The Trans Rights Debate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

https://thecritic.co.uk/a-very-seditious-scarf/

---

That's been discussed pages ago.

I think it was wrong, and don't know who made the decision, but, as I understand it, the colours have been misappropriated by the TERF movement


https://xtramagazine.com/power/terf-canada-election-explainer-206866


So when you see purple, green and white together, you might immediately associate it with some sort of queer or gender terminology. (In fact, the colours made up the genderqueer flag long before they were consistently used by transphobic women’s groups.) But just as they ruined any positive associations we have with a certain bespectacled wizard, anti-trans activists ruined these colours, too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

That's been discussed pages ago.

I think it was wrong, and don't know who made the decision, but, as I understand it, the colours have been misappropriated by the TERF movement


https://xtramagazine.com/power/terf-canada-election-explainer-206866


So when you see purple, green and white together, you might immediately associate it with some sort of queer or gender terminology. (In fact, the colours made up the genderqueer flag long before they were consistently used by transphobic women’s groups.) But just as they ruined any positive associations we have with a certain bespectacled wizard, anti-trans activists ruined these colours, too.

---

Once again with the "transphobic" " anti trans". Somehow now if you have a different opinion on the issue your transphobic, nonsense. You might agree or disagree but it's a valid non bigoted opinion to think women should have female only spaces or teans women are not women

https://www.facebook.com/10006471297...GHH3DgjXa5SEl/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

That's been discussed pages ago.

I think it was wrong, and don't know who made the decision, but, as I understand it, the colours have been misappropriated by the TERF movement


https://xtramagazine.com/power/terf-...plainer-206866


So when you see purple, green and white together, you might immediately associate it with some sort of queer or gender terminology. (In fact, the colours made up the genderqueer flag long before they were consistently used by transphobic women’s groups.) But just as they ruined any positive associations we have with a certain bespectacled wizard, anti-trans activists ruined these colours, too.

---

You seem to be sailing close to the wind when using the language of hate quite a bit yourself, all too readily dismissing opposing views as anti-trans and transphobic when in reality pretty much everyone responding on here knows they are nothing of the kind.

Personally, I find the term and labelling of women's rights groups as "TERF" to be discriminatory and unacceptable. I suppose it would be a bit like me referring to trans rights activists as misogynistic trans advocates or trans right supporting woman haters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

https://www.facebook.com/10006471297...GHH3DgjXa5SEl/

---

I see you are very commited to this. Just out of interest, can you tell me how many lives were lost to transgender hatred in the last year?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

I see you are very commited to this. Just out of interest, can you tell me how many lives were lost to transgender hatred in the last year?

---

Lower rate of murder than the general population, but figures are too low to be significant. That's not to say they don't face discrimination, as I'm sure they do

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-how-many-trans-people-murdered-uk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

That's been discussed pages ago.

I think it was wrong, and don't know who made the decision, but, as I understand it, the colours have been misappropriated by the TERF movement


https://xtramagazine.com/power/terf-canada-election-explainer-206866


So when you see purple, green and white together, you might immediately associate it with some sort of queer or gender terminology. (In fact, the colours made up the genderqueer flag long before they were consistently used by transphobic women’s groups.) But just as they ruined any positive associations we have with a certain bespectacled wizard, anti-trans activists ruined these colours, too.

---

I'm not posting it as news. It's a comment piece which IMHO gets to the heart of why Sturgeon has lost her way on this issue.

Re Harry Potter, the principled stance taken by J K Rowling (who is not, incidentally, an 'anti-trans activist') has actually enhanced my respect for her work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

Lower rate of murder than the general population, but figures are too low to be significant. That's not to say they don't face discrimination, as I'm sure they do

https://www.channel4.com/news/factch...le-murdered-uk

---

Firstly, it's awful to weaponise deaths and assaults of anyone. But to have a solemn day of commemoration when no one actully knows if anyone has actually died as a result of being trans strikes me as a bit of creating a narrative to support wider calls for change, rather than a genuine commemoration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

Firstly, it's awful to weaponise deaths and assaults of anyone. But to have a solemn day of commemoration when no one actully knows if anyone has actually died as a result of being trans strikes me as a bit of creating a narrative to support wider calls for change, rather than a genuine commemoration.

---

This might help.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiewa...records-began/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

This might help.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiewa...records-began/

---

It is (of course) contested https://www.queermajority.com/curren...and-trans-life I have no idea of what is true here, but I suspect it's difficult to pin down data, causality etc. I saw a set of figures that suggested the figure for the UK was 1 in the last four years. A tragedy for sure, but worthy of a day of rememberence?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

This might help.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiewa...records-began/

---

Its impossible to put up a list and make a reading from it unfortunately. If the majority of the deaths are in South America, what is the rate of deaths of sex workers there. Probably a good example of needing legalised safe sex work. I read the first 20 or so on the list and many are deaths from domestic abuse, should that be on the list. I think adding any trans person that has been murdered in the list diminishes the vile stoning of a person further down the list

Certainly thankfully the murder of trans people for being trans is almost non existent in Europe. I'm sure discrimination is huge though.

There's also this, for England & Wales.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-b2196759.html

In terms of transphobia, it might be a better guide of its insidious nature.

