocities in the name of religion, but we would never brand all adherents of a particular faith as terrorists just because some lunatic fringes carrying out appalling acts. On that basis is it OK to judge all men against the behaviours of some?

I think my objections to stereotyping still stand, particularly when the context whereby the writer is presenting a wider argument about discrimination and rights.

It's an interesting conversation, though provoking.

Your first paragraph is spot on.

Some utterly ridiculous and quite frankly dangerous views on this thread.

[matty_f]

Your first paragraph is spot on.

Some utterly ridiculous and quite frankly dangerous views on this thread.

Which views are dangerous?

[superfurryhibby]

You're the only who thinks that is what is being said on this thread.



Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Thanks for the insight.

[Kato]

Thanks for the insight.Is anyone else claiming this?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[superfurryhibby]

Is anyone else claiming this?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Claiming what? You may not have noticed, but it’s a discussion and people offer a view. I have contributed to this thread since it begun and the conversation has been wide ranging. That said, it’s not one that’s grabbing the same level of attention as , let’s say the Ukraine one. Therefore to say no one else shares my view is odd, when we n fact the only two contributors engaged in the discussion were Matty and I. If you have a view on trans rights or the wider issues of women and male abuse of power, let’s hear them. Otherwise, what’s the point of your posts?

[Kato]

Claiming what? You may not have noticed, but it’s a discussion and people offer a view. I have contributed to this thread since it begun and the conversation has been wide ranging. That said, it’s not one that’s grabbing the same level of attention as , let’s say the Ukraine one. Therefore to say no one else shares my view is odd, when we n fact the only two contributors engaged in the discussion were Marty and I. If you have a view on trans rights or the wider issues of women and male abuse of power, let’s hear them. Otherwise, what’s the point of your posts?Fair enough. Matty said..







With the greatest of respect, it’s irrelevant whether you’re keen on it or not, from women’s (and not every single woman because that would be a ridiculous statement) perspective, any man is a potential threat.





I think that is quite right in certain circumstances even more so.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[superfurryhibby]

Fair enough. Matty said..







I think that is quite right in certain circumstances even more so.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

“Are our Wives, Partners, Mothers, Daughters and female friends really all living " a hellish daily experience" or "fighting and exhausting daily battle to keep themselves safe from men"?

Do you really believe that describes day to day life for the average Scottish woman. No one is denying there is male abuse of power or that women may rightly perceive threat or feel anxiety with regard to men in certain circumstances.

[Kato]

“Are our Wives, Partners, Mothers, Daughters and female friends really all living " a hellish daily experience" or "fighting and exhausting daily battle to keep themselves safe from men"?

Do you really believe that describes day to day life for the average Scottish woman. No one is denying there is male abuse of power or that women may rightly perceive threat or feel anxiety with regard to men in certain circumstances.I doubt that's a daily experience for a lot of women but more than probably for some.

Where I think Matty is correct is where he says women should think of any man as a threat in certain circumstances. They aren't "stereotyping" anyone, they are just keeping on their toes in case the man walking towards them, say late at night, is a nutter.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[superfurryhibby]

I doubt that's a daily experience for a lot of women but more than probably for some.

Where I think Matty is correct is where he says women should think of any man as a threat in certain circumstances. They aren't "stereotyping" anyone, they are just keeping on their toes in case the man walking towards them, say late at night, is a nutter.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

So, after actually reading what was said , it turns out that you share my views then :aok:

Matty introduced the bit about threat and circumstances, not me. No one denied that there are situations where women might feel frightened or intimidated, or that harassment and casual sexism and misogyny happen (perhaps more frequently than some men may care to acknowledge)

My point was that it was a gross exaggeration to say that women live a hellish experience or fight a daily battle to keep safe from men. The context was discussing an article about rights, discrimination and gender. I agreed with just about everything the writer said in respect of the self-assigned gender discussion, but found it bizarre that she introduced a few lines which to me stereotyped men and at the same time disempowered women.

Attitudes have shifted lots in my lifetime. When I was a boy (60's and 70's), a man could beat his wife and the Police weren’t interested, unless it amounted to GBH. Women weren’t paid equally and mainstream culture embraced male chauvinism. Things have moved on a bit since then, albeit there are still issues around equality, male privilege and discrimination.

[matty_f]

So, after actually reading what was said , it turns out that you share my views then :aok:

Matty introduced the bit about threat and circumstances, not me. No one denied that there are situations where women might feel frightened or intimidated, or that harassment and casual sexism and misogyny happen (perhaps more frequently than some men may care to acknowledge)

My point was that it was a gross exaggeration to say that women live a hellish experience or fight a daily battle to keep safe from men. The context was discussing an article about rights, discrimination and gender. I agreed with just about everything the writer said in respect of the self-assigned gender discussion, but found it bizarre that she introduced a few lines which to me stereotyped men and at the same time disempowered women.

Attitudes have shifted lots in my lifetime. When I was a boy (60's and 70's), a man could beat his wife and the Police weren’t interested, unless it amounted to GBH. Women weren’t paid equally and mainstream culture embraced male chauvinism. Things have moved on a bit since then, albeit there are still issues around equality, male privilege and discrimination.

FWIW, my point has never been about disempowering women. This is a male issue rather than a female one.

While I agree that there’s more than a touch of hyperbole being used by the author, I don’t think it’s in any way unreasonable to suggest that women have to consider the behaviour of men in every day life- irrespective of whether or not that behaviour materialises on any given day.

[superfurryhibby]

FWIW, my point has never been about disempowering women. This is a male issue rather than a female one.

While I agree that there’s more than a touch of hyperbole being used by the author, I don’t think it’s in any way unreasonable to suggest that women have to consider the behaviour of men in every day life- irrespective of whether or not that behaviour materialises on any given day.

