Just trying to keep this thread on track. Is that ok with you? Otherwise we'll come on here later and find most of the posts removed. James has agreed to move on. :aok:Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Printable View
Just trying to keep this thread on track. Is that ok with you? Otherwise we'll come on here later and find most of the posts removed. James has agreed to move on. :aok:Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Think you're confusing me with another poster. Haven't referred anywhere to medical diagnosis, hormones etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
Whatever your own view is on the GRR Bill, you are constantly trying to weaponise it, with an incoherent constant anti SNP rant.
It is a Holyrood piece of legislation, with significant cross party support.
I’d much rather people call-out any backward or bigoted views in politics and life. It’s much harder to progress without that.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
But there you go.
The Adam Graham AKA Isly Bryson case is not complicated, its a male double rapist trying to game the system after being charged. It's what we were told wouldn't happen with Gender Self-ID happening right in front of our eyes, a predatory male using Self ID to gain entry to a woman only space.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Jenny Gilruth speaking for the SNP tied herself in knots trying to defend gender identity politics, she knows that Gender Self-ID, and the transwomen are women mantra makes no sense, because these are the politics that allowed the double rapist to game the system and be moved after he was convicted to a female only prison.
She looked like a rabbit caught the headlights by trying to be vague and nebulous by calling the double rapist "That Individual" several times, good on Ella Whelan for asking the question is "that individual" a man or a woman, Jenny Gilruth couldn't answer, exposing the absurdity of gender identity politics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODO0HpyWZMI
The prisoner was kept in isolation at Cornton Vale.Quote:
Originally Posted by 147lothian
Another attempt at political point scoring on a an apolitical subject.
If you must have a go at any political party over the affair, you'd be best focusing on the Labour Party - Scottish Labour fully supportive of the Bill and Westminster Labour for scuppering it.
Maybe better to explain rather than name call.Quote:
Originally Posted by WeeRussell
So it's the Labour Party to blame! Thanks for clearing that up. I was wondering when someone would point the finger at Labour. Their full support of the Bill conveniently ignores the Labour amendments to protect women that were opposed by SG.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Harp Awakes
In other news....
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/64514819
No mention of transgender men, though.
Finland pass Trans act.
https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland...9-against.html
I wonder if Sweden or Norway will veto it. :wink:
You’ve persisted with this point in bold over a few posts now. It’s taken right from the Equality Act 2010.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
Quote:
To be protected from gender reassignment discrimination, you do not need to have undergone any specific treatment or surgery to change from your birth sex to your preferred gender. This is because changing your physiological or other gender attributes is a personal process rather than a medical one.
You can be at any stage in the transition process – from proposing to reassign your gender, to undergoing a process to reassign your gender, or having completed it.
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/...imination#what
The GRR bill/ Scottish Government did not amend or decide what a transgender person is or what is transphobic. It’s only been UK law for 12 years…
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That's all good, it just confirms my point that people asking for evidence of surgery or have they taken hormones etc are being transphobic? Is that correct?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannah_hfc
No - It makes a mockery of your 4 page attempt to get someone to say “yes James” so you can dance around telling them they don’t agree with the SNP/Nicola Sturgeon in particular. “Tying people in knots” indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
Utterly pathetic and draining.
You are wrong of course. It highlights that if you don't 100% believe in tbe idealogy that a man is a woman if they say they are you being transphobic. I don't think people are, but if you question someones identify then that's what you are. The only reason people are questioning this person's identify is they are a double rapist, there was an amendment to stop convicted sex offenders doing this, but the SG voted it down, any reason why they did this? Seeing as you wish to defend them?Quote:
Originally Posted by WeeRussell
What's pathetic is the defend the SG at all costs, even when people are tying themselves in knots doing so and I suspect don't even agree with it.
Says the man who deliberately uses he/him when referring to Bryson!!Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
Again, you'll know more about this than me, and you'll probably slap me down for being naive, but does Gillian Martin's amendment not kind of deal with the point that you're making? Her point being that the amendment you regret to would have been thrown out by the courts?Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
Sent from my YAL-L21 using Tapatalk
Where about in my post have I defended anyone? As it happens I don’t have overly strong feelings on Nicola Sturgeon or the SNP either way. They get my vote just now as an independence supporter and I happen to believe she is miles ahead of any of her equivalents right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
But neither my feelings on NS or her party, or your concerning obsession with both, should be particularly relevant here.
But we all know it’s the sole reason for your ever presence on this thread, or almost any other one on this board for hibs supporters.
That is the reason it was rejected. AIUI, the amendment would have fallen foul of the ECHR.Quote:
Originally Posted by McSwanky
You like many others defend pretty much everything the SG do.Quote:
Originally Posted by WeeRussell
That's the correct terminology in his case. Even Sturgeon was forced to concede he's faking his trans status.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
Oh who will think of the feelings of the poor rapist?Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
You have never answered the question a few people asked, what's a legitimate trans woman? You used that phrase so what does it mean? How do you know under self ID if someone is legitimate or not?
Is Bryson a legitimate trans woman?
You keep using his/her chosen female name so you must think so?Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No, I think they are faking it. What do you think?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
I have no idea what so ever and more importantly for me, I don’t give a monkeys. The person is in jail now and won’t be getting out anytime soon. How he/she now spends her days is of no interest to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Nope - it’s everyone else who are tying themselves in knots.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
You seem to be twisting things.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
Two people discussing how far someone has transitioned on an internet forum is not transphobic.
Gatekeepers in services in the wider world asking them would be.
I asked yesterday how far Isla has transitioned and received information from another poster that they'd had hormone treatment but hadn't gone through the medical change.
That doesn't make anyone transphobic. Would you agree?
Well it does according to this:Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
Transphobia may manifest in a number of ways, including, but not limited to:
"using phrases or language to suggest [someone’s] gender identity is not valid"
Sorry you don't like it, the idealogy is if someone says they are a woman they are a woman, that's the whole point of self ID, if that isn't the point of self ID what is....
You're mixing it up again.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
I'm not asking about the ideology, and I'm not asking about self ID.
I'm asking if you agree that if someone asks a question regarding someone's status on an internet forum, it's not transphobic?
Well it is according to the definitions.Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
You made comparisons to the way gay people were treated, would you ask a gay man how far down the road he was in his journey to being gay he was? Would you want details on if he has had any gay experiences to confirm he was gay? Course you wouldn't, you would accept he is gay.
You either support self ID which is you believe if a man says he is a woman he is, or you don't.
You are needing answers before you can make a decision, so you are questioning his identify as you suspect he might be lying. Unfortunately if you question the legitimacy of his trans status you are meeting this criteria.
"using phrases or language to suggest [someone’s] gender identity is not valid"
You want the information to make a judgment about the validity of his status?
We will just need to agree to disagree on this and give everyone a rest!
Have a great day. 👍
Sorry R7 I want to make it clear I don't think you are transphobic, I am using the example to paint how this self ID idealogy can tie people in knots when it crashes into the real world.
I suspect we both want something that meets the majority needs off everyone.
From being accused of "bigging up" India Willoughby one day(not you), to being given the all clear on my transphobic questioning the next.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
Only on Hibs.net
😂
Have a good day.