Again, there are disturbing echoes of the queer-bashing of the 70s and 80s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

There's also this, for England & Wales.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-b2196759.html

In terms of transphobia, it might be a better guide of its insidious nature.

Again, there are disturbing echoes of the queer-bashing of the 70s and 80s.

---

The rise appears to be largely driven by social media commentary. Not that it's irrelevant, but there is an extraordinarily wide definition of what 'hate' is in this context. Some argue that legitimate questions are being characterised unfairly as hate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

The rise appears to be largely driven by social media commentary. Not that it's irrelevant, but there is an extraordinarily wide definition of what 'hate' is in this context. Some argue that legitimate questions are being characterised unfairly as hate.

---

On the flip-side, those numbers reflect reported incidents. With any marginalised group (eg sex workers, LGB in past times)..... and, of course, with sexual assault.... there's often a reluctance to engage with what's seen as the establishment. There will be a lot that is unreported.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

On the flip-side, those numbers reflect reported incidents. With any marginalised group (eg sex workers, LGB in past times)..... and, of course, with sexual assault.... there's often a reluctance to engage with what's seen as the establishment. There will be a lot that is unreported.

---

I don't disagree with you on this. I'm not convinced, however, that a day of remembrance is entirely sincere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

I don't disagree with you on this. I'm not convinced, however, that a day of remembrance is entirely sincere.

---

You are aware this is a global day of remembrance, not just for the UK.?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

You are aware this is a global day of remembrance, not just for the UK.?

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

https://www.facebook.com/10006471297...GHH3DgjXa5SEl/

---

The full text. Note the second part!



Tonight, Perth's Smeaton Bridge will be lit blue, pink and white to mark Transgender Day of Remembrance.

This annual Remembrance Day is to remember lives who have been sadly lost due to anti-transgender hatred and violence and to help raise visibility for transgender people and address issues the community faces.

——————————

Commenting on this post has been turned off. Sadly comments made by a minority of people show why awareness days like this continue to be necessary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

That's been discussed pages ago.

I think it was wrong, and don't know who made the decision, but, as I understand it, the colours have been misappropriated by the TERF movement


https://xtramagazine.com/power/terf-...plainer-206866


So when you see purple, green and white together, you might immediately associate it with some sort of queer or gender terminology. (In fact, the colours made up the genderqueer flag long before they were consistently used by transphobic women’s groups.) But just as they ruined any positive associations we have with a certain bespectacled wizard, anti-trans activists ruined these colours, too.

---

However, JK Rowling has never said anything transphobic, it's not trans people that deny the reality of biological sex and send hate mail and death threats to her, it's trans activist that claim to speak on their behalf that do this. For most trans people if there is no such thing as biological sex there is no such thing as trans, this is why the trans allies, who are themselves not trans are making things worse for actual trans people, who just want to get on with their life's.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyzZ3J6IG6s

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

The full text. Note the second part!



Tonight, Perth's Smeaton Bridge will be lit blue, pink and white to mark Transgender Day of Remembrance.

This annual Remembrance Day is to remember lives who have been sadly lost due to anti-transgender hatred and violence and to help raise visibility for transgender people and address issues the community faces.

——————————

Commenting on this post has been turned off. Sadly comments made by a minority of people show why awareness days like this continue to be necessary.

---

So it's actually about the agenda rather than rememberance.

Irvine Welsh's take: https://twitter.com/IrvineWelsh/stat...03048877391872

https://twitter.com/LucyHunterB/stat...0UBsHGx7w&s=19

The legislation does sound like a mess, apparently it will be a crime to lie about living in your acquired gender, yet no definition of what living in your acquired gender is. So how does that work?

You will be punished if you drive over the speed limit, but we can't tell you what the speed limit is.

This is what happens when legislation is rushed and the desire to push a policy over everything else, you end up with rubbish legislation. (See Named Person legislation which was deemed illegal and dropped at a cost of millions)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

https://twitter.com/LucyHunterB/stat...0UBsHGx7w&s=19

---

Thanks for posting this, it is a very interesting read that exposes the level of unthinking of Nicola Sturgeon's GRA, it seems like the question of what happens if a sex offender registers or the implications for woman in prisons or domestic violence refuges has not been thought about or debated in the rush to push through Gender Self ID in what can only be described as a giant virtue signal by Nicola Sturgeon to look good rather than do good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

So it's actually about the agenda rather than rememberance.

---

This is from the European Sex Workers Alliance, with whom I occasionally work. They don't mention deaths,but the remembrance of those who have suffered harm.

November 20 is the Transgender Day of Remembrance (TDoR), a day to memorialise those who have been victims of transphobia and homophobia. On this day, we, the activists fighting for the trans people’ rights, are trying to draw the public attention to discrimination, violence, hate speech, and injustice towards the community members.

From January to November 2022, we collected 94 cases of hate crimes against transgender people, including physical and psychological violence, destruction of property, rape, extortion, robbery, disclosure of personal information and kidnapping; the cases were committed both by family members, colleagues, friends of transgender people, and public officials.