No, I'm talking disempowerment and the authors views. Disempowering and divisive, in terms of recognising the progress of women's movement. Not just disempowering for women There are many men who support the women's rights and without their input and support, it would surely be a lost cause.

Without wishing to deflect too much from the Trans Rights discussion, ultra feminist views are not necessarily representative of the whole feminist movement. Many recognise the importance of inclusivity and recognition of how men also suffer under the Patriarchy.

[matty_f]

No, I'm talking disempowerment and the authors views. Disempowering and divisive, in terms of recognising the progress of women's movement. Not just disempowering for women There are many men who support the women's rights and without their input and support, it would surely be a lost cause.

Without wishing to deflect too much from the Trans Rights discussion, ultra feminist views are not necessarily representative of the whole feminist movement. Many recognise the importance of inclusivity and recognition of how men also suffer under the Patriarchy.

The points aren’t mutually exclusive though.

I’m not sure that the author is talking down the progress of the women’s movement by highlighting that women still have to deal with a load of unnecessary crap from men but the trans issue itself potential undermines that progress.

I’m not even sure I’d agree that acknowledging women have to make regular adjustments or considerations to allow for men’s behaviours is a particularly feminist view.

[Colr]

I’m not even sure I’d agree that acknowledging women have to make regular adjustments or considerations to allow for men’s behaviours is a particularly feminist view.

It’s a truism. Obvious to anyone that cares to look.

Women constantly have to review their choices to account for their safety.

It’s oppressive……and that’s without even getting to the issue about their voices being shut down when they raise such issues.

[superfurryhibby]

The points aren’t mutually exclusive though.

I’m not sure that the author is talking down the progress of the women’s movement by highlighting that women still have to deal with a load of unnecessary crap from men but the trans issue itself potential undermines that progress.

I’m not even sure I’d agree that acknowledging women have to make regular adjustments or considerations to allow for men’s behaviours is a particularly feminist view.

Yes, women deal with lots of unnecessary crap, but it’s still not equating to a daily battle to keep safe or hellish experience, which was my point to begin with. TBF, you did, eventually, acknowledge that that statement was unhelpful hyperbole.

Earlier, I made the point that it’s not only women who have a stake in voicing an opinion on the trans rights- gender self identification question. Men are invested in this too, yet the main voices in the debate seem very polarised and to come mostly from women or men that self identify as women. Why is that that?

I also said that ultra feminist dogma ( is it really necessary to launch a hand grenade castigating and scapegoating all men when discussing the erosion of women’s rights through the proposed legislation?) is divisive. My belief is that these kind of views aren’t necessarily representative of women in general ( or even feminists in general).

So, now that we all agree that women can still be subject to male harassment, casual misogyny, discrimination in the work place, bullying in the home, can we move on to why we are having a legislative based approach to promoting gender self-identification from the Scottish government? I would also be interested to hear people’s views on why there are so few male voices being heard in the debate?

[CropleyWasGod]

The Bill is being tabled in Parliament today.

It seems that only the Tories, as a party, are against reforms.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-60589578

[Ozyhibby]

The Bill is being tabled in Parliament today.

It seems that only the Tories, as a party, are against reforms.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-60589578

Seems like that on here as well. [emoji6]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[superfurryhibby]

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainment/music/don-t-bother-applying-for-a-job-if-you-think-people-can-t-change-sex-nhs-trust-tells-health-official/ar-AAUgzMG?ocid=entnewsntp

This is where we are heading.

"Kate Grimes, who has a history of transforming troubled hospitals, was told not to waste her time applying for the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust as her belief in biological sex was “not a viewpoint” they want.
The Tavistock has now been accused of breaking equality law by discriminating against those with gender-critical beliefs, just months after the appeal court ruled it was protected under the Equality Act".

In a letter to the Health Secretary, Ms Grimes said that the trust was “exacerbating its governance failures – and breaking the law – by refusing to interview anyone who believes biological sex cannot be changed”.

Excluding those with gender-critical beliefs created “a very significant danger of skewed thinking” and if it was applied across the trust then it would be “indoctrination at an organisational level”, she said. Ms Grimes told the Telegraph that patient safety was at risk if “clinicians are working from a belief system rather than evidence-based care”.

She said that it was “perfectly possible to support and care for children with gender dysphoria without believing it is literally possible to change biological sex”.

“I believe that there are only two sexes and that sex is immutable. While I fully respect trans people’s right to live their lives free from discrimination, I do not believe that they can literally change sex”, she wrote.

In the reply, seen by this newspaper and sent to Mr Javid, she was told not to waste time applying as “your views on sex being immutable is not a viewpoint that the trust would wish any of their non-executives to hold”.

The senior consultant added that it would be “one of the questions I will be asking candidates at first stage interview”.

Peter Daly, an employment lawyer at Doyle Clayton who acted in the recent appeal in which it was clarified that gender-critical beliefs are a protected, said: “The belief that sex is immutable is a central aspect of those beliefs.

“An employer which refuses to employ somebody because they hold gender critical beliefs is acting unlawfully in precisely the same way as it would be unlawful to refuse to employ someone because of their age, race, sex, disability or gender reassignment status.”

[Moulin Yarns]

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainment/music/don-t-bother-applying-for-a-job-if-you-think-people-can-t-change-sex-nhs-trust-tells-health-official/ar-AAUgzMG?ocid=entnewsntp

This is where we are heading.

Well done to the trust!

You can't employ someone who doesn't believe in the work that you do.

[superfurryhibby]

Well done to the trust!

You can't employ someone who doesn't believe in the work that you do.