It should be noted that during the recent months, the “Right Side” Human Rights Defender NGO has been working in an emergency situation, trying to respond to the increased cases of violence, discrimination, hate speech and hate crimes against transgender people, doing everything possible to ensure the safety and well-being of the trans community.
#TDOR2022

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

https://twitter.com/LucyHunterB/stat...0UBsHGx7w&s=19

---

There's a lot been added to that since you first posted the link. It's strong stuff and bang on the money when it comes to outlining how Sturgeon has lost the plot on this.

UN intervenes https://twitter.com/UNSRVAW/status/1595336668499902464

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

UN intervenes https://twitter.com/UNSRVAW/status/1595336668499902464

---

That's a hefty letter to put it mildly. I'll attempt to wade through it later.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-63730621

BBC have the UN intervention story. Easier to read than the full letter!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

UN intervenes https://twitter.com/UNSRVAW/status/1595336668499902464

---

Given that the report is made to HMG, it will be interesting to see what they do with it. After all, it is a devolved matter.

I skim read the report and I see that there is very little (no?) reference to international evidence from the 30 odd countries that have GRC. I've asked before on this thread, with no success.... does either side have any?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Given that the report is made to HMG, it will be interesting to see what they do with it. After all, it is a devolved matter.

I skim read the report and I see that there is very little (no?) reference to international evidence from the 30 odd countries that have GRC. I've asked before on this thread, with no success.... does either side have any?

---

I guess it went to HMG as the member state. I assume they will pass to SG with some glee.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

I guess it went to HMG as the member state. I assume they will pass to SG with some glee.

---

They'll also photocopy bits of it, since it's their turn next:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Given that the report is made to HMG, it will be interesting to see what they do with it. After all, it is a devolved matter.

I skim read the report and I see that there is very little (no?) reference to international evidence from the 30 odd countries that have GRC. I've asked before on this thread, with no success.... does either side have any?

---

On your evidence point I suspect it's too early to have proper peer reviewed research.

An interested take on the level of unthinking in Gender Self ID suggesting it's all about virtue signaling

https://www.spiked-online.com/video/...trans-crusade/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

On your evidence point I suspect it's too early to have proper peer reviewed research.

---

Fair point.

I have another question, not necessarily aimed at you, but for those who seem to be all over the Bill.

Is there provision for review after a set period of time? IMO , the best practice in societal-change issues such as this is to have that. That way, any unintended consequences can be assessed and the legislation changed, if appropriate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Fair point.

I have another question, not necessarily aimed at you, but for those who seem to be all over the Bill.

Is there provision for review after a set period of time? IMO , the best practice in societal-change issues such as this is to have that. That way, any unintended consequences can be assessed and the legislation changed, if appropriate.

---

Interesting point re review. That doesn't, in itself, mean that issues arising would be addressed. Another approach would be to put a 'sunset clause' in the legislation. I suspect that would be very unpopular with proponents of the legislation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

Interesting point re review. That doesn't, in itself, mean that issues arising would be addressed. Another approach would be to put a 'sunset clause' in the legislation. I suspect that would be very unpopular with proponents of the legislation.

---

As it turns out, a review has been recommended.... just yesterday. They must have read this page :)

https://www.scottishtrans.org/final-amendments-on-gender-recognition-reform-scotland-bill-at-stage-two/

A smart move IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Ad it turns out, a review has been recommended.... just yesterday. They must have read this page :)

https://www.scottishtrans.org/final-...-at-stage-two/

A smart move IMO.

---

It's certainly a politically smart move.

Ash Regan's column for the Times yesterday:

A few weeks ago I found myself in a strange predicament. Despite being a loyal minister of many years standing, my conscience would not allow me to vote with the government on gender reform. Yesterday the Gender Recognition Reform Bill passed its second stage of scrutiny virtually unamended in any substantive way.
I am not against reform in this area but any reforms must protect the rights of everyone. In my view the key areas of concern are the implications for children’s health, women’s rights and safeguarding.
Children considering transitioning often need mental health support, and a “wait and see” approach can work well. Social transition can too easily lead to a medicalised pathway — of untested puberty blockers, sex hormones and even surgery, all of which come with physical health risks, loss of sexual function and even sterility. As a society we do not let children make choices with such far-reaching consequences.
Amendments that could have prevented those on the sex offenders register from obtaining a gender recognition certificate (GRC) and strengthened the law on single sex prison allocation were voted down or withdrawn. Many public institutions in Scotland are already operating a de facto self-ID policy which is questionable as this is prior to the law being changed.
A recent example is Katie Dolatowski, a trans-identified male and convicted sex offender who is in prison for physical assault and has just been moved from Polmont (where Dolatowski had assaulted a male inmate) to Cornton Vale Prison, which is part of Scotland’s female prison estate. Questions are rightly being asked about the risk posed to female prisoners and staff.
We have single-sex prisons for a reason. The law should support the Scottish Prison Service to hold prisoners according to the risk they present, no matter how they identify. Violent sex offenders have no place in the women’s estate.
Women’s single-sex spaces for privacy, safety or therapeutic purposes are enshrined in the Equality Act 2010. These important protections will be impossible to uphold when anyone can decide they are a woman and have a GRC to prove their legal status.
If this bill is to be enacted, there needs to be clear guidance for institutions and business to ensure they operate within the law. There are so many unanswered questions. More clarity is required so that we understand the impact this change in the law will have on all of us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

Ash Regan's column for the Times yesterday:

A few weeks ago I found myself in a strange predicament. Despite being a loyal minister of many years standing, my conscience would not allow me to vote with the government on gender reform. Yesterday the Gender Recognition Reform Bill passed its second stage of scrutiny virtually unamended in any substantive way.
I am not against reform in this area but any reforms must protect the rights of everyone. In my view the key areas of concern are the implications for children’s health, women’s rights and safeguarding.
Children considering transitioning often need mental health support, and a “wait and see” approach can work well. Social transition can too easily lead to a medicalised pathway — of untested puberty blockers, sex hormones and even surgery, all of which come with physical health risks, loss of sexual function and even sterility. As a society we do not let children make choices with such far-reaching consequences.
Amendments that could have prevented those on the sex offenders register from obtaining a gender recognition certificate (GRC) and strengthened the law on single sex prison allocation were voted down or withdrawn. Many public institutions in Scotland are already operating a de facto self-ID policy which is questionable as this is prior to the law being changed.
A recent example is Katie Dolatowski, a trans-identified male and convicted sex offender who is in prison for physical assault and has just been moved from Polmont (where Dolatowski had assaulted a male inmate) to Cornton Vale Prison, which is part of Scotland’s female prison estate. Questions are rightly being asked about the risk posed to female prisoners and staff.
We have single-sex prisons for a reason. The law should support the Scottish Prison Service to hold prisoners according to the risk they present, no matter how they identify. Violent sex offenders have no place in the women’s estate.
Women’s single-sex spaces for privacy, safety or therapeutic purposes are enshrined in the Equality Act 2010. These important protections will be impossible to uphold when anyone can decide they are a woman and have a GRC to prove their legal status.
If this bill is to be enacted, there needs to be clear guidance for institutions and business to ensure they operate within the law. There are so many unanswered questions. More clarity is required so that we understand the impact this change in the law will have on all of us.

---

Reasoned and thoughtful.

No doubt someone somewhere will shout “bigot”

The intolerance of the moral high ground where reasoned debate is shut down. It’s like a new religion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LewysGot2

Reasoned and thoughtful.

No doubt someone somewhere will shout “bigot”

The intolerance of the moral high ground where reasoned debate is shut down. It’s like a new religion.

---

Here's an exceptionally well-written piece from the Guardian today which not only addresses the concerns around women's safety but also those around gender dyshphoria and social transition. It lays bare Sturgeon's tin-headed refusal to listen to reason in favour of ploughing on regardless with what has become a dangerous vanity project:

Sturgeon’s plans to reform gender law could leave Tories as the champions of women’s rights | Sonia Sodha | The Guardian

"Sturgeon remains blinkered: she has ignored female victims of male violence, treated the concerns of the UN special rapporteur dismissively and failed to listen to young people who received appalling care from NHS Scotland and now regret their transition. Her implausible mantra remains that no man will abuse the system, women’s rights are not affected and evidence reviewed by an English paediatrician has no relevance to Scottish children."

JK Rowling attacks Labour over support for Nicola Sturgeon's gender bill (telegraph.co.uk)

Rowling says Scottish Labour have handed Tories an 'open goal on safeguarding women'. Echoes yesterday's Guardian comment piece.

Leaked report shows almost half of female Labour Party members do not support the bill.

https://news.sky.com/story/shame-on-...forms-12758613

'Nicola Sturgeon accidentally exposed to some freedom of speech'.

https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/statu...68739222474753 JK knows 😀

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Berwickhibby

https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/statu...68739222474753 JK knows 😀

---

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/11/30/jk-rowling-champagne-nicola-sturgeon-heckler-alexandra-darroch/

Apparently she has actually sent the heckler a case of wine.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/...f-transphobia/

'Is Nicola Sturgeon now guilty of transphobia?'

Massie has his say.

Interesting development.

https://www.amnesty.org.uk/blogs/sco...support-gender

Amnesty Scotland, Scottish Women's Aid, Engender, Rape Crisis Scotland, JustRight Scotland, Scottish Women's Rights Centre all restating their support for the current bill.

Their letter to the UN Special Rapporteur is interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Interesting development.

https://www.amnesty.org.uk/blogs/sco...support-gender

Amnesty Scotland, Scottish Women's Aid, Engender, Rape Crisis Scotland, JustRight Scotland, Scottish Women's Rights Centre all restating their support for the current bill.

Their letter to the UN Special Rapporteur is interesting.

---

Most of those organisations if not all get some or all their funding from the Scottish Government. I can imagine if they never supported it there would be consequences, funding might suddenly go elsewhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Interesting development.

https://www.amnesty.org.uk/blogs/sco...support-gender

Amnesty Scotland, Scottish Women's Aid, Engender, Rape Crisis Scotland, JustRight Scotland, Scottish Women's Rights Centre all restating their support for the current bill.

Their letter to the UN Special Rapporteur is interesting.

---

That's quite an endorsement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

Most of those organisations if not all get some or all their funding from the Scottish Government. I can imagine if they never supported it there would be consequences, funding might suddenly go elsewhere.