I don't think you read the article. It has nothing to do with the work she would be carrying out there. It's based on an over-arching and potentially discriminatory trust policy. So, if you don't think "correctly", we won't employ you.
Do we really need questionnaires pre -employment to establish your beliefs, particularly when your work isn't actually relevant to gender self identity issues.

[Moulin Yarns]

I don't think you read the article. It has nothing to do with the work she would be carrying out there. It's based on an over-arching and potentially discriminatory trust policy. So, if you don't think "correctly", we won't employ you.
Do we really need questionnaires pre -employment to establish your beliefs, particularly when your work isn't actually relevant to gender self identity issues.

Firstly, I replied before you posted the full article, as it was behind a paywall and could only read the first couple of paragraphs.


Second, I stand by what I said. If you want to head up a hospital trust which is helping the traumatic transition for transgender people then you surely have to believe in what they do.

FWIW, I know someone in Fife who moved to Scotland from the south of England for an easier transition from female to male. Something that has been forgotten about in the thread is transgender transition works both ways.

[superfurryhibby]

Firstly, I replied before you posted the full article, as it was behind a paywall and could only read the first couple of paragraphs.
Second, I stand by what I said. If you want to head up a hospital trust which is helping the traumatic transition for transgender people then you surely have to believe in what they do.

FWIW, I know someone in Fife who moved to Scotland from the south of England for an easier transition from female to male. Something that has been forgotten about in the thread is transgender transition works both ways.

Yes, the NHS trust in question has a national gender identity clinic, amongst the many other things it offers.

For a Chairperson and non executive directors posts, and extending that rationale, would beliefs need questioned on a whole range of other social issues too, or is only views on gender and biological determinism that matter (she has never said she opposes transitioning, just that she believes there are only two genders)?

Would we extend the questionnaire to, let's say someone's beliefs on termination if trust offered abortions from one of their clinics? (which they will do). IF she was applying to run the gender identity clinic, I can understand that her beliefs might be seen as being in conflict, that could never happen though........

Interestingly, the thing that piqued my interest in the whole issue was the appointment of a man, who self identifies as a woman, to the role as CEO of the Rape Crisis Centre in Edinburgh. He has since gone onto to publicly criticise people who publicly oppose his appointment (women-not just her from The Brodies Trust) using some very inflammatory language.

That's the crux of this whole discussion. Whose rights prevail and why some rights seem to be more righteous than others.

FWIW, I also have a family member who has successfully transitioned, through surgery and medication. I'm all for adults having the right to be considered for this kind of treatment.

[Ozyhibby]

Yes, the NHS trust in question has a national gender identity clinic, amongst the many other things it offers.

For a Chairperson and non executive directors posts, and extending that rationale, would beliefs need questioned on a whole range of other social issues too, or is only views on gender and biological determinism that matter (she has never said she opposes transitioning, just that she believes there are only two genders)?

Would we extend the questionnaire to, let's say someone's beliefs on termination if trust offered abortions from one of their clinics? (which they will do). IF she was applying to run the gender identity clinic, I can understand that her beliefs might be seen as being in conflict, that could never happen though........

Interestingly, the thing that piqued my interest in the whole issue was the appointment of a man, who self identifies as a woman, to the role as CEO of the Rape Crisis Centre in Edinburgh. He has since gone onto to publicly criticise people who publicly oppose his appointment (women-not just her from The Brodies Trust) using some very inflammatory language.

That's the crux of this whole discussion. Whose rights prevail and why some rights seem to be more righteous than others.

FWIW, I also have a family member who has successfully transitioned, through surgery and medication. I'm all for adults having the right to be considered for this kind of treatment.

A CEO wouldn’t really be working with victims so it shouldn’t really matter, no?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[He's here!]

The Bill is being tabled in Parliament today.

It seems that only the Tories, as a party, are against reforms.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-60589578

They're not 'against' reform. They believe, however, that women's rights should be paramount when considering such changes. A view shared by many.

The highest profile split over this issue is within the SNP.

[WeeRussell]

They're not 'against' reform. They believe, however, that women's rights should be paramount when considering such changes. A view shared by many.

The highest profile split over this issue is within the SNP.

Isn’t “against reform” pretty much a literal translation of conservatism?

[matty_f]

Yes, women deal with lots of unnecessary crap, but it’s still not equating to a daily battle to keep safe or hellish experience, which was my point to begin with. TBF, you did, eventually, acknowledge that that statement was unhelpful hyperbole.

Earlier, I made the point that it’s not only women who have a stake in voicing an opinion on the trans rights- gender self identification question. Men are invested in this too, yet the main voices in the debate seem very polarised and to come mostly from women or men that self identify as women. Why is that that?

I also said that ultra feminist dogma ( is it really necessary to launch a hand grenade castigating and scapegoating all men when discussing the erosion of women’s rights through the proposed legislation?) is divisive. My belief is that these kind of views aren’t necessarily representative of women in general ( or even feminists in general).

So, now that we all agree that women can still be subject to male harassment, casual misogyny, discrimination in the work place, bullying in the home, can we move on to why we are having a legislative based approach to promoting gender self-identification from the Scottish government? I would also be interested to hear people’s views on why there are so few male voices being heard in the debate?

There are so few male voices being heard in the debate (ironic, given that(I suspect) this thread is almost exclusively male voices) because biological males are not having their rights and perceived safety impacted in the same way that biological females are.

If a trans-man wants to compete in sport, they are not gaining an advantage over biological men. It’s very unlikely (though not impossible, admittedly) that a trans-man is a threat to other men in terms of sexual violence or sexual misbehaviour and so on.

Because of the issues discussed in this thread already, there’s significantly less impact (virtually none) on men when a woman wants to transition to a man - if they self identify as a man and want to use male-only spaces, what’s the risk to the men there already?

It’s why the challenges are driven by women worried about their rights and why men are the less heard voices.