---

Yeah, I have seen those accusations.

I've been involved with organisations on the end of that kind of stuff in the past, and it's not pleasant. It's a sign that the debate has moved on from the facts and evidence, and has resorted to ad hominem attacks.

What is being suggested that every one of those organisations, with their collective experience over many decades, have decided that they will go against their actual beliefs and principles through 2 public consultations, a contentious parliamentary process (including, as they say, over 150 suggested amendments), and an emotive and widespread public debate, purely to protect some of their funding. And, in all that time, no whistle-blower or disgruntled current or ex-employee has said anything.

If that's what they have done, **** them. They deserve to get blasted.

However, as I/we always said to those who would make such accusations..... Prove it.

(they never did :cb)

Amnesty is a big business mouthpiece awash with Russian influence. Its a world away from where it was decades ago. They should have been defunded after their victim blaming and worse of Ukraine

https://www.politico.eu/article/amne...ort-wrong/amp/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

Most of those organisations if not all get some or all their funding from the Scottish Government. I can imagine if they never supported it there would be consequences, funding might suddenly go elsewhere.

---

I doubt if that would come in to the thinking of any of those organisations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Yeah, I have seen those accusations.

I've been involved with organisations on the end of that kind of stuff in the past, and it's not pleasant. It's a sign that the debate has moved on from the facts and evidence, and has resorted to ad hominem attacks.

What is being suggested that every one of those organisations, with their collective experience over many decades, have decided that they will go against their actual beliefs and principles through 2 public consultations, a contentious parliamentary process (including, as they say, over 150 suggested amendments), and an emotive and widespread public debate, purely to protect some of their funding. And, in all that time, no whistle-blower or disgruntled current or ex-employee has said anything.

If that's what they have done, **** them. They deserve to get blasted.

However, as I/we always said to those who would make such accusations..... Prove it.

(they never did :cb)

---

How are you going to prove that someone sides with where their wages comes from. Its not illegal it's natural.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marinello59

I doubt if that would come in to the thinking of any of those organisations.

---

3 of those listed were the ones embroiled in controversy for employing a trans female as their Edinburgh. They defended Mridul Wadhwa the head of a rape crisis centre who said “bigoted” survivors should have their “unacceptable beliefs” challenged as part of their recovery

The above listed are all very much on one side opposing the feminist groups

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marinello59

I doubt if that would come in to the thinking of any of those organisations.

---

I would certainly hope so but you never know.

"Charities across Scotland are being silenced by “gagging orders” that prevent them from criticising SNP policies or backing rival campaigns as part of contracts to receive state funding.

Two leading organisations have confirmed they face curbs on free speech under their government funding deal. Critics have said the SNP is “handcuffing charities”, but some groups have ignored the contractual obligation to refrain from engaging in party politics.

Shelter Scotland and Victim Support Scotland said that they were subject to restrictions. The Scottish government denies that contracts for grant funding prohibit charities from supporting campaigns and influencing policy. However, the terms in Victim Support Scotland’s funding letter say: “No part of the grant shall be used to fund any activity or material which is party political in intention, use, or presentation or appears to be designed to affect support for a political party."

And remember Devi Sridhar and others at the start of the pandemic saying experts feared being critical of the SNP incase they lost their funding.

I hope that doesn't come into it though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

How are you going to prove that someone sides with where their wages comes from. Its not illegal it's natural.

---

Like I say, if that is what happened, there will be people who know, people who work for them or who have worked for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Like I say, if that is what happened, there will be people who know, people who work for them or who have worked for them.

---

I'm not saying anything illegal or bribery. But it's surely obvious if you get funding and your job perhaps depends on it, your not subjective

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

I would certainly hope so but you never know.

"Charities across Scotland are being silenced by “gagging orders” that prevent them from criticising SNP policies or backing rival campaigns as part of contracts to receive state funding.

Two leading organisations have confirmed they face curbs on free speech under their government funding deal. Critics have said the SNP is “handcuffing charities”, but some groups have ignored the contractual obligation to refrain from engaging in party politics.

Shelter Scotland and Victim Support Scotland said that they were subject to restrictions. The Scottish government denies that contracts for grant funding prohibit charities from supporting campaigns and influencing policy. However, the terms in Victim Support Scotland’s funding letter say: “No part of the grant shall be used to fund any activity or material which is party political in intention, use, or presentation or appears to be designed to affect support for a political party."

And remember Devi Sridhar and others at the start of the pandemic saying experts feared being critical of the SNP incase they lost their funding.

I hope that doesn't come into it though.

---

We need to be careful what we are suggesting here. It's perfectly reasonable that a body receiving government funding should not use that funding for political (in its widest sense) campaigning. That's not the same as saying a body won't get funding if it is critical of the government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

I'm not saying anything illegal or bribery. But it's surely obvious if you get funding and your job perhaps depends on it, your not subjective

---

All it needs is one pissed-off former employee :cb

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Yeah, I have seen those accusations.

I've been involved with organisations on the end of that kind of stuff in the past, and it's not pleasant. It's a sign that the debate has moved on from the facts and evidence, and has resorted to ad hominem attacks.

What is being suggested that every one of those organisations, with their collective experience over many decades, have decided that they will go against their actual beliefs and principles through 2 public consultations, a contentious parliamentary process (including, as they say, over 150 suggested amendments), and an emotive and widespread public debate, purely to protect some of their funding. And, in all that time, no whistle-blower or disgruntled current or ex-employee has said anything.

If that's what they have done, **** them. They deserve to get blasted.

However, as I/we always said to those who would make such accusations..... Prove it.

(they never did :cb)

---

I think that your argument implies that there is the third sector and a separate group of politicians. The lines are, of course, much more blurred. Maggie Chapman, for example, had a prominent role in Rape Crisis Scotland which is at the heart of much of this controversy. I'm sure there are other examples.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

I think that your argument implies that there is the third sector and a separate group of politicians. The lines are, of course, much more blurred. Maggie Chapman, for example, had a prominent role in Rape Crisis Scotland which is at the heart of much of this controversy. I'm sure there are other examples.

---

It's not meant to imply that at all. I'm well aware of the intersection of politicians and charities, having worked with many over the years.

I'm railing against the social-media assumption that "they must be corrupt", with no evidence (so far) other than people's agendas. I do find it strange, though, that the stances of these 6 organisations have been in the public domain for a few years now, yet it's only now that the **** is flying. (But that is social media for you, of course :greengrin)

Like I say, if they have done what they are being accused of, they deserve everything that comes their way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

All it needs is one pissed-off former employee :cb

---

That doesn't make sense to the example I gave

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

It's not meant to imply that at all. I'm well aware of the intersection of politicians and charities, having worked with many over the years.

I'm railing against the social-media assumption that "they must be corrupt", with no evidence (so far) other than people's agendas. I do find it strange, though, that the stances of these 6 organisations have been in the public domain for a few years now, yet it's only now that the **** is flying.

Like I say, if they have done what they are being accused of, they deserve everything that comes their way.

---

The social media opinion isn't that they are corrupt. It that 3 of the named are very much the extreme end of the discussion and the opposite of the feminists stance. They employed a trans female to head Edinburgh rape crisis and then supported her abhorrent comments on re educating rape victims

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

It's not meant to imply that at all. I'm well aware of the intersection of politicians and charities, having worked with many over the years.

I'm railing against the social-media assumption that "they must be corrupt", with no evidence (so far) other than people's agendas. I do find it strange, though, that the stances of these 6 organisations have been in the public domain for a few years now, yet it's only now that the **** is flying. (But that is social media for you, of course :greengrin)

Like I say, if they have done what they are being accused of, they deserve everything that comes their way.

---

I actually don't think there is corruption. But I don't think there needs to be either. The alignment between the Government and these organisations isn't just money. It's a widely shared value base, which includes trans issues. Unfortunately it's an issue where it is very difficult to challenge. I hate to jump into anecdote but I have been told by two women in the sector recently that they would not dare raise concerns about the issue at work.That can't be right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

The social media opinion isn't that they are corrupt. It that 3 of the named are very much the extreme end of the discussion and the opposite of the feminists stance. They employed a trans female to head Edinburgh rape crisis and then supported her abhorrent comments on re educating rape victims

---

Just catching up on this now and you're dead tight. Hardly a surprise they are backing the bill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

The social media opinion isn't that they are corrupt. It that 3 of the named are very much the extreme end of the discussion and the opposite of the feminists stance. They employed a trans female to head Edinburgh rape crisis and then supported her abhorrent comments on re educating rape victims

---

Feminists stance? So you can't be a feminist and support the GRA? :hmmm:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

Just catching up on this now and you're dead tight. Hardly a surprise they are backing the bill.

---

So women's voices are only worth listening to when they agree with your point of view?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Grieves

Feminists stance? So you can't be a feminist and support the GRA? :hmmm:

---

I'm sure you could be, but I was talking about organisations. I've yet to see one (and I've seen a dozen) come out in support.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Grieves

So women's voices are only worth listening to when they agree with your point of view?

---

That's not what I said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

I'm sure you could be, but I was talking about organisations. I've yet to see one (and I've seen a dozen) come out in support.

---

I've perhaps misunderstood you here. Are you saying that Engender and SWA, for example, aren't feminist?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

I've perhaps misunderstood you here. Are you saying that Engender and SWA, for example, aren't feminist?

---

No I said I hadn't seen any. But both above are on one side of the debate after reading their opinion. They push that a trans women is literally a woman, supporting them can be feminism too. The other side says that is nonsense and not feminism, trans women aren't women and biological females are being silenced.

It's up to them to argue if one side is true feminism. One thing, the establishment is pushing the former as being correct and the later opinion anti trans which is obviously ridiculous

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

No I said I hadn't seen any. But both above are on one side of the debate after reading their opinion. They push that a trans women is literally a woman, supporting them can be feminism too. The other side says that is nonsense and not feminism, trans women aren't women and biological females are being silenced.

It's up to them to argue if one side is true feminism. One thing, the establishment is pushing the former as being correct and the later opinion anti trans which is obviously ridiculous

---

OK thanks 😊. I can breathe again... I thought for a minute that there was going to be a debate on what a feminist is 😀

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

OK thanks 😊. I can breathe again... I thought for a minute that there was going to be a debate on what a feminist is 😀

---

I wouldn't even step into it as I'm too ill-informed. If feminist groups like above want to support trans females I'd personally think it's good. I'm sure per capita trans people need more support and face more discrimination than any.