[JeMeSouviens]

They're not 'against' reform. They believe, however, that women's rights should be paramount when considering such changes. A view shared by many.

The highest profile split over this issue is within the SNP.

Did the splitters not leave to join (that well known defender of womens' rights :confused:) Salmond?

[He's here!]

Did the splitters not leave to join (that well known defender of womens' rights :confused:) Salmond?

Not aware that those who joined Alba did so over this issue? The highest profile SNP figure to go against the party line was Joanna Cherry. I was never a fan of hers but the abuse she took (often from within her own party) over her stance was outrageous and took a toll on her health.

[Moulin Yarns]

For anyone still questioning the need to change the law.


https://news.stv.tv/opinion/this-is-what-scotland-can-learn-from-irelands-gender-self-id-scheme

[Ozyhibby]

For anyone still questioning the need to change the law.


https://news.stv.tv/opinion/this-is-what-scotland-can-learn-from-irelands-gender-self-id-scheme

While this issue is a big deal for a tiny amount of people, it does seem strange that those against it think that it’s implementation in Scotland will be disastrous in a way that it’s not in Ireland? Do they think Scots trans people are different in some way?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[500miles]

While this issue is a big deal for a tiny amount of people, it does seem strange that those against it think that it’s implementation in Scotland will be disastrous in a way that it’s not in Ireland? Do they think Scots trans people are different in some way?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've been convinced that the GRA isn't really the issue.

I do have an issue with us institutionalising gender and innate and separate from sex. The same way as I have with us institutionalising creationism, Christian science or any other ideas which conflict with identifiable, measurable reality.

I've noticed that council emails from cis people have thier pronouns in the signature. This should not be the default, its like me starting all my emails with "Shalom".

[matty_f]

For anyone still questioning the need to change the law.


https://news.stv.tv/opinion/this-is-what-scotland-can-learn-from-irelands-gender-self-id-scheme

That’s a good article.

I find the situation to be very complex, and I’m still not entirely sure where i sit with it.

On a very basic level, I support trans-rights, I have no skin in the game as to dictating to others how they should live their lives, and there’s definitely a need to protect and include the trans community.

Where those rights impact the rights of others - particularly women - is where I find it harder to legitimise a blanket approach, but i’m well aware that if you take the position of “a trans man/woman is a man/woman” (delete as appropriate) then they have the exact same rights as a biological man/woman, which has the potential to cause issues, as we’ve seen in sport and in some sensitive sex-based situations.

I consider myself to be a tolerant guy, I believe people should have the right to live as they want so long as it’s not at the expense of others. I don’t care if someone’s gay, bi, straight, trans, whatever - they’re people. The main thing i’m getting from this discussion is a better understanding of the issues, which is a good thing.

[James310]

https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1500201278730903553?t=vG2QkQxKu3Dik6-N4-X0bA&s=19

JK Rowling has her say.

[500miles]

https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1500201278730903553?t=vG2QkQxKu3Dik6-N4-X0bA&s=19

JK Rowling has her say.

Looking forward to the weirdly sexual death threats on twitter from shan haircuts and furries.

[Hibrandenburg]

https://www.iflscience.com/brain/born-this-way-transgender-brains-show-similarity-to-those-of-their-desired-gender-from-a-young-age/all/

Sent from my SM-A505FN using Tapatalk

[LewysGot2]

https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1500201278730903553?t=vG2QkQxKu3Dik6-N4-X0bA&s=19

JK Rowling has her say.

Think it was a response to a very personal article by Susan Dalgetty. I tried to link it but it wouldn't play ball

[James310]

Think it was a response to a very personal article by Susan Dalgetty. I tried to link it but it wouldn't play ball

Yes it was, this one.

https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/abusive-men-will-exploit-proposed-new-gender-recognition-law-susan-dalgety-3596504

[Moulin Yarns]

https://www.iflscience.com/brain/born-this-way-transgender-brains-show-similarity-to-those-of-their-desired-gender-from-a-young-age/all/

Sent from my SM-A505FN using Tapatalk

Thanks for the link. Makes sense.

[Hibrandenburg]

Thanks for the link. Makes sense.Science will eventually prove that gender isn't simply that what does or doesn't dangle between our legs.

Sent from my SM-A505FN using Tapatalk

[LewysGot2]

Science will eventually prove that gender isn't simply that what does or doesn't dangle between our legs.

Sent from my SM-A505FN using Tapatalk

It isn't that now?

That's your sex?

[He's here!]

Think it was a response to a very personal article by Susan Dalgetty. I tried to link it but it wouldn't play ball

I read the Dalgety piece you mention. As you say extremely personal. Underlines why this issue is so much more meaningful than many believe and that the likes of the FM seem unable to grasp its implications. Good, measured support from Rowling (as ever), though as someone else has pointed out she'll doubtless take a deluge of flak for it.

[Moulin Yarns]

I read the Dalgety piece you mention. As you say extremely personal. Underlines why this issue is so much more meaningful than many believe and that the likes of the FM seem unable to grasp its implications. Good, measured support from Rowling (as ever), though as someone else has pointed out she'll doubtless take a deluge of flak for it.

I saw no support for the trans rights from Rowling in that tweet from her!!!

[CropleyWasGod]

Science will eventually prove that gender isn't simply that what does or doesn't dangle between our legs.

Sent from my SM-A505FN using Tapatalk

It's taken society thousands of years to understand that sexuality isn't just about sex, so we might have to wait a while.😏

[Hibrandenburg]

It isn't that now?

That's your sex?That's certainly my personal opinion. But when science conclusively proves that gender is more than a binary status, then maybe we can all have a grown-up conversation on the subject. I probably shouldn't hold my breath though, just look at the climate discussion for example.

Sent from my SM-A505FN using Tapatalk

[Hibrandenburg]

It's taken society thousands of years to understand that sexuality isn't just about sex, so we might have to wait a while.[emoji57]:agree:

Sent from my SM-A505FN using Tapatalk

[He's here!]

I saw no support for the trans rights from Rowling in that tweet from her!!!

That was my point. She's commenting on Susan Dalgety's article which is highlighting the fears many women rightly harbour around this over-hasty legislation.

[LewysGot2]

That's certainly my personal opinion. But when science conclusively proves that gender is more than a binary status, then maybe we can all have a grown-up conversation on the subject. I probably shouldn't hold my breath though, just look at the climate discussion for example.

Sent from my SM-A505FN using Tapatalk

Gender is a social construct often presenting itself in fairly stereotypical fashion. Lots of progress about people being able to be gender non-conforming seems to be getting lost in all this. It should still be okay for wee girls to be tomboys without having to be any more than that, for example.
I read with interest the comment about sexuality not being about sex. This is one issue that it appears has caused concern in the gay community. Can I ask what is meant?

Is this reference to such as Eddie Izzard being able to say he is a lesbian when he is in "woman gender"? ie its same gender attraction not same sex? Or something else?

I know a couple for gay friends who don't subscribe to same gender attraction ideas and are genuinely upset by it

[CropleyWasGod]

Gender is a social construct often presenting itself in fairly stereotypical fashion. Lots of progress about people being able to be gender non-conforming seems to be getting lost in all this. It should still be okay for wee girls to be tomboys without having to be any more than that, for example.
I read with interest the comment about sexuality not being about sex. This is one issue that it appears has caused concern in the gay community. Can I ask what is meant?

Is this reference to such as Eddie Izzard being able to say he is a lesbian when he is in "woman gender"? ie its same gender attraction not same sex? Or something else?

I know a couple for gay friends who don't subscribe to same gender attraction ideas and are genuinely upset by it

What I meant is that society has, for thousands of years, conflated sexuality with the sexual act. Criminalisation of gay men, for example, has usually focused on sodomy. That was illegal for all men in Scotland only 40 years ago.

Sexuality is not just about the sexual act. It's about love, companionship, emotional support, sexual behaviour.... and all the other things that one associates with one's own definition of relationship.

[500miles]

https://www.iflscience.com/brain/born-this-way-transgender-brains-show-similarity-to-those-of-their-desired-gender-from-a-young-age/all/

Sent from my SM-A505FN using Tapatalk

I read that article when Graham Linehan was having his breakdown. If I remember correctly, it was a very small study group and there were issues with control groups, blind testing and a particular issue among the research team regarding the plasticity of the brain during normal development.

Essentially, the challenging opinion was that the test groups had overlapping results, falling within the expected range of neuroplasticity.

In hindsight, it was the sort of research we need to be wary of after the stuff we on Facebook during covid.

[Hibrandenburg]

I read that article when Graham Linehan was having his breakdown. If I remember correctly, it was a very small study group and there were issues with control groups, blind testing and a particular issue among the research team regarding the plasticity of the brain during normal development.

Essentially, the challenging opinion was that the test groups had overlapping results, falling within the expected range of neuroplasticity.

In hindsight, it was the sort of research we need to be wary of after the stuff we on Facebook during covid.Nobody is claiming this is irrefutable evidence that there's a biological spectrum of gender, but the more studies that are carried out and with advances is medical science I'm sure we'll find it.

Sent from my SM-A505FN using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

That was my point. She's commenting on Susan Dalgety's article which is highlighting the fears many women rightly harbour around this over-hasty legislation.

Are you saying that trans people don't have rights too?

[Moulin Yarns]

That was my point. She's commenting on Susan Dalgety's article which is highlighting the fears many women rightly harbour around this over-hasty legislation.

I should add, the Republic of Ireland already has this legislation in place with no problems!!!

[CropleyWasGod]

I should add, the Republic of Ireland already has this legislation in place with no problems!!!

Wanted to make a point about that piece.

Whilst it's a great lesson to us, what surprised me was the low number affected, less than 900? I wonder if the influence of the Church has discouraged many from transition.

[James310]

I should add, the Republic of Ireland already has this legislation in place with no problems!!!

No problems, what are you basing that on exactly? Anything in particular you have seen or read?

This story sounds like a problem, yes its only one but its a bit of a sweeping statement to say there has been no problems.

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/teenager-in-custody-charged-with-threats-to-kill-two-people-39563823.html


Self ID was introduced in Ireland alongside side other legislation and the Irish people in a recent poll were found to be against the changes introduced.

https://thecountess.ie/first-irish-public-poll-on-gender-debate/


SELF-IDENTIFICATION

The results also revealed that while half of adults believe that people should have the right to change their sex on their birth certificate, most of them feel this should only be permitted once some action has been taken towards gender reassignment via hormones or surgery.

Fewer than one in five (17%) respondents agreed with the law as it currently stands that a person should be allowed to change their birth certificate as soon as they self-identify as the opposite sex.

34% thought it should be permitted once a person has partially or fully transitioned through hormone treatment and/or genital surgery.

28% of people said individuals should not be allowed to change sex on their birth certificate at all.

[Moulin Yarns]

No problems, what are you basing that on exactly? Anything in particular you have seen or read?

This story sounds like a problem, yes its only one but its a bit of a sweeping statement to say there has been no problems.

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/teenager-in-custody-charged-with-threats-to-kill-two-people-39563823.html


Self ID was introduced in Ireland alongside side other legislation and the Irish people in a recent poll were found to be against the changes introduced.

https://thecountess.ie/first-irish-public-poll-on-gender-debate/


SELF-IDENTIFICATION

The results also revealed that while half of adults believe that people should have the right to change their sex on their birth certificate, most of them feel this should only be permitted once some action has been taken towards gender reassignment via hormones or surgery.