I agree with 99% of GRA and hope a sensible solution can be found for the rest. It needs to come from everyone listening to each others opinions though and I don't think that is happening

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

OK thanks 😊. I can breathe again... I thought for a minute that there was going to be a debate on what a feminist is 😀

---

Thank god for that!

https://murrayblackburnmackenzie.org...balancing-act/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

That's not what I said.

---

It was a question. There's folk on here who were going on about men listening to women but as soon as there's women saying something they don't agree with the smears started.

I'm not an expert on trans or women's rights so it's important for me to hear the opinions of organisations representing these groups who are more likely to have a broader experience of trans/women's opinion than a few people going mental in a social media echo chamber. Just a thought likes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Grieves

It was a question. There's folk on here who were going on about men listening to women but as soon as there's women saying something they don't agree with the smears started.

I'm not an expert on trans or women's rights so it's important for me to hear the opinions of organisations representing these groups who are more likely to have a broader experience of trans/women's opinion than a few people going mental in a social media echo chamber. Just a thought likes.

---

The group of charities listed above are the extreme in the debate. Very much trans women are women period. It was 3 of them that were embroiled in the controversy of a trans woman being given head gig in rape crisis, then supporting her controversial views.

I'd say the vast majority are somewhere in the middle between them and radical feminist groups

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

https://murrayblackburnmackenzie.org...balancing-act/

---

That's a shocking read, it's a stich up. Women will wheesht

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Grieves

It was a question. There's folk on here who were going on about men listening to women but as soon as there's women saying something they don't agree with the smears started.

I'm not an expert on trans or women's rights so it's important for me to hear the opinions of organisations representing these groups who are more likely to have a broader experience of trans/women's opinion than a few people going mental in a social media echo chamber. Just a thought likes.

---

In that case my answer to the question is no, of course not. Everyone is entitled to their own view. I was simply agreeing that several of those organisations are unlikely to provide anything like a balanced viewpoint.

If you have time to read through the thread you'll find there are some very well informed opinions being offered on this issue. Working in children's education, I have acquired a significant amount of knowledge about what's at stake and am strongly of the view that this bill is bad law and should, at the very least, be paused.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

That's a shocking read, it's a stich up. Women will wheesht

---

Jeez, stich-up indeed.

https://twitter.com/ChtyCommission/s...K5Efkv9HA&s=19

I am sure the Scottish Government have used Mermaids and met with them about consulting on and influencing the GRA.

It feels like the GRA should be paused rather than rushing it through later this month.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

https://twitter.com/ChtyCommission/s...K5Efkv9HA&s=19

I am sure the Scottish Government have used Mermaids and met with them about consulting on and influencing the GRA.

It feels like the GRA should be paused rather than rushing it through later this month.

---

Such an investigation is long overdue IMHO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

Such an investigation is long overdue IMHO.

---

Maybe why the CEO departed abruptly last week.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

Maybe why the CEO departed abruptly last week.

---

The Mermaids saga is murky, and seems to revolve around safeguarding and controversial appointments. Much of it, of course, is being played out on social media, which is never the most reliable of sources.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

https://twitter.com/ChtyCommission/s...K5Efkv9HA&s=19

I am sure the Scottish Government have used Mermaids and met with them about consulting on and influencing the GRA.

It feels like the GRA should be paused rather than rushing it through later this month.

---

SG did indeed consult Mermaids, along with hundreds of other interested parties, in the longest and most widespread consultation process in its history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

SG did indeed consult Mermaids, along with hundreds of other interested parties, in the longest and most widespread consultation process in its history.

---

Ok thanks for confirming I was correct as I wasn't sure.

The Committee received 10,800 short form submissions and 800 long form ones. This appears to be five times more than any previous Scottish Parliament Bill call for evidence. A summary analysis of the short form ones was published on 23 May. Of these responses, 38% supported ‘the purpose of the Bill’, 59% did not and 3% had no view. For the proposal to make GRCs available without a diagnosis, the figures are only shown in an unlabelled graphic, but it appears around 34% supported self-declaration, 64% did not and 2% offered no view. A summary of the long form responses does not yet appear to be publicly available.

https://murrayblackburnmackenzie.org...balancing-act/

The selection process for the consultations, seems pretty loaded in favour of proponents of the bill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by superfurryhibby

The Committee received 10,800 short form submissions and 800 long form ones. This appears to be five times more than any previous Scottish Parliament Bill call for evidence. A summary analysis of the short form ones was published on 23 May. Of these responses, 38% supported ‘the purpose of the Bill’, 59% did not and 3% had no view. For the proposal to make GRCs available without a diagnosis, the figures are only shown in an unlabelled graphic, but it appears around 34% supported self-declaration, 64% did not and 2% offered no view. A summary of the long form responses does not yet appear to be publicly available.

https://murrayblackburnmackenzie.org...balancing-act/

The selection process for the consultations, seems pretty loaded in favour of proponents of the bill.