Fewer than one in five (17%) respondents agreed with the law as it currently stands that a person should be allowed to change their birth certificate as soon as they self-identify as the opposite sex.

34% thought it should be permitted once a person has partially or fully transitioned through hormone treatment and/or genital surgery.

28% of people said individuals should not be allowed to change sex on their birth certificate at all.

See my link to stv earlier today.

On the self Id. I know a trans man in Scotland currently undergoing the full, traumatic hormone and surgical procedure and don't doubt he will be pleased to read this 🙄

[James310]

See my link to stv earlier today.

On the self Id. I know a trans man in Scotland currently undergoing the full, traumatic hormone and surgical procedure and don't doubt he will be pleased to read this 🙄

I read that and saw the report on the news at the time, where does it say there is no problems at all with it? I see the reporter spoke to a number of people and found no issues, that's not the same as no problems at all which I think is quite a sweeping statement, that's all.

What exactly do you mean "reading this" what's that, the opinion poll of Irish people or the factual news story? Sorry, unsure what you meant.

[Moulin Yarns]

I read that and saw the report on the news at the time, where does it say there is no problems at all with it? I see the reporter spoke to a number of people and found no issues, that's not the same as no problems at all which I think is quite a sweeping statement, that's all.

What exactly do you mean "reading this" what's that, the opinion poll of Irish people or the factual news story? Sorry, unsure what you meant.

The percentage people with differing opinion.

He moved from the south of England to the east coast of Scotland because he knew that it was going to be an easier transition here compared to at home in Sussex. He posts on YouTube about things we are both interested in, he changed his pronoun before Christmas and has been very open about the whole thing.

I think this thread has gone away from the whole issue of trans rights to support the view that women will be impacted more than trans people because of the reform and I want to bring some balance back.

[500miles]

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainment/music/don-t-bother-applying-for-a-job-if-you-think-people-can-t-change-sex-nhs-trust-tells-health-official/ar-AAUgzMG?ocid=entnewsntp

This is where we are heading.

"Kate Grimes, who has a history of transforming troubled hospitals, was told not to waste her time applying for the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust as her belief in biological sex was “not a viewpoint” they want.
The Tavistock has now been accused of breaking equality law by discriminating against those with gender-critical beliefs, just months after the appeal court ruled it was protected under the Equality Act".

In a letter to the Health Secretary, Ms Grimes said that the trust was “exacerbating its governance failures – and breaking the law – by refusing to interview anyone who believes biological sex cannot be changed”.

Excluding those with gender-critical beliefs created “a very significant danger of skewed thinking” and if it was applied across the trust then it would be “indoctrination at an organisational level”, she said. Ms Grimes told the Telegraph that patient safety was at risk if “clinicians are working from a belief system rather than evidence-based care”.

She said that it was “perfectly possible to support and care for children with gender dysphoria without believing it is literally possible to change biological sex”.

“I believe that there are only two sexes and that sex is immutable. While I fully respect trans people’s right to live their lives free from discrimination, I do not believe that they can literally change sex”, she wrote.

In the reply, seen by this newspaper and sent to Mr Javid, she was told not to waste time applying as “your views on sex being immutable is not a viewpoint that the trust would wish any of their non-executives to hold”.

The senior consultant added that it would be “one of the questions I will be asking candidates at first stage interview”.

Peter Daly, an employment lawyer at Doyle Clayton who acted in the recent appeal in which it was clarified that gender-critical beliefs are a protected, said: “The belief that sex is immutable is a central aspect of those beliefs.

“An employer which refuses to employ somebody because they hold gender critical beliefs is acting unlawfully in precisely the same way as it would be unlawful to refuse to employ someone because of their age, race, sex, disability or gender reassignment status.”

There's a strong whiff of a kind of gender cultism there.

I mean you can't change SEX. You may be able to change gender, if you believe that exists as separate from sex, but the idea of literally changing sex is delusion. We are what we are, and the need to deny, control or change that is indicitive of a broader problem I think.

[superfurryhibby]

There's a strong whiff of a kind of gender cultism there.

I mean you can't change SEX. You may be able to change gender, if you believe that exists as separate from sex, but the idea of literally changing sex is delusion. We are what we are, and the need to deny, control or change that is indicitive of a broader problem I think.

If people have gender reassignment surgery and an on-going chemical cocktail, is that not literally changing sex?

[500miles]

If people have gender reassignment surgery and an on-going chemical cocktail, is that not literally changing sex?

No, sex simply a descriptor of if someone's body is developed to produce large or small gametes. The bodies may develop incorrectly - like klinefelters, or chemo could destroy your bodies capacity to produce healthy sperms- but the vast vast majority of processes and organs are still there and functional.

[superfurryhibby]

No, sex simply a descriptor of if someone's body is developed to produce large or small gametes. The bodies may develop incorrectly - like klinefelters, or chemo could destroy your bodies capacity to produce healthy sperms- but the vast vast majority of processes and organs are still there and functional.

I’m not a fan of biological determinism :wink:, but fair enough, nature does as nature does.

[500miles]

I’m not a fan of biological determinism :wink:, but fair enough, nature does as nature does.

Nor am I - but I'm not suggesting behaviour is solely tied to biology. That's where there is space for an understanding of "gender" separate from sex.


However height, blood type, eye color and sex absolutely is tied to pre determined biology.

[CropleyWasGod]

This is an interesting thread.

https://twitter.com/MhairiHunter/status/1500776870132043777?s=20&t=_oEgApPHNkCJK0c-yvShtQ

It takes the view that the "safe spaces for women" argument is not relevant in the debate around the GRA. That it's already covered by the Equality Act, which will not change.

Here's a graphic from that thread.:-

25645

[LewysGot2]

If people have gender reassignment surgery and an on-going chemical cocktail, is that not literally changing sex?

No, your sex is expressed in the genetic coding in every single cell in your body. Sir Prof Robert Winston, the eminent reproductive biologist of our time, explained quite simply and categorically on Question Time last year.

All the health related issues connected to your natal sex observed at birth remain even with change of gender.

And, the physical advantages or disadvantages of your puberty remain regardless of hormone levels. Lung capacity, muscle and bone density, height, skeleton and so on in terms of the inclusion of trans athletes in female sport.

Google Lia Thomas for a current example. Physically fully an in tact male with all the advantages of male puberty. Testosterone levels still way above the doping limits for natal female competitors who would be banned if swimming with the levels Lia Thomas has still.

[LewysGot2]

No, sex simply a descriptor of if someone's body is developed to produce large or small gametes. The bodies may develop incorrectly - like klinefelters, or chemo could destroy your bodies capacity to produce healthy sperms- but the vast vast majority of processes and organs are still there and functional.

This 👍

[500miles]

This is an interesting thread.

https://twitter.com/MhairiHunter/status/1500776870132043777?s=20&t=_oEgApPHNkCJK0c-yvShtQ

It takes the view that the "safe spaces for women" argument is not relevant in the debate around the GRA. That it's already covered by the Equality Act, which will not change.

Here's a graphic from that thread.:-

25645

I do object to the changing of SEX on official documents. It conflates sex and gender and I think that moves us further away from a consistent, reality based position.

I know why trans people would want it changed though. The reality isn't kind when you're suffering dysphoria. It may be more helpful to have "Gender" on passports etc. anyway given it is a form of photo ID. Not for birth certificates though

[superfurryhibby]

This is an interesting thread.

https://twitter.com/MhairiHunter/status/1500776870132043777?s=20&t=_oEgApPHNkCJK0c-yvShtQ

It takes the view that the "safe spaces for women" argument is not relevant in the debate around the GRA. That it's already covered by the Equality Act, which will not change.

Here's a graphic from that thread.:-

25645

Mhairi Walker, ahem, |Hunter mustn't have read this thread and what I posted about the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre. She's dismissing those who have concerns around the integrity of safe spaces for women, yet we know that this has been compromised already. How out of touch is she........?

[Moulin Yarns]

Mhairi Walker mustn't have read this thread and what I posted about the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre.

Doesn't matter if Mhairi Walker read it or not, but the bit that CWG posted is from Mhairi Hunter 😂

[Moulin Yarns]

This is an interesting thread.

https://twitter.com/MhairiHunter/status/1500776870132043777?s=20&t=_oEgApPHNkCJK0c-yvShtQ

It takes the view that the "safe spaces for women" argument is not relevant in the debate around the GRA. That it's already covered by the Equality Act, which will not change.

Here's a graphic from that thread.:-

25645

Cheers CWG.

[He's here!]

Are you saying that trans people don't have rights too?

No. Where have I even implied that?

[James310]

JK Rowling replies to Mhairi Hunter.

https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1500865487621742596?t=9qy8griIWS30PTF7r5aQpg&s=19

[JeMeSouviens]

“What did you do in the great pronoun war?”, my grandchildren will ask me. “I largely could not be arsed,” will be my reply.

-- Suzanne Moore

[superfurryhibby]

JK Rowling replies to Mhairi Hunter.

https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1500865487621742596?t=9qy8griIWS30PTF7r5aQpg&s=19

Totally in agreement with the point JK Rowling is making.

A few short days after
@ShonaRobison
claimed there’s no evidence predators have ‘ever had to pretend to be anything else,’
@MhairiHunter
tells concerned women that the way to address their concerns is to pass the legislation they have concerns about.

[Crunchie]

No. Where have I even implied that?
You haven't, he just likes spinning yarns.

[500miles]

Nobody is claiming this is irrefutable evidence that there's a biological spectrum of gender, but the more studies that are carried out and with advances is medical science I'm sure we'll find it.

Sent from my SM-A505FN using Tapatalk

You seem to have a conclusion before the research and testing, which is a dangerous position to take in any medical field.

[He's here!]

'What JK Rowling can teach Nicola Sturgeon about gender'

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/what-nicola-sturgeon-can-learn-from-jk-rowling-on-the-gender-debate?utm_medium=email&utm_source=CampaignMonitor_Editorial&utm_campaign=BLND%20%2020220307%20%20House%20Ads%2 0%20IH+CID_f58c24dcf1cff8df9bba7a81fda6762c

[superfurryhibby]

Looks like the judiciary are tying themselves up in knots over these issues too.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57426579

Effectively sacked because of her views that people cannot change their biological sex, loses her case at Tribunal and then wins on appeal.

Monica Kurnatowska, employment partner at law firm Baker McKenzie, said the ruling meant that "individuals are entitled not to be discriminated against because of gender critical beliefs... and gives those beliefs the same legal protection as religious beliefs, environmental beliefs and ethical veganism".

"Employers will be watching closely for any guidance on how to handle employee conflict fairly and lawfully, while respecting the rights of all involved," she added.

Lui Asquith, director of legal and policy at Mermaids, a charity that supports transgender, non-binary and gender-diverse children and young people, said: "This is not the win anti-trans campaigners will suggest in the coming days.

"We, as trans people, are protected by equality law and this decision in the Maya Forstater case does not give anyone the right to unlawfully harass, intimidate, abuse or discriminate against us because we are trans."

[heretoday]

What a load of old nonsense. There are more important issues facing humanity, I would suggest. Once Mr Putin has finished his project none of us will have any bollox, never mind what you were born with.