---

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

In total 17,058 responses were available for analysis. Most responses (16,843 of those available for analysis) were submitted by individual members of the public, with the remaining 215 submitted by organisations.

Those resident in Scotland accounted for 55% of respondents, with 32% resident in the rest of the UK and the remaining 14% resident in the rest of the world.

The consultation process is about more than just the numbers.

The body that administers it (who, AIUI, are civil servants rather than political appointments) have to take into account the amount of cut-and-pasting that goes on. For example, an organisation might might say to its 100 members "this is what we're saying to the consultation. Please say the same". Or organisations might get together and say "let's make sure we all say the same". In those situations, it's only really one argument that is being put forward, irrespective of the numbers.

The SG unit is well aware of this, and has to make sure that the breadth of opinion is reflected when taking things to the next stage. Of course the numbers are important, but it's the different shades within those numbers that, IMO, is more important.

The bulk of the opposition to this bill has been focused on the threat it poses to women's safety, which is entirely understandable. I do feel, though, that of major concern is that it would enable children as young as 16 to change their legal sex. In the light of the Charity Commission investigation into Mermaids (whose approach to gender dysphoria has led to the NHS putting children on the path to irreversible medical treatment), I feel this needs urgent reassessment.

Unlike the NHS in England, who have taken on board Hilary Cass's findings that gender dysphoria in children is transient (in contrast to the Mermaids dogma that it is an indicator of a fixed trans identity), Sturgeon remains blinkered to such advice, seemingly believing that it doesn't apply to children in Scotland and is paving the way for inappropriate social transition with no clinical input whatsoever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

The consultation process is about more than just the numbers.

The body that administers it (who, AIUI, are civil servants rather than political appointments) have to take into account the amount of cut-and-pasting that goes on. For example, an organisation might might say to its 100 members "this is what we're saying to the consultation. Please say the same". Or organisations might get together and say "let's make sure we all say the same". In those situations, it's only really one argument that is being put forward, irrespective of the numbers.

The SG unit is well aware of this, and has to make sure that the breadth of opinion is reflected when taking things to the next stage. Of course the numbers are important, but it's the different shades within those numbers that, IMO, is more important.

---

It's true that a consultation isn't a vote. It's more to highlight issues and draw on expertise.But there is a tricky issue in balancing individual responses and those from organisations representing members or working on issues. How do you weigh the views on a health issue of, say, the BMA against members of the public. Instinctively you would give weight to the BMA on the basis that they would be informed and also are a representative body. But with the current vogue for 'lived experience ' how do you weave that in? The reality is that governments will have regard to consultations, but that's it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

It's true that a consultation isn't a vote. It's more to highlight issues and draw on expertise.But there is a tricky issue in balancing individual responses and those from organisations representing members or working on issues. How do you weigh the views on a health issue of, say, the BMA against members of the public. Instinctively you would give weight to the BMA on the basis that they would be informed and also are a representative body. But with the current vogue for 'lived experience ' how do you weave that in? The reality is that governments will have regard to consultations, but that's it.

---

Having been involved in a few, I agree that it is a tricky process.

On those days when you're selected for further consultation, "it's a wonderful system"; I've had colleagues in the South saying how jealous they are of our accessible process, and of how much better it is than Westminster.

On those days when you're not, it's "how dare they ignore me? This is not democracy!"

With 17,000 responses, the process is even trickier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Having been involved in a few, I agree that it is a tricky process.

On those days when you're selected for further consultation, "it's a wonderful system"; I've had colleagues in the South saying how jealous they are of our accessible process, and of how much better it is than Westminster.

On those days when you're not, it's "how dare they ignore me? This is not democracy!"

With 17,000 responses, the process is even trickier.

---

If you look at the groups chosen and think it's ballance and fair your simply biased

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

If you look at the groups chosen and think it's ballance and fair your simply biased

---

From my perspective it’s hard to reconcile the disproportionate numbers of pro GRA groups and appearances before committees with the results of the open consultations.

Is this normal to have the discussion so heavily weighted in favour of one viewpoint when the broader consultations suggested a very different mood from the wider, ahem, stakeholder group?

Nicola Sturgeon is revealing an appalling naivety over trans rights | Transgender | The Guardian

Has Nicola Sturgeon finally woken up to the dangers of self-ID? (holyrood.com)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

https://twitter.com/ChtyCommission/s...K5Efkv9HA&s=19

I am sure the Scottish Government have used Mermaids and met with them about consulting on and influencing the GRA.

It feels like the GRA should be paused rather than rushing it through later this month.

---

How on earth could the GRA be in any way described as rushed?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

How on earth could the GRA be in any way described as rushed?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Don't think it's been rushed, but as others have pointed out the consultation process looks to have been heavily weighted in favour of groups known to be sympathetic to the proposed legislation. It's also a piece of legislation which, until more recently when the inherent dangers it poses have been more widely publicised, that many will have paid little heed to.

The UN intervention appears to have generated some further momentum among those alarmed by the bill:

https://twitter.com/mbmpolicy/status...7Ctwgr%5Etweet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

How on earth could the GRA be in any way described as rushed?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

The Parliamentary process has.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

The Parliamentary process has.

---

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

How long should it take?