[Hibrandenburg]

You seem to have a conclusion before the research and testing, which is a dangerous position to take in any medical field.I think you might be severely overestimating the power of my opinion.

Sent from my SM-A505FN using Tapatalk

[500miles]

I think you might be severely overestimating the power of my opinion.

Sent from my SM-A505FN using Tapatalk

I'm suggesting that an organisation which sets out entirely to come to the conclusion that the brain is gendered, rather than how it relates to ideas of gender, or how it develops in relation to sex, could skew - even unintentionally - findings to fall in line with a desired outcome.

I'd also argue that this starting position creates a gap where there needn't be one between people who are not convinced about the substance of gender identity and people who are trans and gender non conforming.

To make a possibly crass comparison, it turns one side into zealots and the other into infidels.

[One Day Soon]

I have a question.

If someone identifies as female having been born male - and whether they then have gender re-assignment therapy or not - are they given the subsequent medical treatment for any ailments they may develop throughout life as though they were female or as though they were male?

As an adjunct to this, I presume they would continue to be screened for eg prostate cancer?

[CropleyWasGod]

I have a question.

If someone identifies as female having been born male - and whether they then have gender re-assignment therapy or not - are they given the subsequent medical treatment for any ailments they may develop throughout life as though they were female or as though they were male?

As an adjunct to this, I presume they would continue to be screened for eg prostate cancer?

Trans women can get prostate cancer, although it is rare.

Trans men can get cervical cancer, unless they have had a hysterectomy.

[LewysGot2]

https://twitter.com/adhib/status/1501223986038034439


Interesting thread…

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/robdunsmore/status/1502295684166438915?s=21

This is amazing. Hope this guy gets a job on BT2.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[He's here!]

https://twitter.com/adhib/status/1501223986038034439


Interesting thread…

A lot to wade through there on a Saturday morning but much to agree with.

[He's here!]

https://news.sky.com/story/jk-rowling-accuses-keir-starmer-of-misrepresenting-equalities-law-on-trans-women-12564477

[Mr Grieves]

https://news.sky.com/story/jk-rowling-accuses-keir-starmer-of-misrepresenting-equalities-law-on-trans-women-12564477


The author then said: "I don't think our politicians have the slightest idea how much anger is building among women from all walks of life at the attempts to threaten and intimidate them out of speaking publicly about their own rights, their own bodies and their own lives.

"Among the thousands of letters and emails I've received are disillusioned members of Labour, the Greens, the Lib Dems and the SNP. Women are scared, outraged and angry at the deaf ear turned to their well-founded concerns. But women are organising."


When you read that you'd think the vast majority of women have similar views to JK Rowling but recent polling suggests otherwise :dunno:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-60214574.amp

[Stairway 2 7]

When you read that you'd think the vast majority of women have similar views to JK Rowling but recent polling suggests otherwise :dunno:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-60214574.amp
In that poll most
don't want to decrease the time a person must live in acquired gender
don't want to reduce age to 16
Don't want people to use toilets until after surgery
Oppose hormone blockers to children
Opposed children living as a different gender at school without parents permission.

On the actual decision if they can self identify full stop it 40 for 38 against

Seems Scotland is more old fashioned than i though

[Moulin Yarns]

When you read that you'd think the vast majority of women have similar views to JK Rowling but recent polling suggests otherwise :dunno:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-60214574.amp

63% of women agree that it should be made easier to get a GRC. Rowling does not speak for all women but gets a lot of air time.

[LewysGot2]

When you read that you'd think the vast majority of women have similar views to JK Rowling but recent polling suggests otherwise :dunno:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-60214574.amp
The response to these kind of polls from women varies greatly with whether they believe it to mean male bodied people who have had surgery or whether they remain fully intact male bodied. If its the former there are more positive responses but when it is framed as the latter the responses change and women respond far less favourably.

The debate has stayed in Twitter land and the wider general public are not really up to speed. It's also very polarised.


I was speaking to a friend concerned about teenagers who are vulnerable being able to undergo serious medical intervention that they may well live to regret because they are struggling with the reality of puberty and are looking for answers to how they feel. They asked what would we do if an anorexic teen said they were unhappy with their body - would we affirm those feelings like we are told affirming those who believe they are born in the wrong body?

Would we say, on you go, starve yourself?

They questioned why then puberty blockers, breast binders, top surgery etc is acceptable. Yesterday was detransition awareness day. The accounts I read from detransitioned young adults were very sad. Such a very complex but serious issue

[He's here!]

The response to these kind of polls from women varies greatly with whether they believe it to mean male bodied people who have had surgery or whether they remain fully intact male bodied. If its the former there are more positive responses but when it is framed as the latter the responses change and women respond far less favourably.

It's also unrelated to the concerns Rowling so correctly raises. She's not anti-trans, a point those who vilify her tend to miss.

[Ozyhibby]

This is such a niche issue I doubt it moves more than a handful of votes either way in any election.
And like any issue in Scotland, the only reason it’s getting amplified is because the two Indy parties are promoting it so the unionists have decided to oppose it. And you can see that even on this thread. It’s quite sad really as it is a complex issue for a tiny amount of people and they don’t really need it being weaponised in the Indy debate.
It’s like Celtic and Sevco fans waiting to see which side of any conflict the other set of fans are about to take so that they can oppose them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[500miles]

63% of women agree that it should be made easier to get a GRC. Rowling does not speak for all women but gets a lot of air time.

Further down the article it shows that there's very little agreement on what that means.

There are financial costs, for example, which I believe should be removed entirely once the patient and doctors have approved transition.

We have no definitive idea of what it means to be trans, and the there will be plenty of general support for trans people
as vulnerable and discriminated against minorities, followed with "oh, im not sure you should be able to do THAT" when discussing what rights we think trans people should have.